Articles on this Page
- 01/06/19--08:01: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--08:15: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/06/19--08:25: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--08:26: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/06/19--08:43: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--08:45: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--08:50: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--09:45: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--09:54: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--10:10: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--10:22: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--10:25: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--10:39: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/06/19--10:50: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--10:54: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--10:55: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--11:12: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--11:17: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--11:19: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/06/19--11:23: _ Comment on Rec...
Javier, in your graph you show that the solar activity declined since about 2000. If this would have a remarkable influence on the GMST and the GMST increased since than by about 0.35 °C( ENSO filtered) ... how much bigger must be the influence of ERF anthropogenic on the GMST in this case to cancel out the solar cooling?
"Yep, patm at sea level is pretty much the same;"
Nope, and this is the biggest reason your analysis is just wrong. patm rises a bit at sea level when Ice sheets form, and stays almost the same at a fixed altitude (distance from Earth's center) on land.
coolclimateinfo: When I have it correctly you state, that (above normal) durations of very low SSN activity shall trigger climate cooling events. One of the longest minima ever observed was in 2007... 2009 ( SC23-SC24 transition) with very low activity for 36 month in a raw. From 2007 on the GMST increased by about 0,1 °C (ENSO filtered) . How much stronger must be in this case the ERFanthropogenic to cancel out the "solar cooling"?
The relative lowering of sea level would have had the effect of adiabatic warming of SST which would go a long way to describing the CLIMAP observations.
This would also have had an impact on the dynamics.
In addition to the orographic obstruction of the ice sheets, relative to sea level, the mountainous terrain would have had a greater impact and the potential energy of air masses at sea level would have been lower. It's speculative, but one can imagine more sunny subtropical ocean days because even with the greater overall kinetic energy, subtropical air masses would have been less easily displaced.
The surface temperature estimates like C&W are triple proxies at best. First, they are sampling the boundary layer, not the atmosphere, where the CO2 warming effect must occur, if it even does. Second, there are no fixed stations for most of the Earth, especially in the oceans, so distant measures are being treated as fixed stations. Third, in many cases it is water temperature not air temp that is measured.
Then too the satellites tell a very different story. Oh and this surface stuff is a convenience sample, which statistical sampling theory says cannot support a conclusion about the overall population.
Proxies by their nature introduce uncertainties. In this case the uncertainties are both compounded, and contradicted. Therefore clams based on detailed regression analysis are spurious at best. Consider this a peer review.
jdmcl, In the meanpost gave the link the paper describing the C&W dataset.
"Consider this a peer review." I would if you were a peer!
There hasn't been any warming since 2001 that can be related to an anthropogenic origin, since the only warming that took place was due to the 2015-16 El Niño, and CO2 could not possibly be involved in moving heat from the subsurface tropical Pacific to the atmosphere and the outer space.
Nothing has cancelled solar cooling. The big El Niño has a net effect of heat loss to the system, so it is part of the cooling.
On of the problems is that a lot of people is unable to get past the numbers to what the evidence really means in climatic terms. <b>El Niño cools the planet</b>. That's why there were no Niños during the Holocene Climatic Optimum and they have been increasing during the Neoglacial. El Niño is a faster way to get rid of the heat accumulated in the Pacific. A heat that has a solar origin.
The ENSO filtered data is rubbish. You can't filter the ENSO effect. El Niño heat takes a very long time to move through the system and can find temporary accommodation in other part of the system.
If you are familiar with the definition of Work, that is measured in Energy units, if you end at the same place where you started, no effective Work has been realized. Temperature changes are the result of Enthalpy changes, that are also a measure of Energy changes. If you end up at the same temperature where you started, no effective warming or cooling has been realized. I am told that a 0.1°C is not significant and within methodology uncertainty.
So it can be said, that in those 17 years no effective warming has been realized. Hence the Pause.
If I am correct, the same is going to take place for the next 16 years, and the Pause is very much alive and could turn into significant (i.e. >0,1°C) cooling.
What does it take to qualify as your peer? Agreeing with you? Sorry, but I cannot do that. Does my Ph.D. in epistemology and 25 years experience in analyzing the climate debate help?
<blockquote>The sun controls the ocean, which controls the atmosphere, in that order.</blockquote>
Bob, You have just discovered one of several solar mechanisms to affect climate. There are more.
Solar effect on the Pacific Ocean energetics affects weather and climate, but its effect is limited. Solar activity oscillations are periodical, yet we have evidence that during the Holocene Climatic Optimum El Niño activity was very low. So ENSO depends on solar TSI, but also depends on the latitudinal temperature gradient. And the latitudinal temperature gradient depends on the solar insolation gradient. The insolation gradient depends on Milankovitch orbital forcing, not on solar activity.
The effect I am talking about only takes place during the three winter months, and only when solar activity is low. Not average activity, not high activity. It is clearly an atmospheric effect that does not come from the oceans, and that affects the speed of rotation of the Earth.
As low solar activity only takes place during 3-4 years out of 11, the effect doesn't usually accumulate and is difficult to notice. Only when several low solar activity cycles take place in succession does the effect accumulate and the planet starts having more frequent cold winters and cooling.
The effect of this mechanism is a lot stronger than the effect of TSI over the Pacific. It is the main contributor to the Little Ice Age.
David, It's your choice not agreeing with some very basic thoughts. You seem to think up to now ( your "review" post implies this) that "satellites tell a different story" than the GMST albeit it is shown that this is not the case.
It's also your choice to introduce some kind of authority bias.
However, you are not a peer in climate science. This small article was not thouhgt for peer review, so please don't try to review it. Neither the peer nor the review are appropriate. "I don't agree" is enough. Thanks for your patience.
Just to be clear, epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. My point here is that your procedure is based on several implicit knowledge claims that are not supportable. My point is epistemic. Perhaps you have failed to grasp this. Uncertainty has been my field for many years. What is your field?
Same map as I linked to above.
Javier, " There hasn’t been any warming since 2001"
IMO this is wrong:
(without the ElNino in the end)
and from your graphic one would await cooling due to lower solar activity. My question: why didn't it cool?
Everybody with the opinion that the solar forcing has more impact than the forcing data say has to acknowledge that the SC24 ( since 2008) was the weakest cycle since SC6 ( this was around 1815) and the GMST didn't decline since SC23. This is without any doubt IMO. So you are left with the question: what is the source of this warming? The only possible response: The anthropogenic forcing has much more impact on the GMST than used the original forcing data. Which means: more sesitivity!! This is the wicked problem of all "it's the sun stupid" fellows.
David: It's enough to state: I don't agree. It's your choice.
What were the approximate dates and duration of these 10 ACE's?
Disagreement is fine, Frank. But that does not make me not your peer or not a climate scientist. Regarding the latter, as far as I know I am the first to publish the finding that there is no GHG warming in the satellite record. Sure sounds like climate science to me. If you disagree with my finding, please say how.
VTG, my opinions are not influenced by my patrons, quite the contrary. As for my well founded beliefs somehow being deliberate misinformation, you are a fool to even suggest this. Are you claiming that I do not believe what I say? Seriously?
David: my last comment to your side:" no GHG warming" in whatever is an oxymeron. Due to the name!
I think it is important to point out that most of the climate change scientific debate is about epistemic questions, not physical questions. How accurate are climate models? How accurate are paleoclimate proxy reconstructions? How accurate are global statistical claims? These are all epistemic questions.