Statistics on time-series are notoriously unreliable. The values are time dependant and statistics theory is based on independance of events.
Fore time-series, you need to prove either stationarity or ergociticy. But I doubt if that has been able to be done.
Thus I will continue to regard any trend analysis as interesting, but likely wrong.
Three centuries of dance, play, deep thought and fine art!
Take us back there now, climate diallers.
Steven’s point about warming starting in the Indian Ocean and moving into the Atlantic is a good one, and has some partial truth when considering the warming of the IPWP that has occurred for 60+ years. Eddies of warm water leak out of the Indian Ocean around the southern tip of Africa, and do add warm water to the Atlantic.
Jim D | December 17, 2014 at 12:48 am |
Barnes, yes, as PA says, it ends up being the H2O that is important. H2O largely responds to the surface temperature via equilibrium thermodynamics, another area of basic physics. So first you get warming by CO2 then the H2O response, which gives you the total effect. Arrhenius understood this much around 1900.
Arrhenius took his lumps in the Gravito-Thermal discussion thread.
The Tropical Tropopause Layer (TTL) is cooling, the stratosphere is drying, the TLT (temperature lower troposphere) trend seems warmer measured from the ground than the basically flat trend of the first couple of kilometers measured from space. Since balloons and satellites show the same trend – the bulk of the lower troposphere isn’t getting warmer.
The kicker is cloud cover:
CloudCoverTotalObservationsSince1983.gif
Clouds alone would explain the vast majority of the last 30 years.
Hard to say whether CO2 is driving this, the new temperature regime, natural ripples in global climate or all three or something else. Until we can sort out the effects and attribute cause about all you can say is more CO2 ought to make things very near the ground a little warmer mostly at night.
“Sigh” cloud link…
PA,
The situation you describe in control system theory, doesn’t seem to apply to the reaction to the earth’s climate in response to changes in solar irradiation.
The problem with your claim is that the reaction of the climate system does not have the delay that you claim in resoponse to changes in solar irradiation. The response of temperature to the eleven year oscillations in solar irradiation associated with sunspots is almost immediate.
. What you have is a 30 year rampup of solar irradiance followed by a 60 year plateau in avarage solar irradiation with the 11 year oscillations of solar irradiance associated with sunspots riding on top of that. . The response of the climate system to anthropogenic sources, solar irradiance and volcanic eruptions has been studied in the following paper by judith Lean. Check out the fig 5 of the following paper by Lean,
http://www.agci.org/docs/lean.pdf
The long delays in response to solar irradiance that you claim, which would cause a ramp lasting many decades in response to an impulse are not found.
The increase in global surface temperature in the first half of the 20th century was about 50% due to solar and 50% due to anthropogenic factors.
Since 1970, 100% of the increase in temperature was due to anthropogenic factors.
PA commented on
Until we can sort out the effects and attribute cause about all you can say is more CO2 ought to make things very near the ground a little warmer mostly at night.
There isn’t much evidence this is even happening.
The R and F lines are yesterday’s ringing temp, and last nights falling temp, you can see they are almost an identical match, and haven’t really changed much over time.
There is some evidence mornings are a little warmer, but I believe that’s matched by the afternoons being a little warmer as well.
eadler2 commented
Since 1970, 100% of the increase in temperature was due to anthropogenic factors
Nonsense, almost all of the changes since 1970 are regional changes to Min temp.
Diff is the annual average of the day over day changes in Min temp, and MXDiff is the annual average of Day over Day max temps.
Northern Hemisphere Continents
Southern Hemisphere Continents
Noblesse:
“See this is nuts. More CO2 and the planet will warm until you get a conditional equilibrium. That’s just how it works. ”
I don’t see why you claim what I wrote is nuts. My description of what happens is correct and agrees with what you say.. I was focussing on how increases in GHG’s heat up the planet. I didn’t mention the obvious fact that you stated, that the heating will cease, when the upper atmosphere warms enough to restore the equilibrium between radiation leaving the earth and arriving from the sun.
Your graphs seem to be an attempt to confuse the issue. It is easy to see that the spectrum of outgoing IF at CO2 and water vapor absorption wave lengths are lower than what would be expected from the surface temperature of the earth.
eadler2 commented
It is easy to see that the spectrum of outgoing IF at CO2 and water vapor absorption wave lengths are lower than what would be expected from the surface temperature of the earth.
But it’s not easy to see change in Co2 and Water absorption lines.
Pinky,
I refer you to Swanson’s explanation of the significance of the paper on climate regimes that he wrote with Tsonis.
It is worth reading in full. Here is what he says about the implications of his research for the future:
“What’s our perspective on how the climate will behave in the near future? The HadCRUT3 global mean temperature to the right shows the post-1980 warming, along with the “plateau” in global mean temperature post-1998. Also shown is a linear trend using temperatures over the period 1979-1997 (no cherry picking here; pick any trend that doesn’t include the period 1998-2008). We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020. “
Yeah, anyone who buys the 97% line either isn’t reading some very basic stuff they really need to read, or doesn’t give a damn about the facts, only a ‘higher truth’.
Michael Crichton nailed the logic being used by Trenberth (and, eadler2’s reference to the 97% consensus) in the lecture about aliens causing global warming –i.e., the burden of proof is on the deniers, and they have not been able to meet it. The Taliban burned teachers alive in front of their students yesterday because the terrorists believe little girls shouldn’t go to school. It’s tough being a denier in Afghanistan.
eadler2, Almost immediate? Really?
There is an “almost immediate” response, atmospheric with the roughly 90 day lag, then there is a roughly 27 month lagged response, that would be coupled atmosphere/ocean response related to the QBO, then there is a roughly 8.5 to 10 year response, that would be ocean basin circulation related. Then there is the more mysterious THC trying to equalize hemispheres over not very well known periods. Lots of fluid dynamics.
To make things interesting, the northern hemisphere ocean/land ratio is different than the southern hemisphere ocean/land ratio and land tends to amplify SST variations by an average factor of two. So to compare the “oscillations” you may have to resort to a bit of data torture by “normalizing” to standard deviation if you want to “see” some of the lagged relationships.
That is just “global” SST with hadcrut Tmax and Tmin. the rather large saw tooth would be an ocean related “oscillation” that would impact land surface temperatures.
It is a lot more interesting puzzle than you make it out to be :)
eadler2
Here is just the ocean using ERSSTv3b for 90S-30S, 30S-30N and 30N-90N normalized but not detrended. If there were no significant lags everything would be like the blue curve. There is a big difference between the below 30S dynamics and the above 30N dynamics so there are different lags.
Sea ice dynamics in the NH makes thing more interesting, but the SH has some sea ice dynamics as well that can tend to vary the Antarctic Circumpolar Current,(ACC) both tend to impact the Thermohaline Current (THC).
Because to the THC, there are weakly damped “oscillations” that can last a few centuries. With land amplification and also polar amplification to consider.
Kinda fun stuff.
eadler2
This might help you understand:
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/12/27/how-to-live-with-a-narcissist/
I think the contribution of Mr. Morton is a very good explanation of which is the “state of the art” , very useful to try to make understand people that not all is so settled.
JFP –
In case you’re inclined to agree with my friend Peter in his judgement of me, personally, or the underlying mechanism of how I formulate my perspective (which I kind of doubt based on our previous exchanges)….
I highlighted that one excerpt from your comment because I think it is basically the bottom line. I accept the logic of most of the rest of your comment, but feel that the quoted excerpt trumps the other points you made. In the end, these discussions are based on inherently subjective evaluations. That doesn’t mean that all the reasoning on top of that subjective foundation is equally subjective. I don’t reject the basic mechanics of the matrix analysis you describe in specific contexts, but question how people extract from those limited contexts to draw more general conclusions.
