Global Cooling

[tomclarke]

tom,

Look up the de Vries cycle. It is so well known it has a name. But perhaps you don't know about it because you think CO2 has ALL the answers.

I don't think anything I've posted here indicates that. But nor do I think you have good evidence the de Vries cycle causes large forcing. I'll be interested to see it (with numbers).

OK. You agree about ocean cycles. Now do you suppose that if they were in the models the heating imputed to CO2 would be a lot less?

That is actually quite funny. They are in the models - but of course model averages do not p[reserve ENSO phase and so you say the phase-induced variability. A recent (paywalled) paper shows, by selecting model runs with the correct ENSO phase matching observations over the period, that these models match the recent 20 years temperature history very well and in fact match any 15 years segment in the last 50 uyears very well. It is clever work and I'll post it in a new thread where we can discuss currents if you like?

================

Your faith is charming. And you will do everything your mind allows to keep it. Doubt is your friend.

I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning. - Aleister Crowley

I think I'd rather quote TH Huxley than Aleister Crowley:

I do not mean to suggest that scientific differences should be settled by universal suffrage, but I do conceive that solid proofs must be met by something more than empty and unsupported assertions.

Science ... commits suicide when it adopts a creed.

Oh devil! Truth is better than much profit. I have searched over the grounds of my belief, and if wife and child and name and fame were all to be lost to me one after the other as the penalty, still I will not lie.

Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. I have only begun to learn content and peace of mind since I have resolved at all risks to do this.

===============

If there is room for mavericks you should study them. It is possible they are correct and you are not.

WUWT is not uniformly good. True. But neither is the literature you point to.

In fact events will show that which you have put your faith in is uniformly bad.

Of course nothing is universally good. I have little patience with WUWT because of teh large number of transparently false arguments posted there. I'm happy to prove this by knocking down any such. You hjave made a few here (not sure if from WUWT) and I've replied.

Gor me, such a low signal to noise ratio is a pain because to se whetehr these arguments are really false or not i have to take them seriously, read them, read the related work, etc. It all takes time.

I don't think I've given you any evidence that I am faith-driven here other tahn that I don't agree with you. But where that has been tested with facts have I come out worse?

===============

Re: Lysenkoism. Ah. We do it differently in America. We do not suppress alternatives to the official theory. But officials do make sure the official theory pays much better. Human nature being what it is.... And keeping a few disbelievers around is a good thing. It shows that the science is "open". Until the call goes out to hang them.

As to science - I prefer the open methods at WUWT and other such sites to the methods you prefer. The UEA papers revealed a LOT.

The science against CO2 has gotten better over time. And now we are on the cusp of events that will shatter that whole theory. Except among the very faithful. Be patient.

Indeed, the recent lesson in ENSO-induced internal variation has been an object lesson for many. When it reverses deniers will no doiubt have to find new and less polemic buttresses to their faith. Perhaps I need to post that ENSO paper, and the other related evidence (there has been quite a bit).

[TDPerk]

" When it reverses deniers will no doiubt have to find new and less polemic buttresses to their faith."

When it reverses it will still show that natural variations in the planet's average temperature dwarf what humankind is doing to influence that metric.

[tomclarke]

" When it reverses deniers will no doiubt have to find new and less polemic buttresses to their faith."

When it reverses it will still show that natural variations in the planet's average temperature dwarf what humankind is doing to influence that metric.

You might want to look at the woodfortrees temperature graphs (on another thread here).

Nature beats AGW over long timescales - obviously - and over very short timescales are regional ones.

But a sustained 3C increase in global temperature, while it does not seem a lot compared with weather extremes, is a big deal in terms of biosphere and weather changes. The holocene interglacials are incredibly stable by geologic standards and a udden 3C jump in temperature is extreme for them, and you'd expect it to have signifivcant effects. Of course, ice ages have more significant efefcts though the glacial/interglacial cycle has been going on a while now so no doubt at the speed at which glaciation and glacial recession happens (slower than AGW increase) it seems that the biosphere adapts quite nicely.

Life is generally very adaptable. I don't worry for it. But I think the cost of massive relocations in our industrial city-rooted society coiuld be high.

[TDPerk]

"But a sustained 3C increase in global temperature, while it does not seem a lot compared with weather extremes, is a big deal in terms of biosphere and weather changes. "

There's no reason to think that 3degC increase will be realized, because the mechanism to produce it is disproved by reality.

It's not warmer, hasn't been for around 17 years. Not here, not there, not anywhere.

Not with respect to the planetary average.

[TDPerk]

The holocene interglacials are incredibly stable by geologic standards and a udden 3C jump in temperature is extreme for them, and you'd expect it to have signifivcant effects.

Well since CO2 is overwhelmed by natural variation now and has been for 17 or so years, it's far more likely it won't happen at all.

"But I think the cost of massive relocations in our industrial city-rooted society coiuld be high."

There will be no relocations, none would ever have been required even if AGW was real. The costs of the global war on all developing nations to prevent them from producing CO2 would be catastrophic.

[tomclarke]

The holocene interglacials are incredibly stable by geologic standards and a udden 3C jump in temperature is extreme for them, and you'd expect it to have signifivcant effects.

Well since CO2 is overwhelmed by natural variation now and has been for 17 or so years, it's far more likely it won't happen at all.

I think you need to read the IPCC reports. At 0.15C/decade we have 1.5C/ hundred years. However because of the long time constant in the oceans it is expected that temperature increase will speed up over time (it already has if you look at the graph) so 2C/hundred years looks more plausible, and 3C possible.

I think you are perhaps not seeing the large effect that average temperature has on ecosystems - for example pests, diseases, wildlife, plant cropping.

You are also not noting the evidence already for regional temperature changes, like the N Pole which has heated up +3C so far, altering global weather patterns. Both the N US cold spell and the UK uber-storm season and the UK stuck cold winters, and stuck hot summers, have as likely cause the change in the jet stream behaviour. because it is driven by temperature difference between poles and lower latitudes warming poles means it slows downa nd as result it meanders more. These meanders can the sometimes get stuck so that the UK (or N US) is continuously either outside or inside it, so respectively giving unusual constant hotter o colder weather. It is fascianting stuff, and still somewhat speculative, but a good example of the dramatic weather changes you get from even small changes in temperature.

Of course, maybe for those we care about, over all AGW will just make weather better? Lets hope.

[TDPerk]

"At 0.15C/decade we have 1.5C/ hundred years. However because of the long time constant in the oceans it is expected that temperature increase will speed up over time (it already has if you look at the graph) so 2C/hundred years looks more plausible, and 3C possible."

Only if the natural, cyclic variation in temperature the warmists mistook for evidence of human caused warming really is human caused and by CO2, and some as yet undiscovered mechanism suppressing that warming for the last 17 or so years doesn't operate again for the rest of the century...and also no other does.

[tomclarke]

"At 0.15C/decade we have 1.5C/ hundred years. However because of the long time constant in the oceans it is expected that temperature increase will speed up over time (it already has if you look at the graph) so 2C/hundred years looks more plausible, and 3C possible."

Only if the natural, cyclic variation in temperature the warmists mistook for evidence of human caused warming really is human caused and by CO2, and some as yet undiscovered mechanism suppressing that warming for the last 17 or so years doesn't operate again for the rest of the century.

The last 17 years hiatus is understood nicely from recent work:

James S. Risbey, Stephan Lewandowsky, Clothilde Langlais, Didier P. Monselesan, Terence J. O’Kane & Naomi Oreskes

The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

[williatw]

The last 17 years hiatus is understood nicely from recent work:

James S. Risbey, Stephan Lewandowsky, Clothilde Langlais, Didier P. Monselesan, Terence J. O’Kane & Naomi Oreskes

The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

Yes I have heard that as the explanation for the 15 (in fact I thought it was longer than that) year hiatus in warming. But tell me if you know...how many more years of hiatus in warming are we allowed before it is acknowledged that it is unexplainable with the current model of GW; that is a true anomaly?

[TDPerk]

Yes I have heard that as the explanation for the 15 (in fact I thought it was longer than that) year hiatus in warming. But tell me if you know...how many more years of hiatus in warming are we allowed before it is acknowledged that it is unexplainable with the current model of GW; that is a true anomaly?

He's still disputing it's even real. The mark is nowhere near to cluing he's been conned.

[MSimon]

Yes I have heard that as the explanation for the 15 (in fact I thought it was longer than that) year hiatus in warming. But tell me if you know...how many more years of hiatus in warming are we allowed before it is acknowledged that it is unexplainable with the current model of GW; that is a true anomaly?

williatw,

We are on the cusp of at least 20 years of cooling. There are numerous blog posts out there that show that ocean cycles and solar output explain everything we have seen so far. And in addition predict 20 years of cooling.

here are a few that reference the literature:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/17/s ... -the-past/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/04/ ... -30-years/ - this year he has stated that the manifestations of a move to a little ice age climate will be observable by this winter.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8207005214

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-coo ... here/10783
Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. He has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change. For further details see his list of publications.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/13/a ... t-to-2050/
Since then, the prognostications of astute scientists with respect to Solar Cycle 24 amplitude have come to pass. Some commentators though are over-reaching and predicting a recurrence of the Maunder Minimum. We now have the tools to predict climate out to the mid-21st Century with a fair degree of confidence, and a repeat of the Maunder Minimum is unlikely. A de Vries Cycle repeat of the Dalton Minimum is what is in prospect up to the early 2030s and then a return to normal conditions of solar activity, and normal climate.

That said, the temperature fall over the next 22 years should result in a higher rate of carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans. The logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide is shown by this graph, using data derived from the Modtran site at the University of Chicago:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/13/a ... t-to-2050/

[mvanwink5]

Tom still has utmost faith in "scientists" despite the sordid past episode of eugenics. Those guys were also progressives.

[mvanwink5]

And arctic ice:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014 ... e-maximum/
We were supposed to be ice free by now, quite inconvenient. Quick, call Al Gore.
And arctic temperature:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
The site has trends back to 1958; this is the coldest summer for the arctic that I found. Perhaps Tom can find a colder one. Very inconvenient.

[MSimon]

The last 17 years hiatus is understood nicely from recent work:

James S. Risbey, Stephan Lewandowsky, Clothilde Langlais, Didier P. Monselesan, Terence J. O’Kane & Naomi Oreskes

The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

So why haven't the other models been removed from the ensembles? Well it turns out the models not removed predict "catastrophic" levels of warming. If you remove those the whole scare goes away.

And note: they cherry pick some models and then say "climate models have provided..." which needs to be revised to "some climate models have provided...."

Now we are entering a significant cooling phase. I look forward to seeing which models with CO2 as a driver can predict that.

And BTW the paper needs to be revised. We are at 17 years.

[tomclarke]

The last 17 years hiatus is understood nicely from recent work:

James S. Risbey, Stephan Lewandowsky, Clothilde Langlais, Didier P. Monselesan, Terence J. O’Kane & Naomi Oreskes

The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

So why haven't the other models been removed from the ensembles? Well it turns out the models not removed predict "catastrophic" levels of warming. If you remove those the whole scare goes away.

These are actually model runs, not models. The point is that these models simulate (quite accurately) ENSO type weather patterns. But such patterns are chaotic and so what direction they are in is random and not usually aligned with the real world. SOME models try to resolve this by artificially keeping the moel in lock with the real world - but of course that is "cheating" and introduces other errors.

So the "model prediction" goes wrong because the correct phase models are averaged with the wrong phase models.

And note: they cherry pick some models and then say "climate models have provided..." which needs to be revised to "some climate models have provided...."

What this shows is that the pause comes mostly from ENSO phase wrong. Cherry-picking is nothing to do with that - because the cherry in this case is just a model that tracks the real-world for ENSO, and no-one can reasonably expect models to predict chaotic events like ENSO.

Now we are entering a significant cooling phase. I look forward to seeing which models with CO2 as a driver can predict that.

2014 so far by all measures looks to be hotter than typical, so I don't see that. Perhaps you are confusing regional with global temps? I know its been cold in US. In any case this work shows that the pause so far can be mostly explained by ENSO phase, and unless you expect some magic influence to change forever the ENSO/AMO.

Your significant cooling phase is moonshine.

And BTW the paper needs to be revised. We are at 17 years.

15 years looks good to me for the length of the "pause".