JC:
While some in the blogosphere are arguing that the recent pause or stagnation is coming close to ‘falsifying’ the climate models, this is an incorrect interpretion of these results.
Does not it falsify IPCC’s projection of 0.2 deg C per decade warming for the next two decades?
Bob, I’m afraid you aren’t escaping the use of models with GRACE. The measurements may be by satellite but the calculations take into account isostatic rebound models.
Ragnaar, “We are so far from following the money. I’d guess the accounting data is incredibly weak.”
Pretty much. Plus different accounts have different rates. The Northern Hemisphere is about 3C warmer than the Southern which based on estimated absolute temperature is ~18 Wm-2 difference. The Western hemisphere using 80 West to split the Americas has close to the same difference. That gives you a range of natural variability of up to 3.2 C with another 0.6C of variability. Pretty much what the regional paleo prior to smoothing to death shows, with a lot of potential lag times.
Vertically, there are several layers that also have different rates, Land uses different accounting than oceans which is different than atmosphere, resulting in a +/- 17 Wm-2 range of error in the budget or more than 10% of the “Greenhouse Effect”.
Other than that, every thing is just ducky.
That idea is like Lindzen and Choi, but the problems were many. First, they extrapolated from a region in the tropics to a global sensitivity conclusion, second he looked at short time scales and extrapolated to climate change, and third he used El Nino sea-surface warming and extrapolated to CO2 warming effects. Other than that, fine.
You realize that Callendar kept water vapor fixed in his calculation (he was a steam engineer not a scientist and overlooked things Arrhenius had considered several decades earlier). He detected global warming in the ’30′s, and was probably the first to do so, but it was more than he expected from his theory.
This is measured in TOA radiant fux.
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
I have not the slightest clue what you are on about and don’t particularly give a rat’s arse.
CH, that’s you. I thought Dr Dunderhead was being more reasonable until this. Anyway, as Lindzen found out, few believe ENSO noise can tell us much about climate, even Spencer.
OK, Chief
Explanation for recent temperature plateau: cooling influences offset warming influences.
Explanation for temperature of my shower: cool water moderates hot water.
Explanation for taste of my coffee: sugar compensates for bitterness.
Well, Chief, I suppose these are explanations, but I hope science isn’t stuck at this level of explanation.
Web, which part do you think that I should figure out? That ocean heat transport controls sea surface temperatures? Josh Willis is already on that with his ARGO studies and is finding a correlation. SSTs control water vapor? Brian Rose is on that and his models show they do. Water vapor hasn’t been increasing? Vonder Haar is already on that and not finding a trend. Diurnal temperatures not behaving as expected? The BEST team has found that diurnal temperatures are not behaving as expected already. That ice would melt even after the SSTs stopped going up? Hansen says for thousands of years. That ice melting would affect weather patterns? I think that’s why anyone cares about melting sea ice but let me know if they were just concerned their drinks would get warm.
I’m not doing any research when those that get paid to do the research, and are better at it than the amateurish efforts people like you or I could come up with, are already on it. I am just taking all the little puzzle pieces and trying to fit them together. That is what I enjoy. That is my hobby. You don’t get to dictate to me how to do what I do for fun and for free. Capishe?
“I went to look at their Graphics web site using your link. I found a number of things there I did not like. Apparently they don’t take comments so I will put some comments down here. First, there are three figures, numbers 52, 53 and 54, that should not have been shown at all. They display scattered model outputs that have no coherence and are totally worthless.”
RIP : reading is fundamental:
“The new sections include some work in progress. Most notable here is the beginning of the work we are doing on GCM comparisons to observations. Start here and explore. As this is work-in-progress, I’ll answer some general questions as best I can.”
The point of 52,53, and 54 is obvious. Others have figured it out. I will give you a clue. Look at these figures.
http://berkeleyearth.org/graphics-more
one thing you will note is that the models do not agree on the the amplification at the poles. that is, there is scatter as you asutely observed when looking a 52-54. So, the scatter and the lack of coherence you see is exactly the point. This series compares observation to model. And you see the scatter in the models. That tells a story.
##########################
“Their Figure 9 has an esthetic quality that pulls you in but once you start analyzing it you realize that it is an indictment of the GCM system. These models consistently fail to match past temperature history and therefore should not be used to predict future warming. ”
1. the point of this exercise is to illustrate the match
2. your moralizing ( they should not be used ) isn’t very interesting.
A smarter question would be, given the quality of the match, how can
the models be used if at all. For example, do they give us an upper limit?
our best guess? so, saying “should not be used” is non pragmatic moralizing.
#################################################
as for the rest of your comment about GISS and other’s you need to talk to the building 7 folks
I should think it obvious that in dealing with dunderheads – a different approach is required. Science seems to go in one ear and out the other – so we try harder with yet more science and ever more simple explanations. .
You should try reading the study – Jimbo – as it is shows the extreme ‘noise’ in climate forcing.
‘Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture. An illustration of the variability in TOA radiation is provided in Fig. 1, which shows a continuous 31-year record of
tropical (20S–20N) TOA broadband outgoing longwave (LW) radiation (OLR) between 1979 and 2010 from non-scanner and scanner instruments.’
The ‘noise’ is decadal at least.
e.g. http://www.benlaken.com/documents/AIP_PL_13.pdf
The PDO and ENSO are related – with more frequent and intense La Nina in cool PDO and vice versa.
Spencer?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/the-pacific-decadal-oscillation/
NASA?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
So what have we learned boys and girls?
lolwot, maybe you have caught one of those shifts in the making.
Tsonis posits a change in cloud associated with changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation.
Funny about that – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=15
The ocean and atmospheric patterns have been observed in proxies for millennia.
Here’s another study for you to not read or understand – http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/21743.pdf
Spencer makes a clear distinction between ENSO and PDO in their usefulness for climate change. Spencer and Braswell even more explicitly complains that people use ENSO (ahem, Lindzen and Choi). This is what I was referring to, so you can switch to talking about PDO, no problem. Satellites don’t cover a PDO cycle yet, but we can return to it when they do.
“I look at the foundation, and wanna know how flat, how sturdy, can I make it better, will it survive an earthquake, what if this, what if that.” – Steven Mosher.
Pretty good. In Minnesota you want about 6 feet deep I think. Otherwise the frost might heave it. Push it up a bit.
Reminds me of what stock market chartists do, because it’s based on the notion history repeats itself with regularity. I guess it’s better than reading tea leaves, but not much.
The current crop of shamans are not predicting there will be climate but that the climate will be bad if their fears about it are not indulged and and acted upon by all in a manner the shamans’ prescribe.
Sorry for being off topic here. Jerome Whitington writes here: http://accountingforatmosphere.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/speculation-quantification-anthropogenesis/
“Anthropogenic goes two ways: anthropogenic CO2 has re-made the climate, and now the climate promises to dictate.”
Once in awhile I run across a statement that captures so much for me. Not to bring up if he’s correct, but to see the two ends of the spectrum. Some say, we’ve done it and now the climate is some kind of threat to us. Some say or perhaps wonder, are we really capable of doing that?
Is it non-Scientific to hold a bias either way?
The full article from Whitington is here: http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2013/07/09/speculation-quantification-anthropogenesis/
He brings up some interesting points. As the title says, Speculation, there is some of that, Quantification, which is what we are getting more of, and Anthropogenic – the study of the origin and development of man. I think the last one is part of what’s going on.
He also covers some background history about the road to here.
So that some of us plebs get it strait concernin’ who is what,
when publishin’ a new paper on climate or an import-aint publick pronounc-meant, these clim-atologists should display the current
letters after their name, fer example, Dr Gym Handsum PHD in Shamanism, M.A in Witchcraft, Hallows University.
A serf..
ENSO and the PDO are linked in what is known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation – or better yet the Pacific Decadal Variation.
‘This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025052/abstract
‘Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.” ‘ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
We have most of a warm mode in the satellite and part of a cool mode behaving exactly as hypothesized. Come back to me when it starts warming again.
