Are We Doomed To Arctic Winters In America?

In all fairness, there are more variations than 90. From the Nature Climate Change article:

However, they have to use variables which they didn't use in their favorite 90, and I'll bet the models break in other ways.

 

I don't think you know enough to understand what I'm arguing. I've explained before how short term natural variability does not preclude long tem trends.

Some words you may have missed in this are "water resources management" and "editorial". Please try again.

 

meh probably. honestly modeling is not my main interest anyway, GIGO effect in my opinon. Now if they could get one that could back forecast 10K years I would love to see it. I have challanged dozens of warmist to show any direct correlation in atmospheric CO2 and temps going back 10K years but no can do. All they can cough up are charts have instrument data for temps tacked on for the last 50 years and noting past 1850 that shows any correlation whatsoever between temperature and CO2. I find it amusing to be called a denialist by people who pretend the last 10,000 years the world never had extreme weather before 1850

 

Nothing like after the fact claims when the predictions were so wrong. As the hiatus continues, what will be the next excuse?

 

Well, they believe what the agenda driven research has provided them with. Years in the making, and it will take longer to re-teach the truth.

When CO2 didn't have any unnatural sourcing, it was the ocean temperatures that drove atmospheric levels. However, all ocean temperatures do now, is set a baseline at which the atmosphere should equalize to. Since we are pumping CO2 in faster than the oceans can absorb it, we now are the cause of CO2 rising.

There is no dispute that the suns TSI has increased since 1713.

There is also no, well little, dispute that CO2 does cause some warming.

The disagreement comes from which is greater, and measurable trends. Too many variables that affect the climate. To much indoctrination to overcome.

When these scientists start publishing papers using words that do not imply beyond fact, we should start listening to what ever they say.

Notice how easily the warmers jump to a single conclusion? If you analyze the climate papers carefully, most are using chosen words and phrases to make use of the way people jump to conclusions. Just look at how papers polling for example the 97% consensus. They never lies, but their implications and perceived message by others have others distorting the facts. Rarely the papers are actually in error with original research. However, their implied messages often are.

 

Gee, only yesterday you were going to "attempt to be more tactful". And today you're accusing me of lying. So much for your tact.

I will admit to relying on my memory too much, but the memory is real, even if the details were a bit off. You are correct that I should have said RCP4.5 instead of 6.5; and there are 109 model runs available at KNMI, not 101, in RCP4.5. But if you care to download them, you will discover that I have understated the case.

So let's start with this: running a linear regression through the global surface temperature data for the following datasets, I get the following trends for the 17 year period 1997-2013:
BEST: +.008461
Cowtan & Way (U. of York): +.010452
HADCRUT4: +.004838
GISS: +.007574
NCDC: +.004167
UAH: +.004721

Note first all slopes are positive. So the next time some denier tells you that global warming has stopped, remember to accuse them of making stuff up. In your own tactful way, of course.

Next, head over to the KNMI site and download all 109 model runs available (excluding suite averages and the multimodel mean) for CMIP4, RCP4.5. The data is monthly, but for ease of use I run Jan-Dec annual means for each. Then I run regression slopes for all 17-year periods starting in 1997 and working forward to the last available 21st century period, which is 2084-2100. Do that for each 17-year period, find the minimum trend for the model, and compare that to the current 17-year period. Then repeat 109 times, once for each model run.

Result:
Compared to the BEST temperature dataset, 108 of 109 models (99%) contain 17-year slopes equal or less than the current global trend.
Compared to Cowtan and Way, all 109 models (100%) contain 17-year slopes equal or less than the current global trend.
Compared to HADCRUT4, 94 of 109 models (86%) contain 17-year slopes equal or less than the current global trend.
Compared to GISS, 107 of 109 models (98%) contain 17-year slopes equal or less than the current global trend.
Compared to NCDC, 91 of 109 models (83%) contain 17-year slopes equal or less than the current global trend.
Compared to UAH, 94 of 109 models (86%) contain 17-year slopes equal or less than the current global trend.

There are people on this board who make stuff up, Planar. I'm not one of them.

 

I said "looks like." I didn't say you did. My memory is faulty at times too. I figured you meant 8.5, and that assumption was wrong.

 

So you're saying it's a mistake to believe the Beer-Lambert Law? Or is it a mistake to believe Navier-Stokes equations? Or perhaps it's Conservation of Energy that is supported by agenda-driven research. Or perhaps you're just making stuff up.

Wake me up if you ever get past the point of unsubstantiated allegations.

Nor is there any dispute that TSI has decreased since 1958.

Wrong there too. The radiative forcing of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has been determined quite well, both from laboratory experiments and from quantum mechanical theory. And that can be directly compared to the radiative forcing of the Sun. So if that's what you imagine is somehow disputed, I guess you're just making stuff up.

The remaining uncertainty is not in forcing, which means it's also not in attribution: the current warming is caused by greenhouse gases, period. Most of that is CO2. We know what's causing it, and if you spent as much time reading science as reading denier blogs, you might learn why we know that.

There is uncertainty, but the remaining uncertainty is in feedbacks, which drive climate sensitivity. It's not in attribution of cause, which is well known.

 

Really?

 

The difference being I caught the lie. He didn't. Don't pat yourself on the back for a successful lie.

What lord Planer said

The issue being that water vapor can lead to more cloud formation.

Your reply was this.

The implication being that water vapor has nothing to do with clouds which are liquid water. This is a deliberate deceit. As it is water vapor that condenses for form the liquid water in clouds. Lord Planar was too nice to you. The proper response is to call out the lie.

 

Really PD, there are only 4 respected data sets. RSS, UAH, CRU, GISS. You think you can get away with excluding the RSS and adding in 3 data sets that aren't even respected, BEST, NCDC and Cowtan & Way. Cowtan & Way isn't even a data set its a renalysis of a data set. Total joke on your part.

You think you can just delete one of the 2 satelite data sets. Add some (*)(*)(*)(*) that isn't respected and then say soemthing along the lines.

"So the next time some denier tells you that global warming has stopped, remember to accuse them of making stuff up. In your own tactful way, of course."



So I just made that up you say.

No they are just aren't looking at the best data set we have which you chose to leave out, the RSS.



Absolute deceit on your part 100% lie of omission. You didn't just forget the RSS dataset. You intentionally left it out. That is a a lie of omission. Why cant you make arguments posting lies?

 

Its an interesting dichotomy because if you were to say that temperature has decreased since 1998 PD would go (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ape (*)(*)(*)(*). Solar cycle 19 was an anomaly. And all solar cycles during the late 20th century warming were stronger than previous cycles excluding solar cycle 19. I dont know how PD justifies this apparent contradictory logic where he would on one hand go ape (*)(*)(*)(*) over someone drawing a trend from 98 el nino yet has no problem doing the same thing from the anomalous solar cycle 19. Of course we all know the answer. So long as it serves the goal he is okay with it.

 

And to prove my point, Hoose posts a graph showing a declining TSI since 1958. Thanks.

 

You seem to forget that we were in a cooling phase at that time and TSI picked up again in the 70's when warming started again.

 

There is a 10 to 15 year temperature lag to TSI and it started to fall of around 2005.

 

And what do you say to those who choose 1998 as a starting point for a temperature trend? Solar cycle 19(your 195 is an anomalously high solar cycle in terms of sunspots. We don't know what the actual TSI was.

Your graph is also misleading because most of it is not a direct measure of TSI but an approximation. The TSI composite didn't exist until about 1978. What you are doing is making a comparison between an inaccurate reconstruction and actually measured TSI, a practice that is rather unethical.

 

OMG, are you serious? What type of a demented mind does it take to think you can assume all those things not said?

I'm speaking specifically of how the Climate Scientists pick and choose the facts to present in papers, and conveniently ignoring others, to arrive at the intended results.

How can anyone be so insane as you, to think I disbelieve all sciences that the climate fakers use?

Nothing unsubstantiated at all. Well known facts are ignored in the climate sciences like the feedbacks of solar forcing.

Very minimally compared to the 1900 to 1950 increases.

From the SOURCE page:



Here is my graph that I just finished today, using their data:



Please note how minor the decline is compared to the increase, and pay attention to how close my claimed 55 year average fits temperatures better than CO2.

Not in a well mixed atmosphere where you have CO2 radiating heat up and down, above and below clouds, and from the upper most atmosphere as well.

They only consider the factors that makes their case.

My God, you are so ignorant to think I read denier blogs.

I DO NOT READ SUCH MATERIAL!

I have repeatedly stated I understand the sciences, and repeatedly stated I don't go to them. The only time I ever see them is when someone else links them. At that point, I follow the source material they use.

With more evidence building that the feedbacks are more negative than positive.

 

No, actually the peak of cycle 19 (1957-59) was the highest TSI solar cycle in recorded history.

And then came right back down again. And continues down today. My original statement stands: TSI has come down since 1959.

Nice graph, with not one, but two obsolete sources: ACRIM has been replaced by PMOD; and Lean 2000 is no match for the SATIRE model of Krivova et al. 2010.

 

I move south for the winters, and north for the summers. If I have to move another 200 miles each way, no big deal.

 

I say it would be fairer and more representative to smooth out the ENSO peaks.

And when we smooth out the Wolf cycle peaks, TSI is still down from 1959, and significantly.

The SATIRE model has been shown to correlate with TSI at .96, which is more than good enough for climatological purposes.

When you say Krivova's TSI reconstruction is "inaccurate", do you have any evidence for that, or are you (in LP's phrase) just making stuff up?

How odd then that Mr. Ethics didn't complain a bit when Hoosier8 posted a graph with exactly that same "unethical" data. Apparently ethics don't count if you're from Denierstan.

 

You said "they" (which I take to mean climatologists) "believe what the agenda driven research has provided them with." Well, do you have any idea what actually goes into a climatological model? It's the Beer-Lambert Law, Conservation of Energy, and Navier-Stokes equations, to name just a few. I just don't see anything agenda driven about that, so I was hoping that you had some actual evidence to support your allegation. Can you point to a single example of "agenda driven research", and show how it is agenda driven? Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for this alleged agenda driven research? Or are you just making stuff up?

More vague innuendos, utterly devoid of evidence. I guess this is the best we will ever get from you.

How can anyone be so insane to believe all climate science is fake, without one shred of evidence that it's true? Do you believe the Moon landings were a hoax too? How about the flat Earth? Do you wear a tin foil hat to bed? Or do you just automatically assume that because Al Gore raised the issue, it's just gotta be false, cuz you voted for Bush? I really want to know what criteria you use to ascertain the truth. Because it certainly isn't evidence.

And yet, here we are again without a shred of actual substantiation, even after I specifically asked for it. All I get is "it's well known that" ... followed by another unsourced and unsubstantiated allegation. Even the National Enquirer does better than that: at least they quote their sources. Just FYI, when I accuse you of lacking evidence, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

Wrong in the first place, and utterly missing the point in the second place. What you have utterly failed to do is explain how your "it's the Sun" theory can increase global temperatures at a time when solar activity is decreasing. Has it even once crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong?

OMG, don't let Windy see that! He would say you're being unethical for using pre-1979 data. Meanwhile, it looks to me (just eyeballing here) that TSI was about 1360.7 in 1900, and about 1361.2 at 1950, an increase of 0.5 W/m²; and today it's about 1360.8, a decline of about 0.4 W/m². I have a hard time seeing how a decline of 0.4 is "minimal" compared to an increase of 0.5, so perhaps you can explain it to me.

From a climatological perspective, between 1900 and 1950 that roughly 0.5 W/m² TOA number must be adjusted for albedo (x 0.7) and sphericity of the Earth (x 0.25) giving an increase of 0.088 W/m² from solar forcing. While CO2 forcing during the same period (1900-1950) rose by 0.267 W/m², roughly three times as much. Which means even during the early 20th century, the solar theory still fails.

You've apparently deceived yourself by using running averages as a smoothing technique, which shifts inflection points forward in time by half the length of the averaging time. Then if you shift the running average back by half the interval to get the timing right, you cut off the end of the data. You can avoid that pitfall by using a better smoothing algorithm, such as the Loess smooth I used in the graph posted above, which gets the timing of the inflection points right and also carries right through to both ends of the data.

The Loess smooth (21 point) as graphed above gives an increase of .458 W/m² 1900-1950, and a decrease of .426 W/m² 1950-2014. Once again, the data do not support your conclusion.

Why do you imagine that climatologists do not consider these things? It is because you assume they are stupid or something? That you and only you could have thought of these things (all of which are well known)? Can you point to even a single peer-reviewed paper that should have considered these factors, and failed to do so? Or are you making stuff up?

I'm happy to take your word for it, and there is no need to shout.

Evidence? You mean you have evidence? Citation, please. Because I think you've been lied to.

 

PMOD and ACRIM don't help you at all since they are the satellite reconstructions from 78. When I say reconstructions, see below. One shows slight cooling the other slight warming. Remember, they are 'reconstructions'. Lean 2000 shows the same thing posted before but again, it too is a 'reconstruction' which means modeling and assumptions all of which use the same data for TSI from 1978.

 

You're on the right track.

My suggestion is to start looking at the role that ocean currents and water play in this. Climate change is not like turning the thermostat in your house up or down.

 

There are a number of people trying to understand the role of oceans in climate change, some are more visible like ENSO but PDO and AMO and possibly other unknown ocean mechanics play important roles. The CO2 crowd have recently turned to oceans to explain the failure of the CO2 forcing models. Of course, it is well known that ocean heat comes mainly from the Earth's interior and the Sun.

 

My position on climate change is complicated. I'm not sold on man-made climate change. The added CO2 from fossil fuel use and deforestation plus all the other elements and chemicals modern science has come up with certainly can't be helping. But at best I believe those things could be catalyzing the regular climate change the Earth naturally goes through.

What I think isn't up for debate is that climate change itself is happening and it's going to mean stark changes for the world. Rising sea levels, warming temps, and changing ocean and air currents are going to cause problems whether man-made or not and I think it best that we prepare for that. However, I don't think carbon taxes are really the way to go. In fact, I think climate change is going to be the number one driver of GMO foods.

That said, the pollution humans pump into the environment every day is still not good. Regardless of whether it may be affecting climate change, it most definitely is destroying the environment and affecting all forms of life on this planet. My secret wish for the global warming/climate change movement was always that it would help curb those pollutions more than it would actually stop or reverse climate change.