573 replies to this topic

[Captain_Bobski]

sunny starry skies, on 23 March 2010 - 17:57 , said:

OK, I'll bite, though I suspect we're back to radiators again, and I think your reasoning is incorrect. I'll start with:
http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm
and specifically the graph showing TSI from the 19th Century to present. You can see that TSI has dropped off sharply and is back to 19th Century LIA levels at present.

So all of a sudden we don't use averages any more? Why do we use averages when it suits the argument and then discrete data when the averages don't suit us?

Quote

This is the equivalent of turning off/down our radiator, or the gas under the pan - whatever you prefer. So if the premise of long-term well above average solar activity is a good one, the heat is 'on' until recently. But now it's not 'on', and irradiance is dropping, the pan must cool immediately.

It must cool immediately on average. Some of the energy given off by water molecules will be absorbed by other water molecules, allowing them to maintain their energy content or even increase it for a time.

Quote

To follow your analogy, the pan is boiling, and continues to boil for a bit after turning the heat down. Is it because it is retaining the heat before cooling? No! It's mean temperature immediately must be dropping as the heat source has been removed. The water remains boiling, because the temperature of the pan itself has risen slightly above 100C (notably the metal at the base of the pan), and takes a small amount of time to cool below 100C. This time will be shorter if you use a thinner pan, compared to a thicker pan, for obvious reasons. Once the temperature of the pan, and consequently the lowest part of the water, slides below 100C boiling ceases. Similarly, if you turn a radiator off, it cools immediately, even if the cooling is slight.

As I said above, the temperature will cool on average. Besides that, the Earth system is comprised of all sorts of stuff, not just one thing. The "sides of the pan" are equivalent to some parts of the Earth system that warm more than others. (In fact you could argue that the land and oceans are the sides of the pan, and the atmosphere is the water inside the pan - exactly the same reasoning, and just as legitimate.)

Quote

And all this does not explain why 50 years of high solar irradiance that has just recently ended should lead to a greater lag in time than the 70 years of the Maunder Minimum, wich coincides with the peak of the LIA in Europe (and does not apparently lead or lag it). Yet in each case we are talking about the energy gain and loss of a degree or so C, in the same world system.

This is where it gets a bit more complicated, and it's not just to do with the (perhaps spurious) idea that objects get harder to heat at higher temperatures and harder to cool at lower temperatures. I will go into this in more detail tomorrow as I'm going out to dinner in half an hour!

Quote

Yet temperatures are still rising (March looks like yet another record), and GISS note that the 12-month running all-time record will most likely be broken in the next few months. What is much more plausible is that the solar activity increase in the early 20th Century had a noticeable (if relatively small) impact, but then the effect levelled off, indicating a relatively short lag time. Anthropogenic impacts, already present in the early part of the century, become dominant once they override aerosol effects by the late 1970s. The trend since the 1970s has been approximately linear, as expected from an exponential increase in GHG counterbalancing the logarithmic forcing property of CO2. This sequence of events fits the observations, and a solar-dominated sequence of events does not.

The solar-dominated sequence of events as you envisage them does not fit - that doesn't mean that they don't actually fit. More on this tomorrow as well.

Quote

And my last point for now - you keep mentioning laboratory CO2 (first sentence of your last-but-one post), but I was talking about real-world observations in the actual atmosphere. Why can we actually observe the CO2 energy imbalance from above and below, in the real world, as predicted by the physical properties of CO2, if it's not supposed to be effective or if there are mitigating factors? The energy imbalance caused by anthropogenic CO2 is as real as the observations of sunspots or the measurement of air pressure. Why try and invoke another mechanism that has been tried and does not fit, when we have one that we can see, have a very sound physical mechanism for, and fits very well? Speaking of which, how do you warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere by increasing solar activity?
sss

So you have a mechanism which fits, yes? Can there be no other possible mechanism? Just because an answer fits does not make it true - perhaps there are a variety of possible mechanisms which can all explain the same thing (x+y=10: x could be 5 and y could be 5, but x could be 2 and y could be 8 - both legitimate answers, but that doesn't tell us what x and y actually are).

That troposphere/stratosphere thing could be trickier to explain. I shall have to get back to you on that one. But one should never assume anything, and just because it fits your theory does not mean that it can't also fit mine. I shall do some reading up and get back to you soon.

CB

[sunny starry skies]

Last one for the day - I think it's looking increasingly likely we can quite safely put the "world hasn't warmed since 1998" rubbish to bed. As I've shown many times (with reference to Tamino's excellent graphs, see his 'riddle-me-this' post), the world has continued to warm exactly as it was predicted to do throughout the 2000s, with ENSO-induced variations about the mean and the decrease in solar activity making the noise in the signal not peak above 1998 (if you use HADCRU). If you use GISS which adds the Arctic, 2005 was unsurprisingly hotter than 1998. 2009 ended and 2010 has begun with a bang as far as high global temperatures are concerned, and exactly as you would expect in a noisy rising trend, a new high global temperature is imminent, when the cyclically-varying factors (ENSO, solar) trend in the right direction. This time, the El Nino isn't even particularly remarkable, solar activity is still pretty low, and yet 1998's record is under threat. Only a dramatic La Nina or a big volcanic eruption can save the day for the "no warming since 1998" loonies...

http://climateprogre...satellite-data/

Of course, by 2011 there'll be a "no warming since 2010" crowd too...

1998: close to solar maximum, record El Nino
2010: close to solar minimum, moderate El Nino, yet matching and beating 1998. Looks like some other forcing factor has changed... can it possibly be the AGW effect we have already observed to be occurring?

sss

Edit: CB, I await your explanations. I absolutely understand that you should always be alive to alternative explanations. But solar activity has a hard time explaining the observed energy balance changes in longwave radiation, as well as the stratospheric effect, hence why GHGs are an easy winner at present.

Edited by sunny starry skies, 23 March 2010 - 19:24 .

[Thundery wintry showers]

The contentious point in the above argument is that not all scientists would agree with the premise along the lines "GISS is a better indicator of global temperature than CRU/NCDC because it includes the Arctic". There are many other factors involved as well, such as how good surface coverage is, use of satellite data etc, and I've seen the GISS dataset queried in various sources in recent years.

The NCDC results also support the same conclusion, showing Winter 2009/10 as the 5th warmest on record despite a solar minimum, weaker El Nino and a strongly negative NAO/AO over the Northern Hemisphere (a factor promoting cold anomalies over land and warm anomalies over the oceans), and with the Southern Hemisphere at record or near-record warmth, but they point to a smaller warming trend than is suggested by GISS. Thus, I can see a case for arguing that the warming trend might have slowed or at least not accelerated over the last couple of decades (I don't necessarily agree or disagree- I'm reserving judgement), though the argument that it has stalled is looking very flimsy at best.

[Captain_Bobski]

sunny starry skies, on 23 March 2010 - 17:57 , said:

<snip>

And all this does not explain why 50 years of high solar irradiance that has just recently ended should lead to a greater lag in time than the 70 years of the Maunder Minimum, wich coincides with the peak of the LIA in Europe (and does not apparently lead or lag it). Yet in each case we are talking about the energy gain and loss of a degree or so C, in the same world system. Yet temperatures are still rising (March looks like yet another record), and GISS note that the 12-month running all-time record will most likely be broken in the next few months. What is much more plausible is that the solar activity increase in the early 20th Century had a noticeable (if relatively small) impact, but then the effect levelled off, indicating a relatively short lag time. Anthropogenic impacts, already present in the early part of the century, become dominant once they override aerosol effects by the late 1970s. The trend since the 1970s has been approximately linear, as expected from an exponential increase in GHG counterbalancing the logarithmic forcing property of CO2. This sequence of events fits the observations, and a solar-dominated sequence of events does not.

And my last point for now - you keep mentioning laboratory CO2 (first sentence of your last-but-one post), but I was talking about real-world observations in the actual atmosphere. Why can we actually observe the CO2 energy imbalance from above and below, in the real world, as predicted by the physical properties of CO2, if it's not supposed to be effective or if there are mitigating factors? The energy imbalance caused by anthropogenic CO2 is as real as the observations of sunspots or the measurement of air pressure. Why try and invoke another mechanism that has been tried and does not fit, when we have one that we can see, have a very sound physical mechanism for, and fits very well? Speaking of which, how do you warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere by increasing solar activity?
sss

Well, I said I'd get back to you, so here I am.

I've snipped the first paragraph since I've already replied to that bit, so I'll move on to the second. My first issue with what you say is that you're comparing a peak going to a trough with a just a trough(unless you are talking about the dip into the Maunder Minimum rather than the whole Maunder period).

The thing is that the current period is not really comparable with the Maunder Minimum (yet!) because the Maunder minimum was a period of 70 years with little to no sunspot activity. We have had a prolonged minimum, but it was only about 2 years and it would appear that we are now coming out of it, so we are still potentially on the "downward slide" rather than "in the trough". Prior to the Maunder minimum there had been a general downward trend in solar activity for over 1000 years (compared with the current slide over about 60 years, or even 100 years if you want to round up to the nearest century).
(http://upload.wikime...0_years.svg.png)

Now onto the issue of the "gain or loss of 1 degree or so". The LIA started in the 16th Century and continued through to the 19th Century - the Maunder Minimum, by comparison, started around 1645 and ended around 1715. Clearly, then, something forced the start of the LIA prior to the Maunder Minimum. But solar activity had been steadily declining all ready for centuries. So perhaps the LIA was a symptom of decreasing solar activity, and the bottoming-out of sunspots over the Maunder minimum came too late to have any further effect (bearing in mind, of course, that even when there are no sunspots, the sun still gives us energy!).

So, basically what I'm getting at is that the Maunder Minimum was just the lowest point in an all ready existing downward trend. If we were to have a Maunder-type minimum right now it would (tgo my way of thinking) have a more serious effect because a bottoming-out would be a particularly long way to fall from our decreasing, but still particularly high, level of solar activity.

You put forward the idea that your suggestion regards solar activity is "more plausible", yet the Leaky Integrator shows that it is eminently plausible for the Sun to be responsible for 20th Century warming. It's a long way from proven, I'll grant you, but If we're talking plausibility then I think it has sufficiently shown that.

I'm not entirely sure about your "exponential increase in CO2 balancing the logarithmic effect of CO2" comment either, because it seems like a heckuva coincidence that we should, quite without trying, just happen to be increasing our CO2 emissions at the perfect contrasting speed to offset a logarithmic warming effect. Does that not strike you as coincidental, or just plain odd?

I will have to come back (again!) to your third paragraph - I'm starting to get some ideas of how the troposphere/stratosphere thing might work without invoking CO2, but I need to check some things through before I make an idiot of myself!

As a quick reply, though, I would like to say that I have read through the RealClimate article which discusses this, and they link to this page:

http://www.atmospher...e/enid/20c.html

I would draw your attention to this quote:

It's, of course, harder to measure the temperature in the stratosphere than in the troposphere where we have a network of measurement stations. Stratospheric temperature measurements do exist. They have been made using weather balloons, microwave sounding units, rocketsondes, LIDAR and satellites. Most of these readings only go back two or three decades at most and there are large uncertainities associated with the data.

Just how well quantified is this cooling/warming effect? I shall dig a bit more before getting back to you.

I will get back to you though!



CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I'll have to have a little 'tippy tap' before you do that C-Bob, and ,I'm thinking as I type (not my best 'colour'!).

So , on the one hand we have the 'uncertainty of what occurred before the Maunder min, the slope down ,on the other we have GHG warming and how it reaches it's potential max for a given concentration.

The GHG thing is what we all seem to spend a lot of time on and ,if there is one thing we all agree on, the checks and balances that the planets continental distribution, ocean currents, settled atmospheric circulations, position/attitude towards the sun are in no way understood fully. I would go as far to say that we are unique in all of those factors when compared to other periods of similar atmospheric mix. The one thing we must surely agree on is that past instances of our levels of GHG's have been accompanied by a warmer world.

We do not have the detail as to how the 'upslope' looked (in the same way we know not what the 'downslope of the Maunder looked like) but we do know that we will warm in the same way we did before.

Even with a reduction in input from the sun to match 'maunder levels' the fact we have a lot more GHG's in the atmosphere than then must surely mean that we have a greater potential to hold onto more of that 'lessened' input that during the Maunder period?

It may mitigate the WCS but it will not negate our future warming.

And what of the impacts of such warming? the carbon cycle in the past has nearly always responded to Milankovich forcings (maybe the odd extreme carbonate weathering period could have coupled with flood basalt/mountain building epochs upping the GHG levels in a similar way to ourselves but we can come back to those?) i.e. natural elevations /decreases in GHG levels as the carbon cycle settles to the new 'energy' level.

We have 'forced' the carbon cycle, tricked it if I may, with our outpourings.

Do we not now stand to inherit the same Carbon cycle alterations that correspond to the new warmer globe (over time)? are we not poised to see natures outpourings of GHG's as has occurred in past warmings?

The way I see it nature hasn't even started to dump her load (via the carbon cycle) of GHG's into the atmosphere yet.

Failing CO2 sinks , methane outpourings, Ice melt are surely the first rumblings of nature responding to rising temps and allowing her to move to the 'high energy' settings for the carbon cycle (poor dear doesn't know it was our CO2 that caused this slow warming and not the position of her planet to the sun). She doesn't know we've pumped an amazing amount of CO2 into her atmosphere over a teensy weensy time period and it is that alone driving the warming. Methane from melted permafrost, CO2 from decaying biomass in the permafrost, warming ocean surfaces holding less CO2, drought and pests downing Forrest's to then decompose and release their CO2 (Katrina's damage negated the whole of the U.S. sinks for over ten years as the squished trees rot off) changes in land use and drying of soils releasing more and more CO2, ice covered rocks now bare to be weathered and release their CO2 by product. Acidification of the oceans eating away at more carbonate rocks to give off even more CO2...........and all the while we keep pumping out our load whilst mouthing pledges of reductions.

Are some folk not arguing about it not being CO2/GHG's during the only 'window of opportunity' they will have because the steamroller, that is GHG warming, takes a while to get up to speed?

Back to my blocked up sinus' and head under the bathwater hearing...........

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 24 March 2010 - 17:37 .

[Captain_Bobski]

Quote

The one thing we must surely agree on is that past instances of our levels of GHG's have been accompanied by a warmer world.

We do not have the detail as to how the 'upslope' looked (in the same way we know not what the 'downslope of the Maunder looked like) but we do know that we will warm in the same way we did before.

Once again, GW, you are assuming cause and effect! So what that a warmer world generally has higher concentrations of GHGs? The cause and effect link between these two facts is assumed because we all "know" that CO2 causes warming. Do you not see the logical fallacy of that argument?

I shan't respond to the rest of your post for now (I've decided to have a relaxing evening of horror movies after my day of repairing my car!) but perhaps I shall come back to it tomorrow and restate all of my past counter-arguments again.

CB

PS - Hope you're feeling better soon

[Gray-Wolf]

Captain_Bobski, on 24 March 2010 - 18:17 , said:

I shan't respond to the rest of your post for now (I've decided to have a relaxing evening of horror movies after my day of repairing my car!) but perhaps I shall come back to it tomorrow and restate all of my past counter-arguments again.

CB

PS - Hope you're feeling better soon

Wine and a hot bath to recover from the car and thanks! so do I!!!

[nad]

In this document http://www.ldeo.colu...er_battisti.pdf Seager and Battisti present some evidence that there are two stable atmospheric circulation patterns in the North Atlantic, a warmer pattern, and a colder pattern.
They propose that temperature and rainfall patterns during the colder pattern may be explained by a more zonal and southerly displaced jet stream. They also describe how the warmer pattern is self-reinforcing. Heat released to the atmosphere from the North Atlantic Drift (NAD) helps maintain low pressure near Iceland. This in turn deflects the jet stream to a more SW to NE flow, which then helps to maintain the NAD.

I am curious how a flip from one state to the other occurs. Does it have to be as dramatic as, a shift in global teleconnections, or a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation? Could it perhaps be something simpler? For example: If the two patterns are self reinforcing, would after a period of time with the alternate pattern, make the future more predisposed to this new pattern? If perhaps by chance, we are have several years of a southerly tracking and zonal jet stream, is it more likely that subsequent years will continue in this pattern?

[Gray-Wolf]

nad, on 24 March 2010 - 18:51 , said:

I am curious how a flip from one state to the other occurs. Does it have to be as dramatic as, a shift in global teleconnections, or a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation? Could it perhaps be something simpler? For example: If the two patterns are self reinforcing, would after a period of time with the alternate pattern, make the future more predisposed to this new pattern? If perhaps by chance, we are have several years of a southerly tracking and zonal jet stream, is it more likely that subsequent years will continue in this pattern?

I imagine in a reasonably 'balanced system' the flip flop is dependant upon many other global cycles nudging things one way or another.

What happens in a gradually warming system?

If ,in the past, a conflagration of other 'warm' signals tipped the balance to 'warm' then wouldn't a warming world 'mimic' this leading to more and more 'warm' phases?

Would not the logical conclusion be the same as the predicted ENSO changes (with it turning more and more Nino' as the oceans warm leading to a permanent state of 'Nino' [as we measure it now])?

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 24 March 2010 - 19:41 .

[kold weather]

sunny starry skies, on 23 March 2010 - 19:21 , said:

http://climateprogre...satellite-data/

Of course, by 2011 there'll be a "no warming since 2010" crowd too...

1998: close to solar maximum, record El Nino
2010: close to solar minimum, moderate El Nino, yet matching and beating 1998. Looks like some other forcing factor has changed... can it possibly be the AGW effect we have already observed to be occurring?

sss

Edit: CB, I await your explanations. I absolutely understand that you should always be alive to alternative explanations. But solar activity has a hard time explaining the observed energy balance changes in longwave radiation, as well as the stratospheric effect, hence why GHGs are an easy winner at present.

A few points on this post, which is a good one by the way!

Firstly the El Nino is STRONG, probably peaking about 1.8-1.9C in terms of monthlies....I think it was the 3rd strongest since the super event of 82-83 with only 97-98 being stronger, so it was a pretty hefty event, though granted not as strong as 97-98...but thats where my second point comes in...

Secondly, the 1998 event had an impressive La Nina snapback, one of the strongest La Nina events since the 70s...and indeed I'd argue given the La Nina was more dominant in 98 and lasted much longer then the El Nino, its not totally correct to claim the El nino was a big part to blame for how warm 98 was, indeed I'd even go as far to say the La Nina balanced out the El Nino that year, I think thats important because that La Nina is never ever mentioned despite it being on the cusp of a strong event!

Indeed if you take 1998 as a whole, the ENSO zone was just 0.09C above normal for the year...now lets compare other years and see just how pitiful that actually is!

1: 2002= +0.77C
2: 2004= +0.55C
3: 2006= +0.25C
4: 2009= +0.47C

Of course I'm not going to say the 1998 event had no impact, because it was an extreme event, but pretty much every year was warmer in the ENSO overall than 1998 that had an El Nino event that year. Of course the globe will have been warmer by the El Nino however the La Nina snapback must have taken the edge off those global temps, esp in the autumn and December of the year.

The third point I'd raise is actually funnily enough because of the super -ve AO...that is the Atlantic temps. Right now they are insane in terms of how high they are, the Feb record got smashed and its all because the super -ve AO of the winter helped to really raise temps in the Atlantic because there was no Azores/Bermuda high so to speak thanks to the southerly jet, and that has meant the whole of the tropical basin has been warmed up in a huge way.

Indeed I'd argue the strength of the warm Atlantic (which is very likely to be warm due to the +AMO anyway) has in effect made up for a weaker El Nino, and slight background warming that has occured due to GW maybe enough to tip us over the egde IMO. The truth is unless we get a mod-strong La Nina in the Autumn...I'd be worried if we didn't break the record to be honest!

So to conclude, this El Nino actually is decently strong, not as strong of course as 1998 BUT the Atlantic is far warmer then it was in 1998 which probably makes up most of the difference in terms of El Nino. Of course there is likely to be some background warming as well.

AGW true test will be coming next solar min...because then we will be in a cold phase in the Pacific AND Atlantic, we saw very *briefly* what that was like in the first few months of 2009 (we saw global temps drop away quite a lot despite only lasting a few months at most) My whole arguement has always been one that AGW is of course happening but regulated to some extent by the ocean cycles that flip from cold to warm. Therefore though the base keeps going up in theory, warm/cold cycles will either surpress the warming and halt it, or accelerate the warming, just like we saw in the 1990s when we flipped to warm cycle in both basins.

By the way, how warm was just the first 6 months of 1998 in terms of anamolies, it'd be quite interesting to compare.

Edited by kold weather, 24 March 2010 - 23:20 .

[Gray-Wolf]

Well some good news from our warming world!

A land ownership dispute between India and Bangladesh has been solved by AGW.

The island under dispute has now disappeared under the waters of the Bay of Bengal sat. images confirm.............

http://www.guardian....desh-sea-levels

[jethro]

See, every cloud has a silver lining.

[laserguy]

Gray-Wolf, on 25 March 2010 - 10:39 , said:

A land ownership dispute between India and Bangladesh has been solved by AGW.

No it hasn't,whatever anyone may tell you otherwise. You're waving the AGW banner again and trying it on,GW! The thing was only there for ten minutes,geologically speaking,and it's disappearance amounts to nothing more than shifting sands - literally.

http://en.wikipedia....Talpatti_Island

[Yorkshiresnows]

sunny starry skies, on 23 March 2010 - 19:21 , said:

Last one for the day - I think it's looking increasingly likely we can quite safely put the "world hasn't warmed since 1998" rubbish to bed. As I've shown many times (with reference to Tamino's excellent graphs, see his 'riddle-me-this' post), the world has continued to warm exactly as it was predicted to do throughout the 2000s, with ENSO-induced variations about the mean and the decrease in solar activity making the noise in the signal not peak above 1998 (if you use HADCRU). If you use GISS which adds the Arctic, 2005 was unsurprisingly hotter than 1998. 2009 ended and 2010 has begun with a bang as far as high global temperatures are concerned, and exactly as you would expect in a noisy rising trend, a new high global temperature is imminent, when the cyclically-varying factors (ENSO, solar) trend in the right direction. This time, the El Nino isn't even particularly remarkable, solar activity is still pretty low, and yet 1998's record is under threat. Only a dramatic La Nina or a big volcanic eruption can save the day for the "no warming since 1998" loonies...

http://climateprogre...satellite-data/

Of course, by 2011 there'll be a "no warming since 2010" crowd too...

1998: close to solar maximum, record El Nino
2010: close to solar minimum, moderate El Nino, yet matching and beating 1998. Looks like some other forcing factor has changed... can it possibly be the AGW effect we have already observed to be occurring?

sss

Edit: CB, I await your explanations. I absolutely understand that you should always be alive to alternative explanations. But solar activity has a hard time explaining the observed energy balance changes in longwave radiation, as well as the stratospheric effect, hence why GHGs are an easy winner at present.

Agree that 2010 has started warm. But, this is no big suprise with a moderate strength El Nino and cold polar air displaced to mid lattitudes over the winter. Warm Arctic and winter and summer heat in the Southern hemisphere = Warm start.

However, El Nino is collapsing and the -PDO conditions set to continue and strengthen a cooling signal over the coming few years. La Nina could well be stablished by the end of the summer. I believe that summer world temps will be down on average.

Don't agree with your assessment of continuing global warming since 1998. Satellite data suggest otherwise. I am also as time goes on becoming more and more cynical of CO2 as a main driver. Cloud cover and solar absorbance being more of an issue in my mind. My thoughts on this have been heavily influenced by recent reading of the book 'CHILL' by Peter Taylor that ploughs through a lot of the data that goes into the IPPC reports as also the various disagreements within the variosu working groups.

Check it out for yourself. Anyway, guess that time will tell.

Y.S

[Devonian]

Yorkshiresnows, on 25 March 2010 - 13:21 , said:

Agree that 2010 has started warm. But, this is no big suprise with a moderate strength El Nino and cold polar air displaced to mid lattitudes over the winter. Warm Arctic and winter and summer heat in the Southern hemisphere = Warm start.

However, El Nino is collapsing and the -PDO conditions set to continue and strengthen a cooling signal over the coming few years. La Nina could well be stablished by the end of the summer. I believe that summer world temps will be down on average.

Don't agree with your assessment of continuing global warming since 1998. Satellite data suggest otherwise. I am also as time goes on becoming more and more cynical of CO2 as a main driver. Cloud cover and solar absorbance being more of an issue in my mind. My thoughts on this have been heavily influenced by recent reading of the book 'CHILL' by Peter Taylor that ploughs through a lot of the data that goes into the IPPC reports as also the various disagreements within the variosu working groups.

Check it out for yourself. Anyway, guess that time will tell.

Y.S

We get the idea about the book - are you Peter Taylor

Cloud cover is a response, CO2 change is a forcing.

[kold weather]

YS, I made a post to a similar extent however it does need to be noted that there is a lag with global temps, esp with strong El Nino events and it takes some time for the global temps to drop away, so may not be till the Autumn at this rate till we see any real cooling if La Nina does develop.

Also as I said its not just the Arctic, the Atlantic pattern has been super condusive for warming, esp thanks to the record breaking -ve AO and the tropical Atlantic is record breakingly above average, the combo of the warm cycle plus the complete lack of subtropical high pressure cell has been quite amazing.

I'd say odds are we will be a top 3 year in terms of warmth, though the earth will be cooling through the year relative, as you'd expect when you come out of a STRONG El nino and having a very impressive Arctic/Atlantic warmth combo...I suspect however 2011-2013 will be the start of a protracted slight decline in global temps, though it may take a little longer to really kick in depending on how long the warm cycle of the Atlantic holds for, but as soon as it flips we should see lower temps...not as cold as the 60s and 70s but relative to the last 12 years cooler then what we've seen.

As I said before, the real test for AGW is coming once we flip both the Pacific and the Atlantic cold for a *prolonged* period at the same time during the next solar min as we move into the next decade. IF we still come in well above average, then game, set and match to AGW....

[Yorkshiresnows]

Devonian, on 25 March 2010 - 13:48 , said:

We get the idea about the book - are you Peter Taylor

Cloud cover is a response, CO2 change is a forcing.

If you check out the data you will that your statement is not 100% correct (I'm at work right now, but will come back to this point later).

Co2 lags behind temperature change and hence I cannot see it being a major forcing factor (please note that I have not dismissed it compeltely). Given the IPCC data for the increase in heat energy (Earth absorption, given in irradiance /metre square) for the estimated increase in CO2 since the major industrialisation compared to measured impacts of even small fluctuations in cloud cover (as per satellite data), you can see how little forcing power Co2 seems to exert (again I'll come back with published references to back this up).

There is ever increasing evidence that Solar output, and Ocean cycles impact our climate, particularly during phase alignments ..... much as was seen towards the end of the last century. Is this coincidence ......... I don't think so, but hey, nothing is certain.

Y.S

kold weather, on 25 March 2010 - 14:10 , said:

YS, I made a post to a similar extent however it does need to be noted that there is a lag with global temps, esp with strong El Nino events and it takes some time for the global temps to drop away, so may not be till the Autumn at this rate till we see any real cooling if La Nina does develop.

Also as I said its not just the Arctic, the Atlantic pattern has been super condusive for warming, esp thanks to the record breaking -ve AO and the tropical Atlantic is record breakingly above average, the combo of the warm cycle plus the complete lack of subtropical high pressure cell has been quite amazing.

I'd say odds are we will be a top 3 year in terms of warmth, though the earth will be cooling through the year relative, as you'd expect when you come out of a STRONG El nino and having a very impressive Arctic/Atlantic warmth combo...I suspect however 2011-2013 will be the start of a protracted slight decline in global temps, though it may take a little longer to really kick in depending on how long the warm cycle of the Atlantic holds for, but as soon as it flips we should see lower temps...not as cold as the 60s and 70s but relative to the last 12 years cooler then what we've seen.

As I said before, the real test for AGW is coming once we flip both the Pacific and the Atlantic cold for a *prolonged* period at the same time during the next solar min as we move into the next decade. IF we still come in well above average, then game, set and match to AGW....

Yes, you make good points .... agree, perhaps I'm being too bullish about global temps this year.

Y.S

[Essan]

Yorkshiresnows, on 25 March 2010 - 16:57 , said:

Co2 lags behind temperature change and hence I cannot see it being a major forcing factor

When CO2 rises in response to temp it acts as a possitive feedback. When, as now, CO2 rises ahead of temp is acts as a primary forcing. It's not an either or situation

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you Essan, I've been trying to put that point across for years!!!!

It's a very rare global event when CO2 leads the chase and doesn't follow on behind as a response to the warming. It would appear that this then leads to a 'response' in the carbon cycle (as if it was just the normal warming due to planetary positioning) and we find much more atmospheric CO2 and much higher Global temps.

I've given up on the 'old school' denier with their CO2 lags temp blag.....

We should be in a position (in space and time) where the carbon cycle is starting to wind down from this interglacial but we have interrupted the 'normal ' run of things and are tricking Mother N. into thinking we are approaching a heating optimum............and she's been fooled and is starting to respond.

Humankind will of course continue on with the polluting for a while yet so we will face a 'double whammy' of positive feedbacks (as usual as temps rise) and our own little additions (to support the global lifestyle).

None so blind..........

[Yorkshiresnows]

Gray-Wolf, on 25 March 2010 - 20:41 , said:

Thank you Essan, I've been trying to put that point across for years!!!!

It's a very rare global event when CO2 leads the chase and doesn't follow on behind as a response to the warming. It would appear that this then leads to a 'response' in the carbon cycle (as if it was just the normal warming due to planetary positioning) and we find much more atmospheric CO2 and much higher Global temps.

I've given up on the 'old school' denier with their CO2 lags temp blag.....

We should be in a position (in space and time) where the carbon cycle is starting to wind down from this interglacial but we have interrupted the 'normal ' run of things and are tricking Mother N. into thinking we are approaching a heating optimum............and she's been fooled and is starting to respond.

Humankind will of course continue on with the polluting for a while yet so we will face a 'double whammy' of positive feedbacks (as usual as temps rise) and our own little additions (to support the global lifestyle).

None so blind..........

I have to laugh.

Okay, lets look at the facts regarding CO2 and how this is supposed to impact world temps:

In relation to water vapour, co2 is one of a number of naturally occurring greenhouse gases. However, co2 is not the main greenhouse gas (though of course it is the main anthropogenic addition and hence all arguments relating to recent temp changes).

The main greenhouse gas is invisible water vapour and the greenhouse 'effect' that results is also mediated by condensed water vapour (clouds). Here's a bit from my favourite book !

All textbooks quote the natural or pre-industrial level of CO2 to be 280 parts per million (approx 1 molecule in very 3000 molecules of air). This has risen to 380 -400 parts per million under the influence of fossil fuel burning etc. and it is generally agreed that natural CO2 levels have not risen appreciably (though there are certain issues with this as there is evidence to suggest a higher natural content of CO2 in the 19th century).

It is perhaps lesswell known that all modellers (those influencing the computer models etc) are in agreement that on its own, even a doubling of the CO2 concentration would have a minimal effect on the overall heat balance of the planet. All the models assume an amplyfication factor in relation to carbon's interplay with water vapour.

This amplifying factor is estimated in IPCC models at 300% ........ but is entirely theoretical !!! There is no evidence for it outside the models.

It is based on the assumption that any warming caused by co2 also increases the capacity of the atmosphere to hold more water vapour, which is a potent greenhouse gas and hence a positive feedback is created.

The IPCC summary reports and all references to this basic science do not refer to it as controversial, but controversy has surrounded this from the very outset and withi the IPCC body of experts. For example Professor Lindzen, professor of meterology at MIT (and member of IPCC) questioned this assumption (he sat on a pannel of experts to review the IPCC'S 3rd assessment report in 2001) and consistently argued that additional water vapour could eadily turn to cloud and hence reverse the supposed feedback effect (data is published 1991).

To emphasise the importance of this issue: if the computed mid-range future projected warming expected from a doubling of co2 (to say 560 parts per million) were a dangerous 2.5 degrees C, this expectation would have to be reduced to 0.8 degrees C and become of less serious importance.

So, just a taste of what I have been looking at these past few months, you would be very suprised at the amount of 'consensus' there is within the IPCC on many factors associated with 'man-influenced' global warming.

Also I see that the UK MET have released the latest global temp anomaly charts going back over the past 50 years etc. It shows again that since 1998 there has been no overall warming of the planet with actutal temperatures departing quite widely from those predicted from computer models. Also see that Joe B has seen this and has a video discussing it. He also thinks that we will be in La Nina (strong one at that) by the end of the summer.

Also very odd that the recent satellite images show massive warmth over both polar regions and yet overall world sea ice is around average ...... as Joe B has already commented, this does not add up ..... could it be that man manipulation of world temps prior to the satellite age to allow temp deviations from'normal' are a bit misleading ?

Y.S