Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 Next
Comments 61901 to 61950:
-
Doc Snow at 00:31 AM on 14 March 2012New research from last week 10/2012
Indeed. I found the decadal rate of increase in mean temperature (.6 C) to be rather eye-popping. -
Kevin C at 23:57 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
I've just noticed that the solar coefficient here is 0.7 - was that read off the graph in the F&R paper? If so, then it's a touch high. Tamino gave a corrected version of the figure here, but the most precise source is the rates.txt file:
Following on from Tom's question on uncertainties, I've started looking at this, but there is a problem. I'm probably wrong, but I think Tamino may have plotted 4-sigma uncertainties on the coefficients by mistake, rather than 2-sigma. I've posted a question on his blog. The largest uncertainty is in the solar coefficient. Assuming the version in the table above is correct, it has a 95% chance of it lying between 0.030 and 0.092. ENSO plays a bigger role but is much better determined.mei volc solar tau giss 0.079103 -2.369368 0.061322 0.017092 se.giss 0.014634 0.477819 0.030961 0.001591 -
cynicus at 23:30 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Dale, as Robert Murphy points out there are usually multiple lines of independent evidence for a given theory and they all need to agree or, if they disagree, at least need to be explained why they disagree. There are the known properties of GHG's and their rapid increases, there are the direct GCR measurements and there are the paleoclimate records that disagree with the theory of GCR's moderating climate for a large part. For the GCR theory to be true all the lines of evidence against the GCR theory need to be explained which is very difficult. Preponderance of evidence shows it's very unlikely that changes in GCR are the source of late 20th century warming. -
JMurphy at 22:53 PM on 13 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103, I'm afraid you are still arguing based on incomplete information, which is never a good idea. As an illustration with regard to that 49% average, can you answer the following questions : What is the maximum percentage possible ? When does that maximum occur ? How much of that maximum is contributed by glacier-melt ? -
MA Rodger at 22:48 PM on 13 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
A bit of a Johnny-come-lately comment. I was prompted by a comment over on a RealClimate thread that said that Lindzen was now backtracking on the "significant warming" of the past century & now being dismissive of it. It occurred to me I had noticed that but not picked up on it. So I revisited the presentation & comment (also) here as this post is considering the London seminar in toto. pdf of seminar here P13-14 Lindzen goes all Winston Smith & presents temperatures 1851-1984. P35-36 Lindzen does a conjuring trick by shuffling the deck. The sequence of Artic temperatures he presents his audience is (filling in the gaps from here ) 2004, 2009, 1958, 2000, 1968, 1978, 1988, 1990. (His assertion that there is no trend is debunked by this post but I don't see mention of his sneeky shuffling trick.) And finally, the real unscientific stuff. P15 & his thin red line. (The 93rd Highlanders will be spinning in their graves!) Comparing Boston's weather with global climate is saying that variations in global mean temp of +/-4 deg C is not a problem (still "nomal") and +/-20 deg C would not be unprecidented. (Hope my F -> C convertion is correct.) In this I see Lindzen's membership of the Global Village Idiot Club having been upgraded to Full Life Membership. -
Robert Murphy at 21:06 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
@37 Dale, it doesn't matter if he shows a strong effect from GCR's on clouds; GCR's have not been trending down over the last 40-50 years as would be needed in order to produce less clouds and therefore warmer temps. He has to rewrite cosmic ray history in order to be vindicated. Good luck with that. -
Dale at 20:42 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Robert @36 If Svensmark can prove it, then it isn't effectively dead as an explanation. It puts it on the discussion table. But until that day, it's just another unproven claim. Besides as I said, it's all just a part of the general mix of forcings. -
Robert Murphy at 20:08 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Dale@ 35 It doesn't matter what Svensmark's paper says or shows. The GCR hypothesis is effectively dead as an explanation for recent warming. Even if there was a big effect from GCR's on clouds (a very big *if*), there has not been a trend of decreasing GCR's over the last 40-50 years, which the hypothesis requires. The Sun has been going in the wrong direction for Svensmark's claims. "then it's possible that radiation from other suns may too (even if a tiny tiny amount)." You're talking many, many orders of magnitude too small of an effect. Changes in our Sun's TSI has a very small effect; nothing other stars do will be measurable. -
Dale at 19:42 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Bern @33 The CERN experiments have really only started, so it's too early to tell. Svensmark has also announced he has a paper in review right now which is the last component of his theory. Once again, too early to tell. But I think it's fair to say that if radiation from our sun affects our climate, then it's possible that radiation from other suns may too (even if a tiny tiny amount). However it only takes a minute change in clouds to cause a big effect. It's all just a part of the general mix of forcings that make up our climate. :) -
Rob Painting at 19:24 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Michael Hauber @30 - the MSU satellite record exhibits greater year-to-year variability than the land surface temperature records, so in a statistical sense the chances of the next two years breaking the 1998 record are smaller. In other words, you could well be right - for satellite temperatures at least. -
Bern at 18:47 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Dale @ 32: what are you sceptical of, then? The magnitude of AGW, compared to natural forcings (and thus the expected warming impacts over the next century or two)? Also re GCRs - I presume you read the SkS posts on that? -
Dale at 18:21 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
scaddenp @25 A sceptic is not allowed to believe in an AGW effect? ;) As for GCR's, let's wait till Svensmark and CERN have finished their little projects, eh? But note I did predict it would be a very weak effect.Moderator Response: [JH] GCR = Galatic Cosmic Rays -
Dale at 18:15 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
owl905 @26 I'd be careful using a few days data to compare against cycle predictions. Sure, this week SSN's may be anything up to 100, but less than 2 weeks ago it was around 33. Month by month SSN fluctuate wildly and we're seeing high SSN's right now due to the CME's. I'm sure by the end of the month SSN's will have calmed right down again. Flux is still pretty low, a small indication the cycle is still "calm".Moderator Response: [JH] CME = Coronal Mass Ejection, i.e., a massive burst of solar wind, other light isotope plasma, and magnetic fields rising above the solar corona or being released into space. SSN = Smoothed Sunspot Number -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:37 PM on 13 March 2012New research from last week 10/2012
In Saudi Arabia temperatures have increased and precipitation has decreased significantly
I wonder if the Saudi leaders will look at this result and question whether their own crude oil exports are so good for the common people after all. Those who have acquired riches from oil can afford to relocate, but what about the rest of them? As a very wise man once said, the love of money is the root of all evil. -
Michael Hauber at 17:13 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
I've done some analysis of UAH monthly temperatures and ENSO and concluded that a 2-4 month lag of ENSO state is not the most accurate way to model the impact on temperature. I prefer a seasonal cycle, and the peak ENSO influence and temperature impact is actually in the same month. However a lag on average appears because a typical ENSO event builds gradually from the middle of the year, whereas the temperature impact is negligable until around November or December when the temperature change becomes quite rapid. Once the peak impact is reached in January an ENSO event typically decays steadily until roughly the middle of the year. However the temperature impact only reduces quite slowly until about the middle of the year when the temperature influence finally reduces relatively rapidly. The upshot of this is that the temperature of 2012 has been largely determined by the current ENSO phase. Any impact from a developing warm ENSO event will not be felt until very late in the year. With current UAH temperatures quite low, I can't see any more than a very low chance that UAH will challenge for the record on an annual basis. However late in the year (after June) will see a substantial rise in temperature and I believe would be a high chance of achieving a daily record (for day of year) and a moderate chance of achieving a monthly record at some stage. However a warm ENSO phase for 12/13 would then pretty much lock 2013 in as being a very warm, with a high chance of breaking the annual record. My current gut feel is that we will see a short lived warming ENSO event that will return to cool-neutral during the critical peak months around Dec-Jan, and that 2013 will have a very slight cool influence from ENSO, and will not reach a record. This is for UAH, which tends to react more to ENSO then GISS does, and I haven't looked in as much detail at the link between ENSO and temperature for GISS. I think the forecast in this article looks quite reasonable. -
mohyla103 at 16:28 PM on 13 March 2012It's not bad
MarkOhio: Thank you. JMurphy: When I do find a way to get access to the articles I will read them. I don't understand why you would say "what's the point". Saying that it "would appear that [I am] not here to discuss, but only to make baseless accusations and to stick to [my] beliefs come what may" is not only rude but is also baseless and should be withdrawn. I *still* stand by my claim. Here is the HARD EVIDENCE which you have requested but, even though I presented it above, you have not yet confronted: The Singh, Jain, Kumar paper's abstract states "The average snow and glacier runoff contribution to the annual flow of the Chenab River at Akhnoor is estimated to be about 49 percent." It doesn't really matter what the rest of the paper says, the abstract already tells me that snow and glacier melt together make up less than 50 percent of the flow in this river. There's no way the paper can have any figure higher than 49 percent for glacial melt alone... unless snowmelt somehow imparts a negative amount of water to the river. Also, unless snow melt accounts for 0% of the flow in the river, the amount from glaciers MUST be even less than 49%. So for Barnett to cite this source as evidence for a 50-60% glacial melt contribution is in fact WRONG. Please acknowledge this or I will have to believe it is you who is going to stick to his beliefs come what may. Considering he definitely misrepresented data from at least this source, wouldn't you think it reasonable to examine the other sources more closely as similar errors are likely? Apparently peer review completely missed the error in Barnett citing this source, which is why I don't have the same "confidence that those who have produced all the papers referred to did so using figures that have been checked and confirmed by others" like you do. In light of recent discussion, I will restate my position: 1. "misleading claims that make me skeptical of AGW reporting accuracy in general;" I stand by this, as Barnett's use of data has been proven to be wrong in at least one case. Notice I said skeptical of "AGW reporting" not "AGW itself". It's the exaggerations in reporting that irritate me. 2. "Glaciers and annual snowfall are quite different things but Barnett seems to ignore the difference.;" I can rephrase this as "Barnett seems to ignore the difference in citing at least one paper, where he cited a 49% for combined glacier and snow melt figure as evidence for 50-60% contribution from glacial melt alone". 3. "After checking the three sources for these figures, I find this claim to be very misleading!" can be rephrased as "After checking the abstracts of these three sources, I find Barnett's claim to be misleading. At least one abstract proves Barnett misrepresented the data, so careful examination of the other 2 sources is definitely warranted." 4. "But I hope you'll agree, that Barnett's paper is misleading and a misrepresentation of data." can be rephrased as "But I hope you'll agree that the figures in this part of Barnett's paper are misleading and a misrepresentation of data." -
Bernard J. at 16:24 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
As Table 1 shows, 2012 may break the temperature record, though the prediction is well within the margin of error. Thus if the El Niño doesn't form as soon or as strong as expected, or if solar cycle 24 stalls, or if one of the factors not included in this simple analysis (such as aerosols or clouds or other ocean cycles) acts in the cooling direction, 2012 will probably not break the record.
I had a stab at this prediction a few months ago, although I framed it thus:The annual GISS January-December land-and-sea mean global temperature anomaly for the next WMO-defined El Niño year will be: 0.70 ± 0.10 degree celcius.
I'm happy to stand by it. -
jyyh at 16:06 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Is there a need for an alarmist view on things to come wrt to the global temperature? I started writing something of the 'known unknowns' as an exercise, and I'm currently on track to get nearly double values for the 2013 or rather for 2014, some of the effects are just too slow. The exercise: To get maximum value for delta-T in short term predictions (2-5 years), one would have to argue for the suppression of the arctic (and antarctic) ice loss by the incoming currents (possibly by the THC shutdown mechanism?), while stating what the sudden ultra-large methane bursts would do. Additionally one has to make arguments of the continued rise of ocean surface temperatures (increased stratification) to get the maximum effect on temperature. Clean up of SOx in China and the lack of volcanic eruptions (because the world gets rounder with the glacier loss) would have an effect. And then there's the possibility of the solar cycle to continue for long since the sun had a long rest period (giving hydrogen more time to sink to the fusion layer of solar innards). All this while all the oil/gas pipeline networks have fatal failures for a solar flare so large the controlling circuits fuse together (here you might guess this is made somewhat tongue in cheek). The text has very little maths currently, so it's easy to read! I won't post it here though. Maybe nowhere, since it's an exercise. -
R. Gates at 15:39 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Excellent post Dana. With the caveats you've noted, I think you're pretty close to being on target. Now how well can we predict how the skeptics will respond to a new record warmth in he next few years? My guesses as to what they'll say: 1) It was all ENSO and Solar 2) Continued recovery from the Little Ice Age 3) Reduced cosmic rays caused less clouds 4) The uncertainty monster had a fever 5) Urban heat island effects 6) Residual effects from the 1998 super El Niño 7) Mars is warming too 8) Can we talk about "Climategate" instead? 9) Who cares? Plants love it! 10) Isn't Monckton an awesome debater! Finally, while over the long-term, there is little doubt as too the direction of tropospheric temperatures in the 21st century, with or without a new Maunder- type minimum, and also little doubt as to the cause of that increase, I am still more interested in watching ocean heat content, and certainly hope we can get more readings at deeper levels very soon. The troposphere can be quite fickle with such a low heat capacity compared to the ocean. Whereas the ocean is both s better record of the past and is key to dictating how warm we'll be getting from our antropogenic experiment on our planet's energy balance. -
owl905 at 15:32 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
From here, Dana1981 has put out a mid-line forecast for 2012. While some of the factors are treated aggressively, Cycle 24's dance with El Nino appears to be conservative. In contract to Dale 21 forecast, Cycle 24 is ready to roll. Hathaway's reduced forecast was partly a reaction to the screaming memee's yelling Dalton Minimum cooling. Hathaway's revised forecast But like many of the recent redacts and retracts, Solar Cycle may have a Cycle 23 punch in it - not never, just late. Spotless quiet days: Current Stretch: 0 days 2012 total: 0 days (0%) 2011 total: 2 days (<1%) 2010 total: 51 days (14%) 2009 total: 260 days (71%) (Source http://www.spaceweather.com/) And the sunspot activity is rising, not sputtering along - March is already beating Hathaways max 2 years ahead of his 'peak': Sunspot Activity Bar Chart Some volcanic activity would actually be a bit more good luck (put Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan under house arrest for the duration). The GHG concentration is primed for a combination with Cycle 24 and an El Nino - not only is warming back on, but the shallow ocean temp trend pushes up, and there's a lottery with the winning region getting a scorch. China hasn't been mauled yet ... they're due. Whattaworld - hoping for a volcanic surge and a La Nina ... -
scaddenp at 15:00 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
"but only rising due to AGW and solar peak (weak as it will be)" That's not very "skeptical" of you! So, you position is that GHGs do have an effect but go with mysterious GCR effect to reduce the rise. Well actually observing a link between a weak solar magnetic flux and cloudiness would change climate science. We shall see. -
Dale at 14:41 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
scaddenp @22 If I had to put figures on it, let's go with 0.53C for 2012 and 0.55C for 2013. I think SOI may still be a bit too high to indicate a moderate El Nino. If one does develop I think it'd be pretty weak. Personally I think we'll see a weaker La Nina than this last one, in the neutral zone, but still negative. I also think a weaker TSI and weaker solar magnetic flux will result in cloudier skies, which would only add to any dampening. Hence why I predict 'stead as she goes'. Spose it's not technically flat, but only rising due to AGW and solar peak (weak as it will be). -
dana1981 at 13:51 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
sauerj @20 - Figure 1 is the average of all 3, while Table 1 is just GISS. -
scaddenp at 13:26 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Good for you Dale. Want to hazard some actual numbers for 2012,2013? I hope you are betting too. Should Dana turn out correct (which I am not hanging my hat on - I'd go 0.58 provided weak El Nino develops), how does that effect your skepticism? -
Dale at 13:07 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
You dared a sceptic to predict. Ok. I think we'll see a shorter than usual solar cycle. Currently, cycle 24 is progressing in start-stops, sort of like a car when you push the pedal to the floor, it accelerates then the cylinders skip and you stall. I predict this will continue throughout 2012 with a weak peak end of 2012/start of 2013. Flux is also indicating a weak cycle and early peak. Anyways, with that in mind I think TSI will not rise, but stay the same. With a weak sun this year, the trade winds will kick in over the Pacific (warm Atlantic, cool Pacific). If a La Nina develops as a result, it'll be pretty weak, weaker than the last. Overall with those points in mind I'm going to predict 'steady as she goes' with pretty much stable temps across the two years. After that it's anyone's guess. With predictions of a solar minimum (grand or not is yet to be known) we may see some slight cooling after 2013 for a couple of years. After 2015........ *shrug* -
sauerj at 11:14 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Dana, Very interesting! One question: The observed values in Table 1 don't seem to match the graphed values in Figure 1. The difference doesn't appear to be a consistent constant. Is this because Table-1 is only average of NOAA & GISS data, while Figure-1 includes HadCRUT data? -
Andy Skuce at 10:14 AM on 13 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
Here's an image of a model calculation of a pulse of CO2
About half of the CO2 gets absorbed in the ocean very quickly (over centuries), another quarter reacts with calcium carbonate in seawater (over millennia) and the remaining quarter is removed by reactions with silicate rocks (over hundreds of millennia).
-
Andy Skuce at 09:51 AM on 13 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
PluviAL: I suggest that you read this general-readership article from Nature. The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a concept that is either easy to understand or quantify and the notion is not very intuitive. I too, intuitively believed that all the emissions would be rapidly absorbed by natural processes. David Archer (cited in that article) summed up the consensus view succinctly in his book The Long Thaw as:The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this.
-
ianw01 at 09:26 AM on 13 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
Andy, yes indeed that name seems familiar, and the hosting organization fits perfectly. Thanks for filling me in, and for a thoughtful original post. -
PluviAL at 09:17 AM on 13 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
I differ intuitively with similarities item f: It seems if the contribution of CO2 by civilization is 29 "somethings" and the planetary budget is 750 of the same "somethings" measure. That is: the oceans and plant life contirbute a far greater amount, than that the anthropogenic CO2 contiribution. If so, than it can esily be consumed by nature once fossil fuels stop being used. I understand the oceans storage is an issue, but the same mechamisims apply. To claim an effective life 12 to 14 thousand years seems incorrect. My intuition is that once we get past fossil fules, the problem is not so big. The problem is replaceing the huge wealth of energy stored in corbon, and too hard to rationalize, to the consuming public, taxing it. This is a sincere concern, any direction is appreciated. -
Andy Skuce at 08:42 AM on 13 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
ianw01: That speaker would probably be Chris de Freitas. I attended a lunchtime talk given by him sometime in the 1990's (it may well have been the same one you went to) hosted by the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. I too recall being a little shocked by his snarky attitude and the reaction of the audience. Had this been a talk on any other scientific subject, I doubt that the audience would have reacted the same way; it was most unprofessional. De Freitas subsequently, in 2002, published a paper in the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology. I have since learned that that paper was reviewed by Willie Soon and Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who were hand-picked by the journal's then editor, Tim de Freitas, Chris's brother. This particularly irks me because the Bulletin is otherwise a fine scientific journal. Earlier in the 1990's, I published a paper in the Bulletin and also acted as a reviewer. Because of the CSPG's unscientific and politicized stance on climate change, I choose no longer to be a member of the society. -
Albatross at 08:28 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Hi Dana, Interesting post. You are probably aware that the UK Met Office also issues a forecast for the global annual mean temperature, here is the link for those who are not familiar with their forecast. They are predicting that 2012 will be warmer than 2011, but not be as warm as 2010 was. I'll be bold and also make a prediction for 2012 using a simple analogue approach. Like others my assumption is that there will not be a major eruption the tropics loading the atmosphere with aerosols, and that neutral to weak El Nino conditions will dominate for the remainder of the year. Most current products are not predicting a moderate or strong El Nino at this time. Using the GISTEMP global surface temperature product my guess estimate for global surface air temperature anomaly for 2012 is +0.57 to +0.61 C, with a best guess estimate (very unscientific I know) of +0.59 C. IMHO, Dana's estimate of +0.65 C is at the very upper end of the possible range. So I very much doubt that 2012 will break the existing record (2013 is definitely a candidate though), but note that 2012 could be the first La NIna year which breaks the anomaly of +0.57 C set in 1998 following a super El Nino. If 2012 ties or breaks the anomaly set in 1998, that in its own right will be highly significant and disturbing landmark. So it could be an interesting year. -
ianw01 at 07:24 AM on 13 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
Not to pile on the geology aspect, but my "moment" was in the mid 1990's when I was invited by a geologist friend to a talk by a noted climate change scientist at a luncheon hosted by a geologists' association. (If my memory serves me correctly the speaker might have been from New Zealand.) I went in eager to learn about the issue and was dismayed at his flippant attitude toward the possibility of humans having an effect. The lack of real in-depth data, and half-explanations left me shocked. But even more so, I was shocked by the receptive laughter to his jokes that mocked climate science. I only left with one conclusion: be very skeptical of so called "skeptics". Interestingly, I had another such moment years later visiting a web site associated with Tim Ball, who was cited in the local media. The half-true pseudo-science, clearly crafted to confuse people with minimal science background, was enough to prod me to do some real research, and SkS proved to be a credible source for me. I find it fascinating how I can credit the deniers for my climate science education. Well - more accurately credit to them and the SkS authors, who might or might not wish to share such credit! -
Tor B at 07:15 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
I'm curious why Indian aerosol increases are seldom mentioned, but Chinese aerosols frequently are. (I have some Google researching to do...) I suspect that continued summertime Arctic sea ice loss will have an increasing contribution towards increasing global temperatures. Some projections of sea ice coverage suggest extreme reductions in the next few summers. More energy will go to increasing surface temperatures and less to melting sea ice. (My gut pessimism on Arctic sea ice, however, is proven to be unreliable.) -
miffedmax at 06:51 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Wait. I thought Monckton et al had promised us that we were beginning a long cooling trend. -
william5331 at 06:44 AM on 13 March 2012‘Storm of the Century’ to become ‘Storm of the Decade’
Structures such as a port have to be built on the coast (obviously) but wouldn't it be more sensible to pull every other construction back from the coast rather than trying to build bigger sea walls. The same goes for flood plains. Turn areas that will be inundated into parks, wild life reserves, even sports grounds and simply avoid the problem. If you have been to Hawaii, for instance, you will see hotels with the front door right on the beach. That is just asking for trouble and spoiling what should be a beautiful area for recreation. -
Chris G at 06:22 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
The probability of a new record rises with each coming year, but if the solar peaks in 2013, then it will still be above average for a year or two after that, during which time input energy is likely to be higher that output energy; so, whatever effect it has will continue to push temps higher. Depends a lot on the lag time, but much like it is hotter at 2PM than it typically is at noon, I suspect the next peak in temp will be some time after the next peak in TSI. If the ENSO was in a cool phase last year, then it should peak, assuming a 5 period, toward the end of 2013 or 2014. 2014 would coincide with my guess of max effect for TSI; so, I pick 2014 as the next year we are likely to see a larger than average temp increase. 'Course, next peak and next record are different measures, and aerosols, volcanic or industrial, could easily nix all that. Then again, declining summer sea ice could albedo-push it up. My two cents, probably worth every penny. -
esjope at 04:59 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
A new record will most likely be made in a few years. But most people fail to see how much the sulphur emissions have increased since 2000 (mostly in Asia). Climate cooling emissions from shipping have also increased. And since the emissions from ships are distributed across the world's oceans planet's reflectivity has increased even during recent years. Even rather dark particles are more reflective than ocean surface so aerosol cooling is especially effective off-shore (add the secondary effects on clouds and we get surprisingly big numbers). Do we have any evidence that China's aerosol emissions would be decreasing any time soon? Sulphur emissions from ocean-going ships are expected to decrease 2020 or 2025. We'll surely make some impressive new records when aerosol emissions really start decreasing. -
John Hartz at 04:40 AM on 13 March 2012Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)
@Alex C: The SkS system automatically generates a single daily email alert about all of the articles posted on a given day. You are correct. One does have to sign-up for this service. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no glitches in this system since it was created in mid-2011. Prior to that time, an email alert would automatically be generated each and every time an article was posted. -
dana1981 at 04:11 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Actually GISTEMP LOTI has 0.35 and 0.40 for Jan and Feb 2012. So we have to average close to 0.7°C anomalies the rest of the year to break the record. Doesn't seem likely. -
Piet R. Zijlstra at 03:50 AM on 13 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
Since the first Club of Rome report –this month exactly 40 years ago – I recognized the exponential growth principle. Working in the chemical industry I was indeed confronted with depleted resources and/or much higher costs of energy and raw materials. Also in 1972 deniers acted against the Club Of Rome message. And I recognized that the denier-message was much easier adsorbed by colleagues and friends. Although most of them actually did not buy or read the report! It made me angry! With the concept of exponential growth in mind I looked to the global population figures. Four (4) billion in 1974, with growth factor 1.75 to 7 billion in 2012. (I cannot coop with the label of “overpopulation”). The next area is the use of fossil fuels. The concept of Peak Oil is clear. The unavoidable energy transition did only recently start. Many renewable energy production or conversion systems are short after start-up in “death valley”. Development is hampered by to small scale operations, NIMB-actions of citizens, too high costs and severe energy storage and distribution problems. At this moment I do not detect the right urgency in the main press. Going with the use of fossil fuels we earn the CO2-problem. The last six months I studied Climate Change. I came to the conclusion that mankind is actually doing a geo-engineering process. The atmosphere and oceans do change in composition. And it cannot be avoided and the effects are not clear at all. After reading on skeptical and denier blogs and following the main press I had at a weak period in my thinking. They got me almost in their camp! I really needed to study the science again and again to know where my believe should be based: in the scientific approach. Recently I choose to do a study on scientific thinking. My focus is communication of climate change to the public. Actually I am still angry and want to use the adrenaline shot in a positive way. The SkepticalScience website has been of great help in forming my opinion. -
bibasir at 03:38 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
If 2013 is +.76, that will be a really hot year. Even if the next few years after are cooler, it will still be harder for skeptics to claim warming has stopped. One very hot year per decade with several that exceed the previous decades hottest year make the trend pretty clear. 2012 is starting out pretty cool with Jan at .40 and Feb at .51. Ten more months to go, but it will take some .7's to bring up the average. -
dana1981 at 03:07 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Tom - yes, perhaps it would be more accurate to change the 'CO2' column to 'other', and 0.02 to 0.017. But it's a small difference. Coincidentally, there's also a very good chance that 2012 will be the hottest La Nina-influenced year on record, though it might not technically qualify as a La Nina year per the WMO criteria in Figure 1. What would really be interesting would be if there is an overall negative ENSO influence on the 2012 temperature anomaly, and yet it still ties or breaks the record, as will be the case if my prediction is correct. -
Flakmeister at 02:59 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
First time poster, long time lurker, and a veteran of "climate wars" in the blogosphere... Coincidentally, I made almost the exact same bet on a record in the next few years at Zerohedge.com, I did qualify with the caveat that there be no major volcanic eruptions... Anyway, I would like to thank the authors of this blog for my making my defense of AGW so much easier... If you would like to have real fun, try hanging out at an unmoderated financial website dominated by right wing libertarian types... Believe it or not, I feel that is the real frontline in the AGW debate...And the debate is not for the feint of heart...Over time there is a growing minority, even at such sites that knows AGW is real, but are actually afraid of voicing their opinions for fear of ridicule... The recent FR2011 and Hansen papers are exactly what is needed in this debate... They are clear irrefutable evidence that the climate is changing and my two biggest clubs in the battle against ideologically driven denial... Don't laugh, it is a war out there.... PS My background: Ph.D. physics, 20 years in academia followed by 5 years on Wall St....now semi-retired... -
Tom Curtis at 02:52 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
dana @8, the 0.017 C per annum is the residual trend in GISTEMP when the influence of MEI, TSI and AOD have been removed by Forster and Rahmstorf's method. Therefore it is the contribution of all other factors to that trend, including all GHG, Aerosols and any long term natural oscillation (if any). The Chinese have been cleaning up their aerosol emissions, so that may be a good reason to think the underlying trend will increase in the near future, but based on the evidence of the last 40 years, with all factors included it is just less than 0.02 C per annum. I am less skeptical that 2012 will break the record. My gut suggests that 2012 is more likely to be in the upper half of the uncertainty range, and 2013 in the lower half. But guts are notoriously bad predictors, so I'll stick with my tweaks on your prediction (for stated reasons). -
Alexandre at 02:40 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Makes sense, and it certainly got me curious enough to keep my eyes on GISS global temps to see how it turns out. -
pbjamm at 02:32 AM on 13 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
Doc Snow@36 Very similar experience to mine. A contrarian acquaintance of mine was in the habit of posting long messages full of damning evidence on an IRC channel that we both frequented. At the time my acceptance of AGW was based mostly on my general acceptance of science and not on any particular strongly held conviction so his barrage of evidence forced me to really investigate what he was saying and what I believed. The first thing I discovered was that he was not performing the same level of investigation as his source often contradicted his premise. After a few months of him posting some nail-in-the-coffin-of-global-warming, me actually reading it and replying with facts, and him calling me a socialist stooge (no joke) I gave up arguing with him. -
Steve Metzler at 02:29 AM on 13 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
Unfortunately, that interview was about 2 mins shorter than it needed to be to get an important point across about the Wegman Report. It's not the plagiarism in the WR that does the most damage to the layperson's viewpoint of the usefulness of paleoclimatology, but rather the fundamentally flawed statistics, as detailed here: Replication and due diligence, Wegman style Wegman accepted McIntyre's flawed and cherry-picked PCA analysis without doing the slightest bit of due diligence on it. In short, the WR was a colossal stitch-up of MBH98 using way over-persistent red noise to generate the random time series, then cherry-picking the top 100 most hockey stick-like PCs from the 10,000+ simulation runs. This Wegman/McIntyre stitch-up is described in Mann's book (which I just finished reading this morning), but alas, did not make it into that interview. -
dana1981 at 02:04 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Tom - yes, the CO2 influence should be closer to 0.017°C, but don't forget there are other GHGs as well which will add a small warming contribution, though they may be offset by aerosols. It's all just a rough estimate, and +/- 0.1°C looks to be a good estimate of the margin of error, which again suggests a very good chance that 2013 will break the record. Like Kevin, I'm skeptical that 2012 will break it, but we'll see. It mainly depends on that El Nino. -
Tom Curtis at 00:29 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Michael Sweet @5, you are correct, my bad. However, given the way Dana sets his prediction up in Table 2, the difference is 0.003 C in 2011, 0.006 C in 2012, and 0.009 C in 2013. That would suggest my predictions should be: 2012: 0.64 C (having rounded down) 2013: 0.76 C (- 0.01 C for the lower anthropogenic increase, plus 0.01 C for the expected understatement of the effect of the El Nino).
Prev 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 Next
