Articles on this Page
- 12/22/18--16:13: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--16:20: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--16:43: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--16:49: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--16:54: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--16:56: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--16:57: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--17:05: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--17:13: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--17:20: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--17:33: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--17:57: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--18:05: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--18:23: _ Comment on Adm...
- 12/22/18--18:31: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--18:50: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--19:06: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--19:29: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--19:30: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--19:50: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/22/18--16:13: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--16:20: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--16:43: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/22/18--16:49: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--16:54: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--16:56: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/22/18--16:57: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/22/18--17:05: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--17:13: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--17:20: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--17:33: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--17:57: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/22/18--18:05: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/22/18--18:23: Comment on Admitting mistakes in a ‘hostile environment’ by dpy6629
- 12/22/18--18:31: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--18:50: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/22/18--19:06: Comment on Week in review – science edition by dpy6629
- 12/22/18--19:29: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
- 12/22/18--19:30: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/22/18--19:50: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
It is related to the Pacific state - as has been obvious for decades.
Source: Kevin Tremberth
As associated cloud changes modulate ocean energy content.
Go look for it - try the top of the thread ffs.
Maybe the reason it doesn't show up globally is because it is just in the Pacific and the land is now warming at 0.3 C per decade, so it gets rather drowned out by what else is going on at the same time.
The same wood for dimwits? And more garbled memes? Give it a break. How much proof does he need that this dominates warming in recent years (Loeb et al 2018, Myers et al 2018) and global cloud variability (Clements et al 2009).
It shows up in the tropics.
According to you the warming should have stopped in 1998 (your breakpoint diagram, remember?). It didn't even pause in the 30-year temperature, so now you have to go back to the drawing board and find out why it continued to warm at the same rate through now. The hiatus wasn't one.
Not in the global average heat content either, see Loeb.
Again your 30 year trend is not regimes and is so irrelevant. Is this latest regime over yet - or are we about to get another big La Nina? Toss a coin.
See Argo. Which is right and where is it going?
I'd opt for Argo given the early century cool Pacific surface and more cloud.
"Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain." https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161
But do you understand that this is all a blink of God's eye?
"We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation." Loeb et al 2018
And he doesn't read any of the literature cited - simply adapts the headlines to his memes.
It does show up in oceans - and it does show up at TOA. That's the point of data.
It's climate. If it doesn't show up in a 30-year average, it is not climate and I am not interested.
Again, it doesn't show up in 30-year data, so it is not climate. If you want to talk about self-canceling oscillations, fine. I'm not interested. This is about long-term trends. Look for the hiatus in this. It is insignificant.
Atomski, You're quote mining, a political hack activity.
There is no contradiction. Neither you nor I know which of UAH, RSS, HADCRUT, or GISS is closest to the truth. There is no evidence of processing errors in any of these datasets but they disagree.
My main point is that now RSS is in the middle of the pack of products.
Warming from reduced cloud cover over the upwelling regions of the Pacific doesn't show up in recent warming? That's not what science says.
You will find that is a sub-30-year trend when you look at the Loeb paper because they only seem to consider 20 years total. Besides that is a feedback several models predicted (see emergent constraints studies).
I quote the complete abstract from the RSS paper about their new version as it confirms what I have said both here and at ATTP and what Marco showed as well.
"Temperature sounding microwave radiometers flown on polar-orbiting weather satellites provide a long-term, global-scale record of upper-atmosphere temperatures, beginning in late 1978 and continuing to the present. The focus of this paper is a lower-tropospheric temperature product constructed using measurements made by the Microwave Sounding Unit channel 2 and the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit channel 5. The temperature weighting functions for these channels peak in the middle to upper troposphere. By using a weighted average of measurements made at different Earth incidence angles, the effective weighting function can be lowered so that it peaks in the lower troposphere. Previous versions of this dataset used general circulation model output to remove the effects of drifting local measurement time on the measured temperatures. This paper presents a method to optimize these adjustments using information from the satellite measurements themselves. The new method finds a global-mean land diurnal cycle that peaks later in the afternoon, leading to improved agreement between measurements made by co-orbiting satellites. The changes result in global-scale warming [global trend (70°S–80°N, 1979–2016) = 0.174°C decade−1], ~30% larger than our previous version of the dataset [global trend (70°S–80°N, 1979–2016) = 0.134°C decade−1]. This change is primarily due to the changes in the adjustment for drifting local measurement time. The new dataset shows more warming than most similar datasets constructed from satellites or radiosonde data. However, comparisons with total column water vapor over the oceans suggest that the new dataset may not show enough warming in the tropics."
Basically RSS now shows more warming than radiosonde data. Only indirect evidence might show that that is too low.
Get one single scientist writing the papers you are quoting to agree that the 1/2 of the warming since 1980 is natural.
They likely will not agree to that.
They examine mechanisms revealed by CERES and MODIS - and that doesn't require averages or trends. These haven't emerged in the past week but operate at millennial scales.
e.g. - warming by increased absorption of SW - and the majority of that has a revealing spatial signature.
But it is far from a new idea.
For an interesting account of the geophysics see Koren 2017.
"Marine stratocumulus cloud decks forming over dark, subtropical oceans are regarded as the reflectors of the atmosphere.1 The decks of low clouds 1000s of km in scale reflect back to space a significant portion of the direct solar radiation and therefore dramatically increase the local albedo of areas otherwise characterized by dark oceans below.2,3 This cloud system has been shown to have two stable states: open and closed cells. Closed cell cloud systems have high cloud fraction and are usually shallower, while open cells have low cloud fraction and form thicker clouds mostly over the convective cell walls and therefore have a smaller domain average albedo.4–6 Closed cells tend to be associated with the eastern part of the subtropical oceans, forming over cold water (upwelling areas) and within a low, stable atmospheric marine boundary layer (MBL), while open cells tend to form over warmer water with a deeper MBL. Nevertheless, both states can coexist for a wide range of environmental conditions.5,7" blob:https://wordpress.com/9dc66edd-ffaf-4bb0-82c2-6b98c73be911
And while there may be some positive modeled cloud feedback - see below - the spatial signature is very different (e.g. Zhu et al 2007) and even at the highest estimate cannot account for the amount of cloud change.
Something is very fishy with #jiminy's meme.
"The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
Taking the trend over the period of increasing forcing post war - there is some nullifying and doubling in there - gives a trend of some 0.1 C/decade. Can AGW be worse that that? Although its adherents mightily are.
But for 20 to 30 year periodicities you need not 30 years of data but hundreds at least - and that shows a cool Pacific state prior to the 20th century, a cooler sun and a cooler planet. They may be correlated. And we may be headed that way again.