The topic was the hiatus – yet again – and not the ocean heat over the past several decades or in deed the Holocene.
Here’s Argo – graphed from the
Global Marine Atlas.
The most obvious feature is an increase in the past few years. The most obvious cause is the increase in total solar irradiance in the Schwabe cycle. Shall we call it natural variability?
Regime theory still suggests that the hiatus is likely to persist for 20 to 40 years from 2002.
AK – there are two numbers sorely missing from your otherwise nice outline of compressed air energy storage: efficiency and cost. I agree that we should support the idea if someone comes with a potentially workable proposal – meaning, better than alternatives.
I’ve read Mosher’s posts for many years, and if he says that treating the data in various different ways or not treating it makes very little difference to the temperature series, I’m happy to accept that. If someone can clearly demonstrate that that is not the case, then I’ll reconsider.
Five years ago the warmists were using low lake levels in the Great Lakes as evidence of global warming due to high evaporation rates. Today they are above the long term mean over the last 96 years. With another iced in winter forecasted, the evaporation will be further reduced and the lake levels will grow further. Add that one to the low level of hurricane activity in the Atlantic. And so many failed projections.
From the article:
Probably 99% of Climate Scientists can agree on a core of basic beliefs that does represent “a consensus on settled science”:
CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas;
Adding CO2 will have a warming effect on the Planet;
CO2 levels have risen dramatically during the Industrial Age;2 3
In the past ~200 years, the Earth has warmed.
For the past 60 years, the bulk of this warming is human driven.
“Did CO2 cause almost all of the warming for the past 60 years?”
This question is the only important one and is NEVER asked by consensusers. This is the strong warming position. The IPCC says 110% causation (aerosols etc. supposedly blunted the effect).
The question representing even the moderate-to-weak position wasn’t asked either:
“Did CO2 cause at least 1/2 of the warming for the past 60 years?”
The consensus surveys never ask the question the “consensus” is supposed to be about: “Is the 21st century warming going to be catastrophic (3.5+°C temperature increase)?”
Mosher you blew it too. Their projections assumed warmer Great Lakes for longer periods into winter and springs. This year the lakes were colder than normal but the arctic cold was much earlier than usual thus no ice. When iced over, Great Lakes cut down on the Lake Effect snow. If the lakes are ice free for longer periods during the winter then the IPCC is right. To use this unusual event to prove AGW is absurd. Come live in the Great Lakes region for 70 years and you might catch on. The lakes are almost never frozen over before Thanksgiving.
Danny, unless your Momma is reading this blog, it’s your free choice. In my experience most people appreciate being appreciated.
Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand are dead, aren’t they?
Their ideas have perished, that is.
FOMB, Fan of More Bloviation, is baaaaccckkk!!
Oh shucks, this place goes downhill every time FOMB shows up….
Now he has stupid cartoons from whatever little rabid Agitprop shop is popping his cork these days…..
Keeling et al (1995):
…the decadal variations in temperature,
and possibly in precipitation, almost directly correlate
with the CO2 concentration itself. If these decadal correlations
are significant, it seems evident that the onset of a climate
change, such as a warming trend, has a measurable influence on
the atmospheric CO2 concentration
Environmental factors appear to have imposed larger changes
on the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 than did changes in
fossil fuel combustion rates, suggesting uncertainty in projecting
future increases in atmospheric CO2 solely on the basis of anticipated
rates of industrial activity
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1995/NatureKeeling/1995NatureKeeling.pdf
More For Mosher
In the 1970s the Keweenaw Peninsula had 390 inches of snow one winter. Houses that are 100 years old have 2nd floor entrances for the heavy snows they occasionally get. In 1967 we had snow over the doors. Heavy snow is a way of life in the Great Lakes. Each Lake is different and the conditions to create lake effect snow on each lake are different. Numerous dynamics have to come together to create the Buffalo experience. The same dynamics on each of the other lakes would have had different results.
At some point theoretical science has to get in touch with real experiences and observational data. The mentality exhibited above is the same mentality that denigrates the work of Tony B. Why? Because apparently it is not science. It doesn’t fit the equations. In the end , it will be the anecdotes accumulated over the next 100 years that will determine the final verdict.
Blocking patterns paper from 1950.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/worldofweather/files/worldofweather/file/Rex_blocking.pdf
A world in which everyone lives off the income from their investments is utterly impossible, isn’t it Skiphil?
Climate Etc’s market-fundamentalists just don’t “get it”!
Mother Nature’s bill-for-services does come due!
steven
Very interesting paper.
I noted this in an article I wrote several years ago regarding my looking at British weather back to 1538
‘Due to its geographical location British weather is often quite mobile and periods of hot, cold, dry or wet weather tend to be relatively short lived. If such events are longer lasting than normal, or interrupted and resumed, that can easily shape the character of a month or a season. Reading the numerous references there is clear evidence of ‘blocking patterns,’ perhaps as the jet stream shifts, or a high pressure takes up residence, feeding in winds from a certain direction which generally shape British weather.’
We can see in all sorts of accounts apparent SSW’s/Polar vortexes and jet stream activity.
Someone needs to demonstrate that todays climate with regards to these events is being influenced by man..
tonyb
I am not looking forward to the 2015-16 El Nino
Yup. It’s discussed, if briefly, in the WSJ article. Got a kick out the circular irony in that one.
Judith -
You need to update your Week in Review list of links. There’s a hugely important thread up over at WUWT. We finally have the explanation for why climate scientists think that ACO2 will warm the climate:*
* Spoiler alert: It’s a Fascist conspiracy!!! As if we didn’t know it all along.
I agree. Seems like we sometimes get caught up in “the game” and stop looking for “answers”. One side or the other is not going to be the “winner” when the answers are found and it’s my impression we don’t yet have all the answers.
Tony, it doesn’t seem likely to me they will be able to do that. I suggest they drop the polar vortex argument and go on to the next weather event since climate trends don’t appear to be cooperating.
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
