Natural radiative forcings [Archive]

Geckko

23rd July 2008, 10:40 AM

I am trying to make sense of recent developments on the climate change front. I start with the IPCC views on the sources of forcings shown in this graph.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg

Conclusion: Anthorpogenic dominate natural by a wide margin.

Naturally , the logical conculsion is drawn in the AR4 Summary for Policymakers in the interpretation of what was making temperatures rise over the last 50 years, as in this quote:
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations...

...[snip]...

...During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling.

And they go on to make the logical projected statement as follows:

For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.

So I am happy that I understand from that::

Natural forcings are theoretically too small to swamp anthropogenic forcings
Over the last 50 years anthropogenic forcings have easily dominated natural forcings (as theory suggested)
Over the next 20 years (2000-2020 in the context of AR4) the predictable natural forcings will not be enough to swamp anthropogenic forcings (even if the increase in anthropogenic forcings stopped completely in 2000)

But, here is the confusion. Standing in 2008 I have been seeing the following fairly recently:

Measured data showing no trend increase in temperatures for the last 10 years:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/11_year_global_temp.png?w=510&h=303

some recent peer review work citing "natural forces" as being likely to produce no further wraming for another 10 years - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html
Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming

That leaves me a little confused.

We believe that anthropogenic forcings dominate natural forcings and have done so significantly in the past and had expected them to do so over the future, but

Over the most recent decade global average temperatures have not increased despite anthropogenic forcings continuing to rise, which some researchers suggest might be due to natural forcings that were deemed to be theoretically and observationally too insignificant to have any material affect in comparison.

I hope that isn't too confusing.

More in hope than expectation, please keep this an insult free zone.

mhaze

24th July 2008, 01:31 PM

I am trying to make sense of recent developments on the climate change front. I start with the IPCC views on the sources of forcings shown in this graph.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg

Conclusion: Anthorpogenic dominate natural by a wide margin.

Naturally , the logical conculsion is drawn in the AR4 Summary for Policymakers in the interpretation of what was making temperatures rise over the last 50 years, as in this quote:
And they go on to make the logical projected statement as follows:
So I am happy that I understand from that::

Natural forcings are theoretically too small to swamp anthropogenic forcings
Over the last 50 years anthropogenic forcings have easily dominated natural forcings (as theory suggested)
Over the next 20 years (2000-2020 in the context of AR4) the predictable natural forcings will not be enough to swamp anthropogenic forcings (even if the increase in anthropogenic forcings stopped completely in 2000

But, here is the confusion. Standing in 2008 I have been seeing the following fairly recently:

Measured data showing no trend increase in temperatures for the last 10 years:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/11_year_global_temp.png?w=510&h=303
some recent peer review work citing "natural forces" as being likely to produce no further wraming for another 10 years - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html

That leaves me a little confused.

We believe that anthropogenic forcings dominate natural forcings and have done so significantly in the past and had expected them to do so over the future, but
Over the most recent decade global average temperatures have not increased despite anthropogenic forcings continuing to rise, which some researchers suggest might be due to natural forcings that were deemed to be theoretically and observationally too insignificant to have any material affect in comparison.

I hope that isn't too confusing.More in hope than expectation, please keep this an insult free zone.I've been noting the same thing , but will elaborate on one aspect:

IPCC: high climate sensitivity, offset by aerosol cooling which caused the 1940 - 1970 "cool period". Then it is alleged, that the result of the Montreal Protocol was the reduction in aerosols, and this reduced their cooling effects, so AGW started up in it's whole fury.

Empirical Reality: Current cool period mimics the 1940-1970 cool period as does the 1920-1940 hot period mimic the 1970-2000 hot period, these tracking with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Conclusion: Theory of aerosol cooling reducing AGW warming 1940-1970 is false, which means that the high climate sensitivity for CO2 is also false. Use a low climate sensitivity for CO2, a moderate to high influence for natural factors gives results that track what has happened and what seems to be happening now.

What does that mean:

IPCC wrong.
CO2 is at most a minor influence in climate.
Perhaps 0.4C of 20th century temperature to be caused by CO2 (at the most) and climate sensitivity for a future doubling of CO2 to be 0.6 - 1.1C.

Which in turn means:

Concerns about CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions are irrelevant.

BUT REVERSE THE QUESTION: Is there current evidence for the alternate ("orthodox view")to support a high climate sensitivity for CO2, if so, what?

lomiller

24th July 2008, 02:10 PM

But, here is the confusion. Standing in 2008 I have been seeing the following fairly recently:

[LIST=1]
Measured data showing no trend increase in temperatures for the last 10 years:

That particular span is misleading. The strongest El Nino effect ever recorded occurred in 1998, and El Nino has a noticeable warming effect in the year it occurs that is much larger then the decadal trend. The decadal trend is ~0.2 deg / decade while a normal El Nino can warm a single year by as much as 0.5 deg. In addition 2008 started with the strongest La Nina since 1987, and La Nina has the opposite effect of El Nino.

Thus, when you start a trend line from 1998, it will give the appearance of a negative trend. Likewise when you end the trend line in early 2008 you also get an artificially negative trend. If you filtered the effect of ENSO or simply started the graph at 1997 or 1999 you would have again seen a positive trend. You can also look at the fact that 2005, which had a relatively mild El Nino, was tied with 1998 for the warmest year on record.

Finally, you can look at a longer term smoothed curve at which point the anomalous warmth of 1998 becomes immediately apparent, and the trend line clearly continues upwards. No matter how you look at it, however, the “10 year cooling trend” only exists due to cherry picking the start point.

I

some recent peer review work citing "natural forces" as being likely to produce no further wraming for another 10 years - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture06921.html

That is one particular model outcome, and while it’s using new techniques that promise greater regional resolution, it has yet to be confirmed by subsequent work. It’s also worth noting that while that model predicts a relatively flat temperature until 2020, it predicts a lot of warming between 2020 and 2040 at which point its results are comparable with the existing models. Some people like mhaze are truncating the results at 2020 and claiming this is a model that disputes the continuing warming trend.

In a recent post over at realclimate, Gavin Schmidt who among other things develops/maintains the GISS model expressed the view that the flat period until 2020 may just be “coupling shock”, a phenomenon that occurs in all climate models as they transition from known ENSO (El Nino/La Nina cycles) to modeled ENSO. (I'll look for a link, it was in a response to a reader comment) Even if he is incorrect it has no real impact on longer term trends as the model you linked to predicts more warming then most once you get further out from the present.

I

Over the most recent decade global average temperatures have not increased despite anthropogenic forcings continuing to rise, which some researchers suggest might be due to natural forcings that were deemed to be theoretically and observationally too insignificant to have any material affect in comparison.

As I mentioned above, the year to year variation in global temperature is quite a bit larger then the decadal trend. This is because of the enormous amount of energy it takes to overcome the stabilizing influence of the oceans. Even a small seeming 0.2 deg / decade means a very large forcing is at play, larger then can be attributed to any known natural forcing. The only time we see rates much larger then this is the “tipping points” that occurred at the end of ice ages.

Geckko

24th July 2008, 05:08 PM

That particular span is misleading. The strongest El Nino effect ever recorded occurred in 1998, and El Nino has a noticeable warming effect in the year it occurs that is much larger then the decadal trend.

But the IPCC knew that at the time AR4 was put together didn't it? It knew it had to factor in the 1998 el Nino when it said:

For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.

That goes to my point about the AR4 identifying anthropogenic forcings as massively dominating natural ones. It found that even though 1998 was subject to a massive el Nino the temperature trend would still be up, even if anthropogenic forcings stopped.

That is one particular model outcome, and while it’s using new techniques that promise greater regional resolution, it has yet to be confirmed by subsequent work. It’s also worth noting that while that model predicts a relatively flat temperature until 2020, it predicts a lot of warming between 2020 and 2040 at which point its results are comparable with the existing models.

Again, that is back to my point. The AR4 seemed very clear. Anthropogenic forcings are so powerful that there was already enough in the system to push global temperatures up by 0.2 degrees by 2020. That is the point that I find hard to reconcile.

mhaze

26th July 2008, 05:45 PM

But the IPCC knew that at the time AR4 was put together didn't it? It knew it had to factor in the 1998 el Nino when it said:

That goes to my point about the AR4 identifying anthropogenic forcings as massively dominating natural ones. It found that even though 1998 was subject to a massive el Nino the temperature trend would still be up, even if anthropogenic forcings stopped.

Again, that is back to my point. The AR4 seemed very clear. Anthropogenic forcings are so powerful that there was already enough in the system to push global temperatures up by 0.2 degrees by 2020. That is the point that I find hard to reconcile.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation was only discovered in 1997, thus the interaction of the PDO with La Nina and El Nino could not have been known prior to 1997. More likely, sometime after 1997 as things take a while to sink in. These phenomena do not follow precise patterns, it was not recently (This year?) that NASA announced PDO had shifted. Now we can go back and look at the cooling or not-increasing temperatures of the last ten years as based on a PDO shift.

IPCC 2007 had a cut off mid 2006. Was firm evidence on these natural cycles available at that time? Well, if I recall correctly NASA had not made their announcement by then. Bigger question - if the evidence was clear, would it be ignored in the IPCC writeup, as solar and several other subjects were ignored?

The IPCC seem to have been following a theory that natural variation was statistical noise and could be discounted completely in looking for drivers for climate.

lomiller

26th July 2008, 06:19 PM

But the IPCC knew that at the time AR4 was put together didn't it? It knew it had to factor in the 1998 el Nino when it said:

That goes to my point about the AR4 identifying anthropogenic forcings as massively dominating natural ones. It found that even though 1998 was subject to a massive el Nino the temperature trend would still be up, even if anthropogenic forcings stopped.

They were not *starting* in 1998. As a single year in the trend from 1900-2008, the warmth of 1998 has much less impact on the trend then if simply draw a line with 1998 as your start point. Claims of “Warming stopped in 1998” are made based on the latter incorrect technique.

Again, that is back to my point. The AR4 seemed very clear. Anthropogenic forcings are so powerful that there was already enough in the system to push global temperatures up by 0.2 degrees by 2020. That is the point that I find hard to reconcile.

Once again, year to year variation can be more then 0.5 deg. The length of time it takes before a statistically significant 0.2 deg/dec trend can be identified against this noise is a matter for statistical analysis, but it’s not going to be less then a decade, and could be as long as 2-3 decades.

So, even though the baseline temperature grew by 0.2 deg by 2020 you could still very easily get an observed trend with little or no warming until you observer for another decade or more.

mhaze

27th July 2008, 07:57 AM

Once again, year to year variation can be more then 0.5 deg. The length of time it takes before a statistically significant 0.2 deg/dec trend can be identified against this noise is a matter for statistical analysis, but it’s not going to be less then a decade, and could be as long as 2-3 decades.
And although I may agree with you, AGW alarmists of past decades do not seem to. What is the earliest year that you can point to an AGW alarmist saying something like...

year to year variation can be more then 0.5 deg

?

Hansen 1988, which started this whole debacle, asserted that decadal variation 20th century was 0.14C and a variation of more than 3X this or 0.42C would constitute the "smoking gun" of AGW at 99.9% significance. (A curious reversal of Lomiller's claim that cooling does not "disprove AGW", was thus used to "prove AGW")

Hansen did not disclose his method, only made the wild assertion, and did not even quantify "a few years ".

Mann et al 1998 essentially argued natural variability could be disregarded as background statistical noise.

So is the argument you now make one that is now coming into vogue? If so, see my next post for the inevitable logical conclusions of that.

mhaze

27th July 2008, 08:54 AM

Again, that is back to my point. The AR4 seemed very clear. Anthropogenic forcings are so powerful that there was already enough in the system to push global temperatures up by 0.2 degrees by 2020. That is the point that I find hard to reconcile.

You are not the only one:

Meteorol Atmos Phys 95, 115–121 (2007)
DOI 10.1007/s00703-006-0199-2

Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian July 31, 2006

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years

Summary
A novel multi-timescale analysis method, Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation of the annual mean temperature data of the global, Northern Hemisphere (NH) and China from 1881 to 2002. The results show that: (1) Temperature can be completely decomposed into four timescales quasi-periodic oscillations including an ENSO-like mode, a 6–8-year signal, a 20-year signal and a 60-year signal, as well as a trend. With each contributing ration of the quasi-periodicity discussed, the trend and the 60-year timescale oscillation of temperature variation are the most prominent. (2) It has been noticed that whether on century-scale or 60-year scales, the global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years. (3) On quasi 60-year timescale, temperature abrupt changes in China precede those in the global and NH, which provides a denotation for global climate changes. Signs also show a drop in temperature in China on century scale in the next 20 years.

(4) The dominant contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is the trend. However, its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales. Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes.

Geckko

28th July 2008, 03:46 AM

They were not *starting* in 1998. As a single year in the trend from 1900-2008, the warmth of 1998 has much less impact on the trend then if simply draw a line with 1998 as your start point. Claims of “Warming stopped in 1998” are made based on the latter incorrect technique.

Our comments seem to be missing each other.

I never said they "started in 1998". I said:

AR4 summised that the trend would be positive to 2020, by around 0.2 degerees per decade.
The trend has been zero to date (arguably negative) over the period concerned - which is almost half the projection period of two decades.
You suggested that this apparent pause or reversal was an artifact of the data due to el Nino warm spike in 1998 (that is how I read your point).
I said that the warm spike was known, it was history and in the data from which the AR4 projections were made (like me saying "I project next week will be 1 degree warmer than this week has been", only to find next week is nopt warmer than this week was and explaining this by saying "but last week was warm so it was going to come off a bit")

Once again, year to year variation can be more then 0.5 deg. The length of time it takes before a statistically significant 0.2 deg/dec trend can be identified against this noise is a matter for statistical analysis, but it’s not going to be less then a decade, and could be as long as 2-3 decades.

So, even though the baseline temperature grew by 0.2 deg by 2020 you could still very easily get an observed trend with little or no warming until you observer for another decade or more.

So are you saying that since we are 8 years into this 20 year forecast period that projected 0.4 degree increase, the IPCC position would be that the apparent pause in the trend is just noise and we should be getting catch up and experience 0.4 degrees increase over the next 12 years? In effect the next 12 years should be characterised by an apparent acceleration from this point on from the lower, noise affected, temperature readings of the last 8 years?

fsol

28th July 2008, 05:47 AM

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation was only discovered in 1997, thus the interaction of the PDO with La Nina and El Nino could not have been known prior to 1997. More likely, sometime after 1997 as things take a while to sink in. These phenomena do not follow precise patterns, it was not recently (This year?) that NASA announced PDO had shifted. Now we can go back and look at the cooling or not-increasing temperatures of the last ten years as based on a PDO shift.

IPCC 2007 had a cut off mid 2006. Was firm evidence on these natural cycles available at that time? Well, if I recall correctly NASA had not made their announcement by then. Bigger question - if the evidence was clear, would it be ignored in the IPCC writeup, as solar and several other subjects were ignored?

The IPCC seem to have been following a theory that natural variation was statistical noise and could be discounted completely in looking for drivers for climate.

Solar and several other subjects were ignored?

They didn't ignore solar. Why you think you can get away with saying they did when the AR4 is freely available for anyone to read is beyond me.

mhaze

28th July 2008, 07:52 AM

Solar and several other subjects were ignored?

They didn't ignore solar. Why you think you can get away with saying they did when the AR4 is freely available for anyone to read is beyond me.

Go look at the OP , 0.12 w/sq m allocated to solar. That is ridiculously low as a conclusion for solar forcing. This conclusion appears to have been reached by the IPCC by their ignoring a large part of the literature.

Nothing new or unexpected in that.

fsol

28th July 2008, 02:19 PM

Go look at the OP , 0.12 w/sq m allocated to solar. That is ridiculously low as a conclusion for solar forcing. This conclusion appears to have been reached by the IPCC by their ignoring a large part of the literature.

Nothing new or unexpected in that.

Show your cites then. Anything else is just your own unsubstantiated opinion and, well, you'll forgive me for not placing great weight on that.

mhaze

28th July 2008, 03:16 PM

Show your cites then. Anything else is just your own unsubstantiated opinion and, well, you'll forgive me for not placing great weight on that.

Hmm....Looks like you'r starting a derail. Here is my statement you took exception with one part of:IPCC 2007 had a cut off mid 2006. Was firm evidence on these natural cycles available at that time? Well, if I recall correctly NASA had not made their announcement by then. Bigger question - if the evidence was clear, would it be ignored in the IPCC writeup, as solar and several other subjects were ignored?

The IPCC seem to have been following a theory that natural variation was statistical noise and could be discounted completely in looking for drivers for climate.
I think you are welcome to start another thread but I'll not participate in derailing this one. Your question is answered by simply comparing a bibliographic such as in the IPCC document with a sample of the literature. Be sure to not forget that the chart of this OP is a morass of misinformation of which this you take issue with is only one part. The chart is mis labeled, actually it is the IPCC's assertion of "Radiative Forcings due to man since 1750". Be sure to apologize for that in your OP...Something like .... "I know this Chart is IPCC disinformation but I'd like someone to debunk this one line on Solar effect on this admittedly misleading Chart".

But hey, if it interests you, start a new thread, and don't forget to explain to your audience how the IPCC derives the change in natural solar forcing since 1750 to be 0.12 w/m sq meter with error bounds as noted, then ask something like "Can anyone debunk this 0.12 w/sq meter number?" I'll certainly be glad to contribute, and although yer fellow comrades in Warming will also, I don't think you will do very well in supporting that 0.12 w/sq meter number.

Good derail attempt though.:clap:

fsol

28th July 2008, 06:41 PM

Hmm....Looks like you'r starting a derail. Here is my statement you took exception with one part of:IPCC 2007 had a cut off mid 2006. Was firm evidence on these natural cycles available at that time? Well, if I recall correctly NASA had not made their announcement by then. Bigger question - if the evidence was clear, would it be ignored in the IPCC writeup, as solar and several other subjects were ignored?

The IPCC seem to have been following a theory that natural variation was statistical noise and could be discounted completely in looking for drivers for climate.
I think you are welcome to start another thread but I'll not participate in derailing this one. Your question is answered by simply comparing a bibliographic such as in the IPCC document with a sample of the literature. Be sure to not forget that the chart of this OP is a morass of misinformation of which this you take issue with is only one part. The chart is mis labeled, actually it is the IPCC's assertion of "Radiative Forcings due to man since 1750". Be sure to apologize for that in your OP...Something like .... "I know this Chart is IPCC disinformation but I'd like someone to debunk this one line on Solar effect on this admittedly misleading Chart".

But hey, if it interests you, start a new thread, and don't forget to explain to your audience how the IPCC derives the change in natural solar forcing since 1750 to be 0.12 w/m sq meter with error bounds as noted, then ask something like "Can anyone debunk this 0.12 w/sq meter number?" I'll certainly be glad to contribute, and although yer fellow comrades in Warming will also, I don't think you will do very well in supporting that 0.12 w/sq meter number.

Good derail attempt though.:clap:

Not surprisingly you fail to back up your assertions with any cites.

The thread title is Natural Radiative Forcings. Seems to me solar fits right in.

mhaze

28th July 2008, 07:07 PM

Not surprisingly you fail to back up your assertions with any cites. The thread title is Natural Radiative Forcings. Seems to me solar fits right in.

FROM THE OP:

We believe that anthropogenic forcings dominate natural forcings and have done so significantly in the past and had expected them to do so over the future, but
Over the most recent decade global average temperatures have not increased despite anthropogenic forcings continuing to rise, which some researchers suggest might be due to natural forcings that were deemed to be theoretically and observationally too insignificant to have any material affect in comparison.

How does solar fit right in? Granted we could point to a correlation between 2007-2008 and no sunspots + prolonged solar minima, but that does not go backward to account for the full decade. Correcting the number the IPCC uses for solar forcing would not change this. That is why I said it was a derail, it has no relation to the subject. The OP points to a difference between the IPCC conclusions and reality. Yes, you have struck on yet another one, but it isn't related to the first. You have always liked to defend the IPCC, defend them against the above described assault on the IPCC from reality (1-->2).

And if I've missed something, please enlighten us.

lomiller

28th July 2008, 11:05 PM

Our comments seem to be missing each other.

I never said they "started in 1998". I said:

The trend is not zero or negative over that time period The only way you can get a trend nearing zero is to cherry pick as Watts did when he developed that graphic you linked.

So are you saying that since we are 8 years into this 20 year forecast period that projected 0.4 degree increase, the IPCC position would be that the apparent pause in the trend is just noise and we should be getting catch up and experience 0.4 degrees increase over the next 12 years? In effect the next 12 years should be characterised by an apparent acceleration from this point on from the lower, noise affected, temperature readings of the last 8 years?

It’s a combination of noise in the trend and your misunderstanding about what the trend is. The current temperatures are well within the error bands the IPCC specified.

fsol

29th July 2008, 01:13 AM

FROM THE OP:

We believe that anthropogenic forcings dominate natural forcings and have done so significantly in the past and had expected them to do so over the future, but
Over the most recent decade global average temperatures have not increased despite anthropogenic forcings continuing to rise, which some researchers suggest might be due to natural forcings that were deemed to be theoretically and observationally too insignificant to have any material affect in comparison.

How does solar fit right in? Granted we could point to a correlation between 2007-2008 and no sunspots + prolonged solar minima, but that does not go backward to account for the full decade. Correcting the number the IPCC uses for solar forcing would not change this. That is why I said it was a derail, it has no relation to the subject. The OP points to a difference between the IPCC conclusions and reality. Yes, you have struck on yet another one, but it isn't related to the first. You have always liked to defend the IPCC, defend them against the above described assault on the IPCC from reality (1-->2).

And if I've missed something, please enlighten us.

So you still won't back up your claim. Should be easy right?

CapelDodger

29th July 2008, 04:15 PM

Meteorol Atmos Phys 95, 115–121 (2007)
DOI 10.1007/s00703-006-0199-2

Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian July 31, 2006

Glad to see you're keeping your finger on the research pulse. I didn't notice this one at all.

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years

Presumably that's the next twenty years from July 2006. Only eighteen to go. Of course, they might mean twenty years from 2002 (they use data from 1881-2002), which is only fourteen years to go.

Summary

A novel multi-timescale analysis method ...

Well, the mundane stuff doesn't work for you, so I guess you need novelties.

... Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation of the annual mean temperature data of the global, Northern Hemisphere (NH) and China from 1881 to 2002. The results show that: (1) Temperature can be completely decomposed into four timescales quasi-periodic oscillations including an ENSO-like mode, a 6–8-year signal, a 20-year signal and a 60-year signal, as well as a trend. With each contributing ration of the quasi-periodicity discussed, the trend and the 60-year timescale oscillation of temperature variation are the most prominent.

On a twenty-year timescale only the sixty-year signal is relevant - "ENSO-like", 6-8 year, and twenty year are too short. Over twenty years the twenty year cycle ends up where it started. That's the way with cycles.

So we have a sixty year cycle identified from 1881-2002 data, which is exactly two (count them) cycles. I naturally question the robustness of that observation, even to the addition of the last six years, but letting that go the claim is that we're about to see a repeat of global cooling between 1886 and 1906 (the first sixty year cycle) and between 1946 and 1966 (the second). The latter example is in the record, but I'm not so sure about the former.

(2) It has been noticed that whether on century-scale or 60-year scales, the global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years. (3) On quasi 60-year timescale, temperature abrupt changes in China precede those in the global and NH, which provides a denotation for global climate changes. Signs also show a drop in temperature in China on century scale in the next 20 years.

In China? Is this prediction only for China?

(4) The dominant contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is the trend. However, its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales.

OK, they mention global temperature, so I guess it's not just China they're working with. Which is just as well, because I've read severe criticism (by Steve McIntyre, among others) of Chinese weather stations. They move them around, they build cities around them, all sorts of bad stuff.

We can ignore three of the cycles, because what goes around comes around. We are left with the sixty year cycle that went around once (1881-1941) ending up back where it started, and has since gone around again - ending up where it started.

Am I missing something here? Perhaps it's in the body of the paper - since you've read it, perhaps you'd be so good as to enlighten us.

I didn't miss "40.19%", which is strikingly and suspiciously precise (see How To Lie With Statistics for details).

Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes.

Not on the basis of this work it ain't. All those cycles put global conditions back where they were in 1881. The only confounding factor is the CO2-induced trend. How the hell they get 60% from shorter-term cycles - which by their very nature have no long-term trend - is a mystery.

But hey, you've asked yourself this obvious question, and you've read the paper. So what's the answer?

CapelDodger

29th July 2008, 04:27 PM

It’s a combination of noise in the trend and your misunderstanding about what the trend is. The current temperatures are well within the error bands the IPCC specified.

As I understand it, given the signal-to-noise ratio the occasional decade of muted warming is only to be expected. If it stretches out beyond the next two-to-seven years, then there'll be a reason to question the reality of AGW.

CapelDodger

29th July 2008, 04:41 PM

Go look at the OP , 0.12 w/sq m allocated to solar.

Not ignored, then (as you claimed).

That is ridiculously low as a conclusion for solar forcing.

If I were you I'd avoid bringing up the word "ridiculous". Friendly advice.

This conclusion appears to have been reached by the IPCC by their ignoring a large part of the literature.

Nothing new or unexpected in that.

Nothing new or unexpected in you lying about what's in the AR4, then hand-waving the lie away with appeals to your own incredulity. Anyone can read the AR4 for themselves, and discover how mainstream the AR4 treatment of solar forcings is.

What you refer to as "a large part of the literature" is actually the crank-heavy minority of the literature that you're familiar with because your attention is drawn to it by fellow cranks.

CapelDodger

29th July 2008, 04:54 PM

suggested)

Over the next 20 years (2000-2020 in the context of AR4) the predictable natural forcings will not be enough to swamp anthropogenic forcings (even if the increase in anthropogenic forcings stopped completely in 2000)

AR4 came out in 2007; the next twenty years would be 2008-2027 in that context, not 2000-2020.

mhaze

29th July 2008, 04:56 PM

Glad to see you're keeping your finger on the research pulse. I didn't notice this one at all.....Not on the basis of this work it ain't. All those cycles put global conditions back where they were in 1881. The only confounding factor is the CO2-induced trend. How the hell they get 60% from shorter-term cycles - which by their very nature have no long-term trend - is a mystery.

But hey, you've asked yourself this obvious question, and you've read the paper. So what's the answer?

Use the linky, download the paper, answer your questions, then opine.

AR4 came out in 2007; the next twenty years would be 2008-2027 in that context, not 2000-2020.

Ummm...No. Some of the predictions started in the past. That way, at least part of the prediction might be right.:)

CapelDodger

29th July 2008, 05:48 PM

Use the linky, download the paper, answer your questions, then opine.

There's no link, you just pasted the abstract, which I've dealt with.

AR4 came out in 2007; the next twenty years would be 2008-2027 in that context, not 2000-2020.

Ummm...No. Some of the predictions started in the past. That way, at least part of the prediction might be right.:)

"The next twenty years" is what Geckko referred to and what I referred to. If Geckko has something to add I'm sure he will. Geckko requested an insult-free environment, but with you around that's too much to hope for. Perhaps you should just bugger-off and let Geckko have his say.

mhaze

29th July 2008, 11:19 PM

Glad to see you're keeping your finger on the research pulse. I didn't notice this one at all.....All those cycles put global conditions back where they were in 1881. The only confounding factor is the CO2-induced trend. How the hell they get 60% from shorter-term cycles - which by their very nature have no long-term trend - is a mystery.

Crappy translation from Chinese. link to pdf, good for 72 hours. http://www.snapdrive.net/qs/285b23a3e5ba

The 40.19% is the background residual trend. It does not have to be a CO2 trend - it is a "longer trend".

It could be

a gradual upswing on the 1500 year climate cycle,
cosmic ray/solar wind interaction
CO2
Asian brown cloud
soot
land use changes

some or all of these in unknown percentage ratio.

mhaze

29th July 2008, 11:46 PM

http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671

D. KOUTSOYIANNIS, A. EFSTRATIADIS, N. MAMASSIS & A. CHRISTOFIDES “On the credibility of climate predictions” Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53 (2008).

-----> "Climate models have no predictive value.”

early discussion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3902867#post3902867)

mhaze

29th July 2008, 11:55 PM

The trend is not zero or negative over that time period The only way you can get a trend nearing zero is to cherry pick as Watts did when he developed that graphic you linked. It’s a combination of noise in the trend and your misunderstanding about what the trend is. The current temperatures are well within the error bands the IPCC specified.

Really? (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ninety-month-trends-ipcc-ar4-2ccentury-still-outside-%C2%B195-uncertainty-bands/)

Geckko

30th July 2008, 07:35 AM

Use the linky, download the paper, answer your questions, then opine.

AR4 came out in 2007; the next twenty years would be 2008-2027 in that context, not 2000-2020.

Ummm...No. Some of the predictions started in the past. That way, at least part of the prediction might be right.:)

You would have thought the statements on the prjections would be dated from 2007, but if you read the AR4, all the projection are couched in terms of trends from 2000. So two decades means 2000-2020.

I kept to that time frame (maybe confusingly).

mhaze

30th July 2008, 10:25 AM

You would have thought the statements on the prjections would be dated from 2007, but if you read the AR4, all the projection are couched in terms of trends from 2000. So two decades means 2000-2020.

I kept to that time frame (maybe confusingly).I am fairly certain that this is an actual case of 5+ years hindcasting and 15- years futurecasting, but do you have a page refence to verify?

They should have at least got their hindcasting right.

fsol

30th July 2008, 10:58 AM

Really? (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ninety-month-trends-ipcc-ar4-2ccentury-still-outside-%C2%B195-uncertainty-bands/)

Your link doesn't actually address the time period under discussion here.

mhaze

30th July 2008, 11:22 AM

Your link doesn't actually address the time period under discussion here.Which? No doubt somewhere, some shard of minutae supports you. Wait... are you not going to simply ask Lomiller to "support his claim?", or abandon him in the face of mounting contrary and ongoing evidence from multiple independent lines of study?
Lomiller:
The current temperatures are well within the error bands the IPCC specified.

fsol

30th July 2008, 01:13 PM

Which? No doubt somewhere, some shard of minutae supports you. Wait... are you not going to simply ask Lomiller to "support his claim?", or abandon him in the face of mounting contrary and ongoing evidence from multiple independent lines of study?Lomiller:
The current temperatures are well within the error bands the IPCC specified.

So you linked a blog post about trends when really you wanted to point something out about the current temperature? That's good for you how?

If you want to ask Lomiller for evidence of his claim go ahead, just don't think your link says anything much about it.

Edit: You've probably realised that I am not exactly taking you seriously. Really what would be the point?

lomiller

30th July 2008, 01:49 PM

Really? (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ninety-month-trends-ipcc-ar4-2ccentury-still-outside-%C2%B195-uncertainty-bands/)

yes really (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf)

In fact since temperatures had been skirting the upper boundaries of the IPCC predictions for a number of years, a few flat years would make the their predictions almost bang on.

CapelDodger

30th July 2008, 03:23 PM

The 40.19% is the background residual trend.

From the abstract you pasted

"The dominant contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is the trend. However, its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales."

Attributing (with ridiculous accuracy) 59.91% to "natural climate changes on the four timescales"

In the paper itself

"By calculating the variance explained of IMF1–IMF4 and Res components (Table 1), we find that the variance contribution of the trend in the global is the largest (40.19%), followed by the quasi 60-year low-frequency oscillation IMF4 (24.15%). As for temperature in NH, the variance contribution of the trend is the most significant (62.71%), followed by the quasi 60-year low frequency oscillation IMF4 (15.31%)."

The logic behind this escapes me.

It does not have to be a CO2 trend - it is a "longer trend".

It could be

a gradual upswing on the 1500 year climate cycle,
cosmic ray/solar wind interaction
CO2
Asian brown cloud
soot
land use changes
some or all of these in unknown percentage ratio.

I find no mention of Asian brown clouds, soot, land-use changes, imaginary 1500 (+/- 500, remember) year cycles, etc, in the paper.

CapelDodger

30th July 2008, 03:30 PM

You would have thought the statements on the prjections would be dated from 2007, but if you read the AR4, all the projection are couched in terms of trends from 2000. So two decades means 2000-2020.

I kept to that time frame (maybe confusingly).

"For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios", as a statement made in 2007, presumably refers to the next two decades - 2008-2027.

Let's get back together in 2027 and see how that works out. I doubt they'll be far out.

CapelDodger

30th July 2008, 03:39 PM

Your link doesn't actually address the time period under discussion here.

The 21stCE has been a great comfort to some people so far. The future is a scary place, after all. That's why the after-life was invented.

My projection is that in twenty years time they'll be referring back to this decade and saying "warming stopped in the 2000's, so it might stop again". (I'm no great expert on climate, but I know a lot about people :).)

mhaze

30th July 2008, 06:40 PM

yes really (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf)

In fact since temperatures had been skirting the upper boundaries of the IPCC predictions for a number of years, a few flat years would make the their predictions almost bang on.
The much criticized Ramsdorf 2007, which Megalon kept posting the comparative chart from.

Parts relevant bolded; wrong page of the playbook. Gekko discussing AR4 2007-in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Although published in 2001, these model projections are essentially independent from the observed climate data since 1990...
So lets chuck that, which takes us back to:

Originally Posted by mhaze
Really? (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ninety-month-trends-ipcc-ar4-2ccentury-still-outside-%C2%B195-uncertainty-bands/)

mhaze

30th July 2008, 06:47 PM

....The logic behind this escapes me.
Okee Dokee.

I find no mention of Asian brown clouds, soot, land-use changes, imaginary 1500 (+/- 500, remember) year cycles, etc, in the paper.
And So?

If man made components do comprise the background trend it is the sum of all such. Etc. Wait, I already explained that.

lomiller

30th July 2008, 08:06 PM

The much criticized Ramsdorf 2007, which Megalon kept posting the comparative chart from.

Criticized by whom? You realize you can’t say something is “much criticized” based on your own criticism right?

Parts relevant bolded; wrong page of the playbook. Gekko discussing AR4 2007-in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Although published in 2001, these model projections are essentially independent from the observed climate data since 1990...

What are you trying to say? If the projections were based on actual data it wouldn’t be a projection. The fact that they are in part hindcasts gives us more confidence in them, not less.

So lets chuck that, which takes us back to:

Originally Posted by mhaze
Really? (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ninety-month-trends-ipcc-ar4-2ccentury-still-outside-%C2%B195-uncertainty-bands/)

If you’re content to leave it at your link to a blog vs my link to a paper published in Science, I can live with that.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf

mhaze

30th July 2008, 09:29 PM

David Rodale

30th July 2008, 09:43 PM

Criticized by whom? You realize you can’t say something is “much criticized” based on your own criticism right?

What are you trying to say? If the projections were based on actual data it wouldn’t be a projection. The fact that they are in part hindcasts gives us more confidence in them, not less.

If you’re content to leave it at your link to a blog vs my link to a paper published in Science, I can live with that.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf

If you’re content to leave it at your link to a blog vs my link to a paper published in Science, I can live with that. That should read:
If you’re content to leave it at your link to a blog vs my link to a an paper essay published printed in the magazine Science , I can live with that.

The AGW axiom:
1) Necessarily the climate models cannot be falsified.
2) If the climate models didn’t represent reality, they could be falsified.
3) Therefore the climate models represent reality.

Do you know what parameterization (fudging) is?

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions
based on comparisons with historical time series (http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/2/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPr.pdf)
As falsifiability is an essential element of science (Karl Popper), many have disputed the scientific basis of climatic predictions on the grounds that they are not falsifiable or verifiable at present. This critique arises from the argument that we need to wait several decades before we may know how reliable the predictions will be. However, elements of falsifiability already exist, given that many of the climatic model outputs contain time series for past periods. In particular, the models of the IPCC Third Assessment Report have projected future climate starting from 1990; thus, there is an
18‐year period for which comparison of model outputs and reality is possible......
On the credibility of climate predictions (http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671?cookieSet=1)
Abstract Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.There are many others, but also recently which you have no doubt read in full.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Feedback vs. Chaotic Radiative Forcing: “Smoking Gun” Evidence for an Insensitive Climate System? (http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/spencer-7-17-08.pdf)

What is earth's climate sensitivity lomiller?

Where is the missing hot spot?

Where is the missing heat from Hansen's "smoking gun"?

I'll be patiently waiting for the AGW scripted answers, unsupported statements and more magazine essays. Or will we be treated to more news hype on "unprecedented" Arctic ice melt?

BTW Capeldodger, in your haste to repeat ad nauseum (and erroneously) referring to Lindzen's "iris effect" as ridiculous, please note that satellite observations support his hypothesis. References available upon request, but then observations aren't really in the AGW Manifesto are they?

Geckko

31st July 2008, 02:01 AM

I am fairly certain that this is an actual case of 5+ years hindcasting and 15- years futurecasting, but do you have a page refence to verify?

They should have at least got their hindcasting right.

The climate projections are contained in Chapter 10 of AR4, which can be downloaded here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

It is very clear that the projections (e.g. "0.4 degrees warming expected over the the next two decades"; "0.2 degrees of warming already committed over the next two decades") relate to the model ensemble runs that were for 2000-2100. This is repeatedly mentioned through the chapter, for example here on page 753 where they introduce the approach taken to produce the projections:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_68674891700e5230d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13249)

Or, this is a nice one, showing graphically the process, of running the models from 2000, based on information up to that point (hence the incorporate the effect of the naturally warmer 1998 that might lead to slower temp increases in the short term because you are moving from a higher base):

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_68674891708266def.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13250)

What I am trying to do for myself is square the circle and this requires to compare information on an appropriate yardstick. The yardstick to assess the projection is the period over which they were made which was from 2000.

Geckko

31st July 2008, 02:11 AM

"For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios", as a statement made in 2007, presumably refers to the next two decades - 2008-2027.

Let's get back together in 2027 and see how that works out. I doubt they'll be far out.

I think you are right; that I can assess what happens over the 20 years from 2007. Equally I could do 20 years from 2010 or 2020.

But what I read is information about the IPCC projections from 2000 (although published in 2007) and now 8 years (40% of a 20 year projection) of observable outcome, plus some peer reviewed updated projections that cover the balance of that 2000-2020 period (which might end up being refuted, but presently stand in the literature).

That is useful information now - hence my initial quandry as outlined in the OP.

mhaze

31st July 2008, 12:18 PM

The climate projections are contained in Chapter 10 of AR4, which can be downloaded here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

It is very clear that the projections (e.g. "0.4 degrees warming expected over the the next two decades"; "0.2 degrees of warming already committed over the next two decades") relate to the model ensemble runs that were for 2000-2100. This is repeatedly mentioned through the chapter, for example here on page 753 where they introduce the approach taken to produce the projections:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_68674891700e5230d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13249)

Or, this is a nice one, showing graphically the process, of running the models from 2000, based on information up to that point (hence the incorporate the effect of the naturally warmer 1998 that might lead to slower temp increases in the short term because you are moving from a higher base):

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_68674891708266def.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13250)

What I am trying to do for myself is square the circle and this requires to compare information on an appropriate yardstick. The yardstick to assess the projection is the period over which they were made which was from 2000.

I thought that was where you were at, but wasn't sure. I've read that chapter many times.

For starters, there is this concept often expressed of "Warming yet in the pipeline" from the past accumulation of CO2 from the industrialized nations output which is supposed to keep warming the atmosphere even if emissions were drastically cut immediately.

No evidence of "warming yet in the pipeline" is displayed from 2000 on, though.

lomiller

31st July 2008, 02:37 PM

google <--- rahmstorf climate

answers this, nothing more needs be said.

As I said, if you don't want to specify which of these supposed criticisms you think are valid or come from valid sources I can live with that.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224489134dddac9a.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13245)

We "are doing better" at cooling than under the "draconian emissions" cuts scenario and we have had basically no emissions cuts.

As you have been informed of repeatedly, actual emissions fall just under “Hanson B”, the light blue line on the graph so those projections are bang on with reality.

lomiller

31st July 2008, 02:58 PM

What I am trying to do for myself is square the circle and this requires to compare information on an appropriate yardstick. The yardstick to assess the projection is the period over which they were made which was from 2000.

Perhaps this (http://www.realclimate.org/images/runs.jpg) will help, it’s a plot of the individual realizations that made up the IPCC ensemble prediction. Because climate is chaotic, a model will give a different result each time, so this is all the runs of all the models used. Note how wide the range is in the individual models, and how many have low and even legitimate cooling periods of nearly 2 decades.

Actual climate is similarly just one realization, so the range of possibilities should be as great as what you see in the model realizations.

CapelDodger

31st July 2008, 04:07 PM

BTW Capeldodger, in your haste to repeat ad nauseum (and erroneously) referring to Lindzen's "iris effect" as ridiculous, please note that satellite observations support his hypothesis. References available upon request, but then observations aren't really in the AGW Manifesto are they?

Consider the references requested.

CapelDodger

31st July 2008, 04:25 PM

I think you are right; that I can assess what happens over the 20 years from 2007. Equally I could do 20 years from 2010 or 2020.

But what I read is information about the IPCC projections from 2000 (although published in 2007) and now 8 years (40% of a 20 year projection) of observable outcome, plus some peer reviewed updated projections that cover the balance of that 2000-2020 period (which might end up being refuted, but presently stand in the literature).

That is useful information now - hence my initial quandry as outlined in the OP.

Presumably "For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2 per decade is projected" comes from the Summary for Policymakers, page 12. I see no reason to think that "the next two decades" doesn't mean precisely that - the next two decades, 2008-2027. Which, after all, is what policymakers are going to be interested in. We're hardly a year into that yet, so we'll have to wait and see.

Which may well be what the policymakers do; they've done squat so far.

CapelDodger

31st July 2008, 04:57 PM

That should read:
If you’re content to leave it at your link to a blog vs my link to a an paper essay published printed in the magazine Science , I can live with that.

Science is not just "a magazine". It is a prestigious journal which publishes peer-reviewed papers.

The AGW axiom:
1) Necessarily the climate models cannot be falsified.
2) If the climate models didn’t represent reality, they could be falsified.
3) Therefore the climate models represent reality.

Keep it up, you're doing your case no end of good.

Do you know what parameterization (fudging) is?

I know what flailing around looks like, and I'm looking at it right there.

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions
based on comparisons with historical time series (http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/2/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPr.pdf)

From the abstract

"Based on these analyses, we discuss the usefulness of climatic model future projections (with emphasis on precipitation) from a hydrological perspective, in relationship to a long-term uncertainty framework. "

Coming from the National Technical University of Athens, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, that's hardly surprising. It doesn't say much about temperature modelling (and I doubt you'll convince Greeks that there's been cooling since 2000).

On the credibility of climate predictions (http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671?cookieSet=1)

Not sure about that one, the link gives me some stuff about my cookie settings, but from the quote you provide it concerns eight (count them, eight) stations, and also gets into precipitation.

There are many others ...

I doubt that. Not just because you say so, but generally.

but also recently which you have no doubt read in full.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Feedback vs. Chaotic Radiative Forcing: “Smoking Gun” Evidence for an Insensitive Climate System? (http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/spencer-7-17-08.pdf)

Spencer again. The guy puts Don Quixote to shame.

Got anything relevant and credible?

What is earth's climate sensitivity lomiller?

Speaking for myself, it's sensitive enough that the world's glaciers and Arctic ice are disappearing rapidly.

Where is the missing hot spot?

What is this "hotspot" I keep hearing about? mhaze won't tell me, despite repeated requests.

Where is the missing heat from Hansen's "smoking gun"?

What missing heat?

I'll be patiently waiting for the AGW scripted answers, unsupported statements and more magazine essays. Or will we be treated to more news hype on "unprecedented" Arctic ice melt?

We'll be waiting for more of the same from you. I bet Spencer will be included.

The fact that you sing with a choir doesn't mean everyone does.

Pipirr

31st July 2008, 05:48 PM

Science is not just "a magazine". It is a prestigious journal which publishes peer-reviewed papers.

Its an oddity, because a lot of people would describe it as 'the journal Science'. But the AAS do in fact call it Science Magazine, and the URL is sciencemag.com. Maybe science.com was already taken...

I have found that 'Science Magazine' is a damn sight easier to find than just 'Science' in library system searches. The curse of a very generic journal name.

I would have gone with 'Science Journal' myself.

mhaze

31st July 2008, 06:02 PM

Its an oddity, because a lot of people would describe it as 'the journal Science'. But the AAS do in fact call it Science Magazine, and the URL is sciencemag.com. Maybe science.com was already taken...

I have found that 'Science Magazine' is a damn sight easier to find than just 'Science' in library system searches. The curse of a very generic journal name.

I would have gone with 'Science Journal' myself.

You would probably have made less money with your product then, as the number of people who picked up a copy in Barnes and Noble would have gone down. That is, people pick up "a magazine" from the "magazine racks" and buy "a magazine". I gotta conclude that thing is "a magazine".

Geckko

1st August 2008, 06:21 AM

Perhaps this (http://www.realclimate.org/images/runs.jpg) will help, it’s a plot of the individual realizations that made up the IPCC ensemble prediction. Because climate is chaotic, a model will give a different result each time, so this is all the runs of all the models used. Note how wide the range is in the individual models, and how many have low and even legitimate cooling periods of nearly 2 decades.

Actual climate is similarly just one realization, so the range of possibilities should be as great as what you see in the model realizations.

That isn't much help actually.

Don't forget I have read the original ;) (go to the link in the OP). They stress the use of ensembles rather than any single model run (presumably especially in the case where you have some observations and you are searching a large number of models to find one that fits the data - flawed statistics)

The WG1 report takes care to point out some of the following:

Many of the figures in Chapter 10 are based on the mean and spread of the multi-model ensemble of comprehensive AOGCMs. The reason to focus on the multi-model mean is that averages across structurally different models empirically show better large-scale agreement with observations, because individual model biases tend to cancel (see Chapter 8). The expanded use of multi-model ensembles of projections of future climate change therefore provides higher quality and more quantitative climate change information compared to the TAR.

and

The use of multi-model ensembles has been shown in other modelling applications to produce simulated climate features that are improved over single models alone (see discussion in Chapters 8 and 9).

mhaze

1st August 2008, 10:39 AM

That isn't much help actually.

Don't forget I have read the original ;) (go to the link in the OP). They stress the use of ensembles rather than any single model run (presumably especially in the case where you have some observations and you are searching a large number of models to find one that fits the data - flawed statistics)

The WG1 report takes care to point out some of the following:

Quote:
Many of the figures in Chapter 10 are based on the mean and spread of the multi-model ensemble of comprehensive AOGCMs. The reason to focus on the multi-model mean is that averages across structurally different models empirically show better large-scale agreement with observations, because individual model biases tend to cancel (see Chapter 8). The expanded use of multi-model ensembles of projections of future climate change therefore provides higher quality and more quantitative climate change information compared to the TAR.

and

Quote:
The use of multi-model ensembles has been shown in other modelling applications to produce simulated climate features that are improved over single models alone (see discussion in Chapters 8 and 9).

I fail to see any merit in a "mean" (multi-model mean) drawn from unlike sample populations, and error bounds from such a "mean" would seem to also suffer from a lack of meaning.

CapelDodger

1st August 2008, 05:23 PM

Its an oddity, because a lot of people would describe it as 'the journal Science'. But the AAS do in fact call it Science Magazine, and the URL is sciencemag.com. Maybe science.com was already taken...

I have found that 'Science Magazine' is a damn sight easier to find than just 'Science' in library system searches. The curse of a very generic journal name.

I would have gone with 'Science Journal' myself.

There's an in-house magazine element to Science ("This Week in Science", "News Focus", "Perspectives", book reviews, editorial, etc), it isn't just a dry-as-dust Journal. On the other hand, it's far from being "Hello!" magazine or whatever in-house newsletter Heritage Foundation or Discovery Institute members get. The stuff towards the back of Science has real meat in it.

The AAAS is just a club, but it's a prestigious club for good reason. The good reason being that it has standards, and the people involved in it take them very seriously.

CapelDodger

1st August 2008, 06:32 PM

I am trying to make sense of recent developments on the climate change front. I start with the IPCC views on the sources of forcings shown in this graph.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg

Conclusion: Anthorpogenic dominate natural by a wide margin.

Naturally , the logical conculsion is drawn in the AR4 Summary for Policymakers in the interpretation of what was making temperatures rise over the last 50 years, as in this quote:

And they go on to make the logical projected statement as follows:

So I am happy that I understand from that::

Natural forcings are theoretically too small to swamp anthropogenic forcings
Over the last 50 years anthropogenic forcings have easily dominated natural forcings (as theory suggested)
Over the next 20 years (2000-2020 in the context of AR4) the predictable natural forcings will not be enough to swamp anthropogenic forcings (even if the increase in anthropogenic forcings stopped completely in 2000)

But, here is the confusion. Standing in 2008 I have been seeing the following fairly recently:

Measured data showing no trend increase in temperatures for the last 10 years:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/11_year_global_temp.png?w=510&h=303

some recent peer review work citing "natural forces" as being likely to produce no further wraming for another 10 years - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html

That leaves me a little confused.

We believe that anthropogenic forcings dominate natural forcings and have done so significantly in the past and had expected them to do so over the future, but

Over the most recent decade global average temperatures have not increased despite anthropogenic forcings continuing to rise, which some researchers suggest might be due to natural forcings that were deemed to be theoretically and observationally too insignificant to have any material affect in comparison.
I hope that isn't too confusing.

I must confess to being a little confused by this. Quite apart from who "we" refers to, "The next ten years" in a paper published in Nature you take to mean the next ten years from now, whereas "The next two decades" in the AR4 (2007) you take to mean the next two decades from 2000. Perhaps it would be clearer if you specified exactly what you mean by "we", in this context.

We (meaning all of us) have been able to observe the glacial retreat, Arctic sea-ice loss, and permafrost-melt since 2000, thanks to the internet, satellite pictures, and reports from intrepid people with cramponed boots on the ground (of whom Watts ain't one, by the way). And we'll be able to observe the next few years as well. I don't see hope winning out over unfeeling reality, however the numbers are manipulated. (Not that Watts trusts numbers anyway, without photographs to back them up.)

The next two-to-seven years will weed out most of the speculation. We're on a steep learning-curve, one way or other.

lomiller

1st August 2008, 11:00 PM

mhaze

2nd August 2008, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze
The much criticized Ramsdorf 2007, which Megalon kept posting the comparative chart from.
Originally Posted by lomiller
Criticized by whom? You realize you can’t say something is “much criticized” based on your own criticism right?
Originally Posted by mhaze
google <--- rahmstorf climate
answers this, nothing more needs be said.
Originally Posted by lomiller
As I said, if you don't want to specify which of these supposed criticisms you think are valid or come from valid sources I can live with that.

Bwhahahaha!

Criticized by whom?

Self evident from a simple Google check, you should have done that first.

You realize you can’t say something is “much criticized” based on your own criticism right?

A made up yet irrelevant argument from one who didn't do any homework.

As I said, if you don't want to specify which of these supposed criticisms you think are valid or come from valid sources I can live with that.

As you didn't say. Your question was fully answered: Criticised by whom: Answer: Google ---> many.

Now you would change that goalposts and indicate you'd like more information. Why not just say it? If after studying the criticisms a bit you want to defend this paper go at it.

Oh wait - It wasn't even on the right IPCC report. Never mind.

CapelDodger

2nd August 2008, 03:27 PM

Bwhahahaha!

Criticized by whom?

Self evident from a simple Google check, you should have done that first.

So you've got nothing. Fair enough; nobody expected anything different.

mhaze

2nd August 2008, 05:26 PM

So you've got nothing. Fair enough; nobody expected anything different.Since it is not on topic (proven) and since I have shown many such links, your derail attempt is silly. But I leave you with an amusing tidbit from one of the many criticisms:

quantitative and rational evaluation of reality has its limits in the case of the climatic hot head (Stefan Rahmstorf)

Geckko

2nd August 2008, 05:50 PM

Ensembles improve the calculation of the trend, it does not remove natural variation from individual realizations. You are confusing the trend with the variation in the trend of one realization, the actual observed climate.

The earths climate is a chaotic system, so it will generally follow a trend but randomly be above/below that trend, sometimes for more then a decade. The range of values in the model runs show us the limits to that possible variation.

Please stay on topic. I meant this to address some specific issues. There are lots of other threads for partisan nitpicking.

I am confusing nothing.

We have the IPCC projections.

We have some data.

We have some new peer review research.

If you have nothing to say in answer to my OP, please don't send this into an irrecoverable OT spin like so many other threads.

CapelDodger

2nd August 2008, 07:04 PM

Since it is not on topic (proven) and since I have shown many such links, your derail attempt is silly. But I leave you with an amusing tidbit from one of the many criticisms:

quantitative and rational evaluation of reality has its limits in the case of the climatic hot head (Stefan Rahmstorf)

So you've still got nothing. Fair enough; nobody excepted anything different.

Dancing David

3rd August 2008, 07:54 AM

Wow, congratulation! This seems to have the minimum of trolling response ever.

I am glad to see that some people still can't muster more that the Discovery Institute and Plasma Cosmology type arguments.

Geckko, I am confused, what specific point would you like to have discussed? Thanks.

mhaze

3rd August 2008, 08:11 AM

Please stay on topic. I meant this to address some specific issues. There are lots of other threads for partisan nitpicking.

I am confusing nothing.
We have the IPCC projections.
We have some data.
We have some new peer review research......

Comments (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/global_warming_audit.html) by Dr. Scott Armstrong on Patrick Frank's article in Skeptic (2008, 14:1) (http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01resources/climate_of_belief.pdf) titled “A climate of belief”:

Frank demonstrates that the IPCC grossly under-reports the cumulative uncertainty of the model forecasts. The figure below from Frank’s article shows that, when proper allowance is made for uncertainty about the effects of clouds and greenhouse gases, the nominal bounds of errors in the complex IPCC models’ forecasts of temperature change by 2100 are plus or minus 120°C. As a consequence, the IPCC projections contain no useful information. It would be foolish indeed to base public policy on forecasts from such models.

Spud1k

3rd August 2008, 03:39 PM

Please stay on topic. I meant this to address some specific issues. There are lots of other threads for partisan nitpicking.

I am confusing nothing.

We have the IPCC projections.

We have some data.

We have some new peer review research.

If you have nothing to say in answer to my OP, please don't send this into an irrecoverable OT spin like so many other threads.

The issue is that climate forcing works on time scales of longer than decades, so looking at the variability over the last few years doesn't really tell you anything about any natural vs anthropogenic radiative forcing. Thanks to the heat capacity and dynamics of the oceans you could be increasing the amount of overall heat within the earth system and yet the mean surface temperature could be constant or even decreasing within the time bracket of a few years (and vice versa for that matter).

Bottom line is that it is far too soon to say whether the predictions in the latest IPCC report were accurate or not.

CapelDodger

3rd August 2008, 04:45 PM

The issue is that climate forcing works on time scales of longer than decades, so looking at the variability over the last few years doesn't really tell you anything about any natural vs anthropogenic radiative forcing. Thanks to the heat capacity and dynamics of the oceans you could be increasing the amount of overall heat within the earth system and yet the mean surface temperature could be constant or even decreasing within the time bracket of a few years (and vice versa for that matter).

Bottom line is that it is far too soon to say whether the predictions in the latest IPCC report were accurate or not.

The contrarian concentration on this current decade indicates, IMO, that we're into the end-game of the "controversy". In the next two-to-seven years we'll see global surface temperatures breach 1998, if only because we'll get a sustained El Nino during that period. 2005 matched 1998 without one. 2007 would have breached 1998 without the La Nina at the end (which, of course, stores up heat under the Western Pacific). I don't know how significant the amount of heat absorbed by the melting of Arctic sea-ice is, but it's not zero, and there's not much sea-ice left to absorb more.

When I see (as I have) contrarians make much of the difference between Jan 2008 and Jan 2007, I know I'm looking at a collapsing case.

CapelDodger

3rd August 2008, 04:52 PM

mhaze

3rd August 2008, 05:02 PM

....In the next two-to-seven years we'll see global surface temperatures breach 1998, if only because we'll get a sustained El Nino during that period. 2005 matched 1998 without one. 2007 would have breached 1998 without the La Nina at the end (which, of course, stores up heat under the Western Pacific). I don't know how significant the amount of heat absorbed by the melting of Arctic sea-ice is, but it's not zero, and there's not much sea-ice left to absorb more.....Since we are in the negative PDO phase and El Nino occurs in the positive PDO phase, you will not see your El Nino in your 7 year timeframe.

CapelDodger

3rd August 2008, 05:07 PM

Please stay on topic. I meant this to address some specific issues. There are lots of other threads for partisan nitpicking.

I am confusing nothing.

We have the IPCC projections.

We have some data.

We have some new peer review research.

If you have nothing to say in answer to my OP, please don't send this into an irrecoverable OT spin like so many other threads.

As I said in post #54, you have confused me. You have projections from the IPCC AR4 2007 for the next two decades, which you say means from 2000; you have a peer-reviewed paper in Nature referring to the next one decade, which you say means from 2008. That's in the OP.

Even if that made any obvious sense, lomiller has pointed out that the data from between 2000 and 2008 is too short to reveal anything about the climate trend.

If you could clear up the confusion it would be much appreciated.

CapelDodger

3rd August 2008, 05:20 PM

Since we are in the negative PDO phase and El Nino occurs in the positive PDO phase, you will not see your El Nino in your 7 year timeframe.

I've made my prediction, and now you've made yours. See you in two-to-seven years to settle up. If I'm wrong, I'll go hands-up like a true mensch.

lomiller

3rd August 2008, 05:40 PM

Please stay on topic. I meant this to address some specific issues. There are lots of other threads for partisan nitpicking.

If you are going to say the answer to your question is outside the topic I guess I can’t help you, nor is it likely that anyone else will either.

I am confusing nothing.

You most certainly are. The observed climate is just one realization of an infinite number of possibilities within a given range. Like an individual model run it’s a single realization. The IPCC isn’t attempting to predict the individual realization they are attempting to predict the range and mean of the possible realization. Just as with the models those individual realizations can have variation between them even on a scale of 10+ years.

As long as you do not understand the difference in behavior of the ensemble trend and individual realization, and trend for an individual realization you will never find an answer to the questions you are asking. The question I am now asking myself is if you are deliberately refusing to understand the distinction.

mhaze

3rd August 2008, 06:46 PM

I've made my prediction, and now you've made yours. See you in two-to-seven years to settle up. If I'm wrong, I'll go hands-up like a true mensch.

Well, I'm only stating some basic established science:

1. The PDO is about a 60 year cycle with a positive and negative section of about 30 years each.
2. The positive section of the PDO has El Nino, the negative has La Nina.
3. We are in a negative section (cooling).

Conclusion: There will be no El Nino in the next 2-7 years.

There are several "abouts" in 1, 2, and 3, granted; the exact start and stop of the negative phase we are in case only be guessed at; but you don't seem to be lined up with these basic facts....

So let me restate your premise:AGW will overwhelm the (relatively weak) global cooling effect of PDO negative/La Nina within 2-7 years because AGW is far more powerful an effect. If not El Nino, then some other powerful manifestation of AGW will come forth and do its job.
within 2-7 years.

But the planet disagrees with you:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224472bbd966fbd3.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9049)

And here is our favorite graph that sums this century up quite nicely. Now look over at .... 2000+. See the big black line? See the error bounds? See the line past 2000 goes D-O-W-N?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244723654333cdb.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8960)

Spud1k

4th August 2008, 02:58 AM

Well, I'm only stating some basic established science:

1. The PDO is about a 60 year cycle with a positive and negative section of about 30 years each.
2. The positive section of the PDO has El Nino, the negative has La Nina.
3. We are in a negative section (cooling).

Conclusion: There will be no El Nino in the next 2-7 years.

I wouldn't call #2 'basic established science' myself, but hey.

And here is our favorite graph that sums this century up quite nicely. Now look over at .... 2000+. See the big black line? See the error bounds? See the line past 2000 goes D-O-W-N?

Is it just me, or do the two sets of oscillations in your two graphs not match up time-wise? The two troughs in the top graph occur around 1920 and 1960, which correspond to periods of warming and cooling respectively in your bottom graph, putting the two phenomena out of phase with each other. More generally, the top graph doesn't seem to follow anything resembling a nice sinusoid pattern, so how can you justify using it for the bottom graph or having any confidence in its predictions?

You'll forgive me for being sceptical of hand-waving approaches such as this when it comes to explaining the decadal variations in climate. A few years ago, your crowd were claiming that these oscillations could be explained in their entirety by solar activity, but that all turned out to be wishful thinking. What makes this any different?

bobdroege7

4th August 2008, 03:36 AM

fsol

4th August 2008, 10:49 AM

Atmoz has an interesting looking post up about the PDO today.

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/08/03/on-the-relationship-between-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo-and-the-global-average-mean-temperature/

His post before that on the PDO is also interesting.

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/05/14/timescale-of-the-pdo-nao-and-amo/

mhaze

11th August 2008, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze
Well, I'm only stating some basic established science:1. The PDO is about a 60 year cycle with a positive and negative section of about 30 years each.
2. The positive section of the PDO has El Nino, the negative has La Nina.
3. We are in a negative section (cooling).
Conclusion: There will be no El Nino in the next 2-7 years.
Originally Posted by bobdroege7
This site lists el nino and la nina years from 1950 to 2003
http://ggweather.com/enso/years.htm
Note the lack of 30 year periodicity.

You are confusing ENSO with PDO, therefore your conclusion of no El Nino in the next 2-7 years is bunk.Since PDO is calculated (in hindsight, some years of) from ENSO, how could that be?

Just one of many explanations of the relationship, this from worldcimatereport.com: (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/02/13/more-bad-news-about-el-nino/)
the state of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the swing back and forth between the El Niño warm pools and La Niña cool pools, is strongly related to a much larger Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) covering much of the North Pacific Ocean and impacting the entire Pacific Ocean. The phase of the PDO can not only change the probability of having El Niño or La Niña, but the phase of PDO also determines how strongly El Niño or La Niña will impact weather conditions from Australia to Florida. Once again, we learn that things are more complicated than they seem at first – any discussion about global warming, El Niño, and effects on regional climates must account for potential changes in PDO.
Joseph, R. and S. Nigam, 2006. ENSO evolution and teleconnections in IPCC’s twentieth-century climate simulations: Realistic representation? Journal of Climate, 19, 4360-4377.

bobdroege7

11th August 2008, 11:59 PM

2. The positive section of the PDO has El Nino, the negative has La Nina.

I was just trying to point out that the statement above is just flat out wrong, and your world climate report article supports that.

from

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/02/13/more-bad-news-about-el-nino/

The phase of the PDO can not only change the probability of having El Niño or La Niña, but the phase of PDO also determines how strongly El Niño or La Niña will impact weather conditions from Australia to Florida.

So your conclusion that there will be no El Nino in the next 2-7 years is not supported by your arguments

mhaze

13th August 2008, 08:06 AM

I was just trying to point out that the statement above is just flat out wrong, and your world climate report article supports that. from
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/02/13/more-bad-news-about-el-nino/

So your conclusion that there will be no El Nino in the next 2-7 years is not supported by your argumentsYes, I should have said something like "El Ninos are mostly seen in the positive PDO phrase".

Atmoz has an interesting looking post up about the PDO today.

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/08/03/on-the-relationship-between-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo-and-the-global-average-mean-temperature/

His post before that on the PDO is also interesting.

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/05/14/timescale-of-the-pdo-nao-and-amo/

Nice articles, but a bit confused. He seems to think someone does not believe PDO is a cycle and/or that he needs to caution people about detrending, etc. Perhaps there is such confusion, but if so he does not carry the argument to a logical conclusion by identifying specific abusers of the PDO in climate arguments and showing their errors. In fact, to the contrary: his conclusions should caution Warmers about making conclusions about their (very short) 30 year 1978+ timeframe which is all they have for satellite records:It is important to be careful when making statements about long period oscillations in a time series that is short. When there are less than 2 full periods in the record, it is very difficult to say what the actual main period of the oscillation actually is.

When comparing two climate metrics, it is important to know their definition. It makes no sense to compare the temperature trend of the PDO to anything, since the PDO has no trend. If it is necessary to compare the PDO to the global temperatures, it is first necessary to detrend the temperatures or to calculate an adjusted PDO that includes the trend.