Recent Comments

Prev  2544  2545  2546  2547  2548  2549  2550  2551  2552  2553  2554  2555  2556  2557  2558  2559  Next

Comments 127551 to 127600:

127551. Robbo the Yobbo at 02:51 AM on 14 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        The IPCC assesses the level of scientific understanding of solar irradiance changes as low. Chris can obviously improve on that with such confidence. How the hell could solar irradiance peak in 1950 if it was increasing from the beginning of satellitte observations in the late 1970's - by 0,05%/decade - 0.8 W/m2 minima to minima. Solar irradiance changes are the cause of 25 to 50% of temp changes from the LIA. You calculate that yourself - albeit at the lower end of the estimates. Calculating TSI change from sunspot numbers? Gee that must be accurate. Idiot.
        Response: Play nice, children. I would suggest you read some of the work of Sami Solanki (eg - Usoskin 2005, Solanki 2004, Solanki 2003 and much much more...), one of the world's leading solar researchers, who has done much work modelling solar activity and constraining the results with proxies like sunspot numbers. I would also suggest an overview of the data on the long term solar trend.
127552. chris at 20:23 PM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Your assertions simply don’t accord with the facts thingadonta. It’s a continual reassertion, over and over, of things that are simply not true. Hansens’ analysis of attributions to 20th century warming include all of the known contributions based on the individually parameterized estimates from the relevant scientists working on the particular area (solar scientists, or scientists that study aerosol contributions and so on). The contributions modelled in the analysis of Hansen and his collaborators are solar, greenhouse gases, natural and anthropogenic aerosols, land use changes, black carbon, ozone, stratospheric ozone… Since these are described explicitly, it doesn’t make sense to continually deny what is right there on the page: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf you can look at the specific attribution of parameterizations in mind-numbing detail in the papers describing the attributions; e.g.: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf Since Hansen is not a solar scientist, it makes sense for him and his colleagues to parameterize solar contributions based on the best estimates of solar contributions determined by solar scientists. These data are determined by Lean and colleagues, by Solanki and his group, by Foukal, by Lockwood and their colleagues and so on. These analysis demonstrate that the solar contributions to 20th century warming are small. The entire solar contribution since the depths of the Maunder minimum are likely no more than 0.2 oC. The solar contribution to 20th century warming is most likely less than 0.1 oC (pretty much all of it realized before that very marked onset of late 20th century warming) [*]. So there simply hasn’t been a strong solar contribution to 20th century warming. There was a small contribution in the first part of the century corresponding to something like 0.1 oC. The solar contribution since the early 1980’s has been a tad negative. Altogether the 20th century solar contribution has likely been below 0.1 oC. That’s simply what the science indicates thingadonta, and it would be foolish for Hansen not to use the best data in his parameterizations. I don't see any point in continually denying this! As for lags, we’ve been through this already. The maximum rate of response to a change in forcing occurs essentially immediately when there is the greatest difference between the pre-existing temperature and the new equilibrium temperature to which the earth’s surface will tend under the influence of the forcing. Since the solar output increased somewhat between 1900 and 1950 (it maxed around 1950), and the total contribution to surface warming at equilibrium from that change in forcing is no more than 0.1 oC, we expect that a good bit of this was achieved by 1950 (say 0.04 oC) and by the early 1970’s we’d likely had 0.06 oC of this. Any contribution to the warming of the last 30-odd years was simply insignificant. That's what the science indicates. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for denying the evidence. ---------------------------------------- [*]J. L. Lean and D. H. Rind (2008) “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006″, Geophys. Res. Lett.35, L18701., who conclude their analysis with:

        “For the ninety years from 1906 to 1996, the average slope of the anthropogenic–related temperature change in Figure 3d is 0.045 K per decade whereas Allen et al. [2006] concluded that the rate is 0.03–0.05 K per decade for this same period. Solar-induced warming is almost an order of magnitude smaller."

        In other words around 0.05 oC solar contribution to warming during period 1906-1996. L. Balmaceda, N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki (2007) “Reconstruction of solar irradiance using the Group sunspot number” Advances in Space Research 40, 986-989

        Abstract: We present a reconstruction of total solar irradiance since 1610 to the present based on variations of the surface distribution of the solar magnetic field. The latter is calculated from the historical record of the Group sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model. Our model successfully reproduces three independent data sets: total solar irradiance measurements available since 1978, total photospheric magnetic flux from 1974 and the open magnetic flux since 1868 (as empirically reconstructed from the geomagnetic aa-index). The model predicts an increase in the total solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum of about 1.3 Wm−2.

        1.3 W/m2 since the 17th century Maunder minimum is equivalent to a warming contribution of around 0.2 oC [1.3 * 0.25 (geometry)* 0.7 (albedo)* 0.8 (sensitivity)] over this entire period of which 0.1 oC or less is 20th century. And so on.
127553. Gord at 19:26 PM on 13 August 2009
        It's the sun
        More on the role of the SUN and the Greenhouse Effect ----------------------------------------------------- First, what the AGW'ers say: Greenhouse Effect "In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature of 14 deg C (57 deg F) could be as low as -18 deg C (-0.4 deg F), the black body temperature of the Earth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect NOTE: THE ABOVE USES THE TERM "BLACK BODY". This calculation uses an albedo of 0.3. A "black body" actually has an albedo = 0, not 0.3 ! This calculation uses a Sun temp of 5505 deg C or 5778 deg K. TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D) ) )^0.5) Where TE is blackbody temp of the Earth in K TS is the surface temp of the SUN in K (5778 K) Rs is radius of the Sun (6.96 X 10^8 meters) D is distance between the Sun and Earth in meters (1.5 X 10^11) a is albedo of the Earth and is 0.3 for a NON-black body Result: TE = 254.90 Kelvin TE = -18.25 Celsius -------------------------------------------------------- Sun temp "The Sun's outer visible layer is called the photosphere and has a temperature of 6,000°C (11,000°F)." (6000 deg C = 6273 deg K) http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D) ) )^0.5) Where TE is blackbody temp of the Earth in K TS is the surface temp of the SUN in K (6273 K) Rs is radius of the Sun (6.96 X 10^8 meters) D is distance between the Sun and Earth in meters (1.5 X 10^11) a is albedo of the Earth and is zero for a black body Result: TE = 302.55 Kelvin TE = 29.40 Celsius -------------------------------------------------------- Temperature on the Surface of the Sun There are five sources for the surface temp of the Sun (6000,5500,5700,6000 and 5600 deg C). The average is 5800 deg C or 6073 K. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/GlyniseFinney.shtml TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D) ) )^0.5) Where TE is blackbody temp of the Earth in K TS is the surface temp of the SUN in K (6073 K) Rs is radius of the Sun (6.96 X 10^8 meters) D is distance between the Sun and Earth in meters (1.5 X 10^11) a is albedo of the Earth and is zero for a black body Result: TE = 292.91 Kelvin TE = 19.76 Celsius -------------------------------------------------------- The calculations using a max Sun temp of 6273K and average Sun temp of 6073K, and correctly using an albedo = 0 for a Black Body completely falsifies the statement: "In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature of 14 deg C (57 deg F) could be as low as -18 deg C (-0.4 deg F), the black body temperature of the Earth" In fact, the addition of an atmosphere actually LOWERED the "black body" Earth temp (29.4 deg C (max) or 19.76 deg C (average)) to +14 deg C. -------------------------------------------------------- Never, ever forget that the SUN is the ONLY ENERGY SOURCE. The Earth and the Atmosphere ARE NOT ENERGY SOURCES!
127554. NewYorkJ at 16:41 PM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        thingadonta (#62): "I didn't say that he said 'the sun had nothing to do with it'," thingadonta (#49): "which in turn was made from his inference about a 'heat imbalance', which in turn was made from his inference that the sun had nothing to do with it," thingadonta (#62): "he merely completely failed to address long term (and short term) solar changes in his 2005 paper." I have the paper right in front of me. A quote: "Solar irradiance is taken as increasing by 0.22 W/m2 between 1880 and 2003, with an estimated uncertainty of a factor of 2 (9)." from the abstract... "Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, AMONG OTHER FORCINGS, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 T 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This IMBALANCE is confirmed..." (CAPS are my emphasis) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf One might also want to read the GISS 2008 surface temperature analysis. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ I encourage all skeptics seeking truth to avoid getting their views of the science from unreliable blogs (or at least take a long break from them), which often distort reality and create strawman arguments. This especially seems to be the case with regards to any work or quotes by Dr. Hansen. Instead, subscribe to a few scientific journals, spend a few weekends reading the IPCC report and references, and keep an open mind.
127555. NewYorkJ at 16:16 PM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        "This blog post was about the errors in McLean et al." I thought the topic of discussion was . This often becomes the case when their arguments are refuted. Spin the "Hottest Skeptic Arguments" wheel and try again...
127556. NewYorkJ at 16:10 PM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Wow. I can't believe there's still someone clinging to McLean et al. after such a thorough debunking. Old habits die hard. Wattsupwiththat? thingadonta, Solar variation has been addressed on many occasions in the peer-reviewed science. The contribution in recent decades is negligible or that of cooling. The "long lag" assumption (Scafetta) doesn't hold water. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/ Recent study that exposes some of these assumptions: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml Others: http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~kaas/forc&feedb2008/Articles/Lockwood&Froehlich2007.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full.pdf "He also has completely failed in his predictions of T since that time, which were based on the inferences in his 2005 paper." You're seriously attempting to evaluate climate predictions based on 3-4 years?
127557. Robbo the Yobbo at 14:16 PM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Thingadonta - you may find this relevant - I believe it is to be publishd tomorrow but there is a preview at WUWT. It links the decadal ocean cycles with Earth's radiative imbalance - that is the radiative imbalance changes sign with the cycles - and discusses lags as well. I must actually read the whole thing before making any comment however. Cheers Robbo ‘Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance D.H. Douglass and R, S, Knox Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, PO Box 270171, Rochester, NY 14627-0171, USA We determine Earth’s radiation imbalance by analyzing three recent independent observational ocean heat content determinations for the period 1950 to 2008 and compare the results with direct measurements by satellites. A large annual term is found in both the implied radiation imbalance and the direct measurements. Its magnitude and phase confirm earlier observations that delivery of the energy to the ocean is rapid, thus eliminating the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred. Longer-term averages of the observed imbalance are not only many-fold smaller than theoretically derived values, but also oscillate in sign. These facts are not found among the theoretical predictions. Three distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative imbalance are found: 1960 to the mid 1970s, the mid 1970s to 2000 and 2001 to present. The respective mean values of radiation imbalance are −0.15, +0.15, and −0.2 to −0.3. These observations are consistent with the occurrence of climate shifts at 1960, the mid-1970s, and early 2001 identified by Swanson and Tsonis.’ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/11/ocean-heat-content-and-earth%E2%80%99s-radiation-imbalance/
127558. Patrick 027 at 12:51 PM on 13 August 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        You do realize Hansen does not actually mean that we are slices of bread that have been exposed to heat emanating from nichrome wires, don't you?
127559. Robbo the Yobbo at 11:41 AM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Thingadonta - you should really check out the NASA site and study on TSI. There is a trend in TSI of about 0.7 W/m2 per decade from the start of satellite measurements in the late 1970's. Quite significant on top of the increase from 1850. There is still nothing here but kneejerk reaction to the McLean et al paper. The paper shows what is obvious - a close correlation of ENSO to global temperature. They speculate - not only allowable but essential in any scientific publication in exploring other connections - that the decadal variation in ocean temperature as a result of conditions during and after the 'Pacific Climate Shift' impacted on global surface temperature in the period 1976 to 1998. Decadal variaitions in ENSO have an impact on surface temperature trends obviously - because the Pacific Ocean climate satate has reverted to a cool La Nina mode since 1998 and the planet is cooling. Posit another rational explantion - please? Is Alliecat typical of global whiners? A science free zone, specialises in insults and is off trekking in South America. Why am I not surprised?
127560. thingadonta at 10:45 AM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        re:50 You shouldnt automatically dismiss everything you don't immediately understand. This issue is discussed in previous post, regarding solar heat lag. Hansens 2005 paper failed to address the increase in solar activiy between 1750-1950 and how this affects the oceans, which have a long lag time, potentially leading to an apparent 'energy imbalance'. This measured heat content of the oceans and the increase from 1955-1998 was inferred by Hansen to be due to greenhouse gases, however there is no mention in the paper, or the press release of how oceans interact long term with increase in output from the sun. From this apparent 'heat imbalance', he further infers a 'climate disequilibrium', and also predicts record breaking T in the first decade of the 2000s, which didnt happen, nor did he predict the flattening of ocean T, in line with a flattening solar output. His entire argument may be wrong-ie the 'imbalance' could be a case of solar heat lag effects, and there is therefore no climate disequilibrium. Because he doesn't bother with the suns effects, which are known to have heat lags, it is wilful ignorance, which stems from ideology. This only remotely has to do with ENSO/PDO and Mclean et al 2009 because the oceans are important in all this, and the increase in the long term trend may be a lag effect from the sun. But Mcleans paper is about short term effects.
127561. Alliecat at 09:32 AM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        "There was no personal attack on Hansen. " Really? "... self-perpetuating idea guru Hansen" seems pretty personal. As for "understanding", well, you have yet to demonstrate any. This blog post was about the errors in McLean et al. Errors which you still have not acknowledged. Until you do, you have zero credibility and have demonstrated zero understanding. Verbosity is not understanding. The ability to use a search engine is not understanding. You demonstrate *nothing* except persistence in the absence of evidence. But I'm off for an extended hiking trip and won't be around for months (unless I come across an internet cafe somewhere in the Andes...) so I'll leave you to your little denialist fantasy world.
127562. Robbo the Yobbo at 07:06 AM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93620main_sun5m.jpg solar irradiance changes – AR4: 0.12 W/m2 increase – NASA: 0.8 W/m2 increase minima to minima from the late 1970’s. ‘Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.’ IPCC confidence estimate – low Direct aerosols – AR4: -0.5 W/m2 – Myhre et al 2009*: -0.3 W/ms2 IPCC confidence estimate – medium to low *Comparison of the radiative properties and direct radiative effect of aerosols from a global aerosol model and remote sensing data over ocean cloud albedo – AR4: -0.7 W/m2 – Goode and Palle 2008*: +3.7 W/m2 from 1984 to 1998 and -2 W/m2 from 1998 to 2008. IPCC confidence low *Inter-annual trends in earth's reflectance1999-2007, E. Palle, P. Montanes-Rodriguez, P.R. Goode, Journal of Geophysical Research Are James Hansen and the IPCC incorrect? Only if they fail to incorporate new data into their thinking – and this seems very much to be the case for many global warming activists around the world.
127563. Robbo the Yobbo at 04:37 AM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Should I say I was not talking about trends in a single factor - either atmospheric or ocean temps - but about both. I think that should be fairly evident in context. You make statements that are arrogant, uninformed, juvenile and facile. Nothing with any mature science content or depth of understanding that can be responded to at any sensible level. The comments by Thingadonta about Hansen were in the context of an argument on the issues. Simply mentioning a name in a context of sidcussion on relevant points is not an ad hominem argument. There was no personal attack on Hansen. But to respond in terms such as gibberish, ranting and bizarre says more about you than anything else. I politely keep correcting your misconceptions without making much of an issue of it - but you insist on responding in personal terms - and as I say without any correct science content.
127564. Mizimi at 01:28 AM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
        That should have been '1998 was of course a very warm year'
127565. Alliecat at 21:33 PM on 12 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        "I was not however talking about trends but about total heat content of the climate system and how it is evidently not increasing." This is a self-contradictory statement. To say something is "not increasing" *is* a statement about trends. Basic logic failure there. Were thingadonta's absurd statements about Hensen "polite discourse"? Or is ad hominem only a bad thing only when it is directed to you? I consider making provably false statements (as you repeatedly do) to be impolite. If you don't like my tone that's your problem.
127566. Robbo the Yobbo at 21:05 PM on 12 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Alliecat - the ARGO project came on line in mid 2003. You should stop your annoying and pointless ad hominem arguments - not me this time but it is not appropriate for a polite discourse. 'Since mid-2003, the Argo array of profiling floats and the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite gravity mission have made independent observations of the steric and mass components of sea level rise for the first time. Using these data, we investigate recent variability in the components of MSL on seasonal to interannual timescales and their agreement with the independent observation of total sea level rise from satellite altimetry.' Willis et al 2008 - link below Any previous analysis is based on very scarce data points. For instance - an estimate of Gulf Stream transport changes was based on 5 observations over 40 years. Levitus et al used 5 year aggregates because of lack of pre ARGO ocean temp data points. See Harrison and Carson 2007 for a discussion of pre ARGO data density, geographical coverage and trends. There are simply not enough data points with insufficient geographical coverage and an insufficient length of record to be accurate or definitive. The identification of multi-decadal variation with a multi-decadal time series is especially problematic. See: Harrison, D.E., and M. Carson. 2007. Is the World Ocean Warming? Upper-Ocean Temperature Trends: 1950–2000. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 37, 174-187. The ARGO (and Grace) analysis by Willis et al 2008 show that despite: ‘the short period of the present analysis, these results have important implications for climate. First, from 2004 to the present, steric contributions to sea level rise appear to have been negligible. This is consistent with observations of ocean surface temperature, which show relatively little change in the global average between 2003 and 2006 [Smith and Reynolds, 2005, http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html]. It is in sharp contrast, however, to historical analyses of thermal expansion over the past decade [Willis et al., 2004] and the past half-century [Antonov et al., 2005; Lombard et al., 2005; Ishii et al., 2006]. Although the historical record suggests that multiyear periods of little warming (or even cooling) are not unusual, the present analysis confirms this result with unprecedented accuracy. http://ecco.jpl.nasa.gov/~jwillis/willis_sl_budget_final.pdf The case of the missing heat was not addressed in the ocean cooling blog. There is heat (equivalent to the enthalpy of fusion) that is internalised in meltwater. That was the question asked by Thumb. The conclusion of the ocean cooling blog was that 6 years of data was not sufficient to characterise trends. Indeed - that is patently correct. Harrison and Carson show why 51 years of data is not sufficient to idenitfy trends. I was not however talking about trends but about total heat content of the climate system and how it is evidently not increasing. The lack of warming falsifies the idea of a radiative imbalance resulting in a monotonically increasing global heat content over the past 6 years. Simply - the planet is not warming as predicted.
127567. Alliecat at 20:20 PM on 12 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        What a load of gibberish. Hansen has never said "the sun had nothing to do with it". Where do you get this nonsense? Another case of the Gish Gallop - ignore the evidence, change the topic a bit, and just keep ranting. Just bizarre.
127568. thingadonta at 19:08 PM on 12 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        One thing the ocean isn't doing is: -warming the atmosphere to "breaking the 1998 record within a few years after 2005" as predicted by self-perpetuating idea guru Hansen in his 2005 paper press release, made through his inference about 'climate disequilirium', which in turn was made from his inference about a 'heat imbalance', which in turn was made from his inference that the sun had nothing to do with it, and the data was accurate, not ambiguous.
127569. Alliecat at 17:21 PM on 12 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        "It isn't in the ocean - ARGO data shows cooling for 2003 to 2008." And warming for 2002-2008. Nice cherry picking. Also, the ARGO data is very ambiguous - depending on how you analyse it, you can get warming, cooling, or no change over the same period. So your statement "It isn't in the ocean" simply isn't supported by the evidence.
127570. Robbo the Yobbo at 13:35 PM on 12 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        With a net radiative imbalance of 2 W/m2 - the Earh energy content should have increased by 16 x 10e22 J for 2003 to 2008. The heat isn't in land surfaces as these are in short term radiative equilibrium with the atmosphere - and atmospheric temp. has declined since January 1998 in any monthly record. Note that we are looking for total energy content - so let's include El Nino. It isn't in the ocean - ARGO data shows cooling for 2003 to 2008. If an ocean mass increase of 1mm/year is used (after AR4 and incorporating meltwater volumes from ice, snow and permafrost) - I get 6x10e20 J of energy that is contained in meltwater as internal kinetic energy - some three orders of magnitude less than needed to explain the current lack of warming.
        Response: This issue is examined in detail at Does ocean cooling prove global warming has ended?
127571. Robbo the Yobbo at 03:31 AM on 12 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        The first statement above is a quote from Swanson and Tsonis. The second statement is mine - and it echoes a widely expressed sentiment expressed by reasonably non partisan observers. Your point seems an entirely reasonable proposition but it is not something that I would claim any depth of knowledge in. There is another line of evidence - if you have a look at the Project Earthshine site you will find a graph showing Earth albedo increased by about 1% since 1998 - or about 2 W/m2 of decreased radiative flux at the surface. This is enough in itself to explain the a current lack of warming.
127572. Thumb at 01:21 AM on 12 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        "The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system..." "There has been no warming for 10 years without an explanation other than vague notions of internal climate variability." Maybe my previous speculations on this have been dismissed by you because, as I'm not a scientist, you're simply ignoring what strikes me as a self-evident cause of post 1998 cooling; that surrounding a peak year such as 1998 there was a tremendous amount (how many cubic miles again?) of land ice melting and running off into the oceans. Again, as a non-scientist I don't have the detailed numbers and formulas at my disposal to sound like anything but a layman, but still, physics 101 tells me that that much stored cold being released in the form of ice water runoff into the oceans would have to qualify as a "proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02" and/or an "explanation other than vague notions of internal climate variability." How could that many cubic miles of ice water entering the oceans not have a cooling effect on post 1998 climate? It strikes this non-scientist as a particularly obvious cause of post peak temperature drops every time the temperature has peaked this century.
127573. Alliecat at 22:16 PM on 11 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        "All that is being claimed is that ENSO has a huge impact on global temperature variation. Fairly obvious but nice to be able to put a number to it. They are not saying anything about a rising trend other than in comment that 'perhaps' ENSO conditons post the 1976/1977 climate shift contributed to recent warming." Except that the number they put to it is wrong. And for them to make *any* statement about the trend is also wrong as their analysis removed any possible connection with trend. Your statement "The climate shifts are from one ocean state to another over a year or three and back again over 50 years" is also provably wrong. You really do just make stuff up don't you? Also, no trend in the PDO means it can't have contributed to the trend in observed temps. Still not getting it, are you...
127574. Robbo the Yobbo at 20:18 PM on 11 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        We should not get carried away with the PDO as a cause of everything. It exists and is stongly evident in the instrumental, proxy and biological record. However, a link to changes in cloud cover is suspected - see Amy Clement et al below. The reconstruction of cloud and SLP parameters show the usual decadal pattern. And although the modeling exercise suggests the decline in clouds between 1976 and 1998 is a greenhouse gas feedback - only one model passed the cloud test and the turn around in clouds since 1998 suggests something else. The real question is whether clouds are a cause or an effect. I find it difficult to believe that it is not driven by ionising radiation in the Hale cycle - especially because of the sudden shifts between ocean states - but we shall see. There is a balance between turbulent subsurface currents (driven by planetary rotation and thermohaline circulation)and suppression of these currents under a warm surface layer. A little more cloud with a little less shortwave heating of the ocean and the currents upwell strongly in the north east Pacific. A little less cloud and the currents are suppressed. Thus the PDO may be a local manifestation of a global phenomenon - and not terribly important in itself. It is important biologically and as an indication of the persistance of global ocean states. Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325. no. 5939, pp. 460 - 464 DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255 Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback Amy C. Clement,1,* Robert Burgman,1 Joel R. Norris2 Feedbacks involving low-level clouds remain a primary cause of uncertainty in global climate model projections. This issue was addressed by examining changes in low-level clouds over the Northeast Pacific in observations and climate models. Decadal fluctuations were identified in multiple, independent cloud data sets, and changes in cloud cover appeared to be linked to changes in both local temperature structure and large-scale circulation. This observational analysis further indicated that clouds act as a positive feedback in this region on decadal time scales. The observed relationships between cloud cover and regional meteorological conditions provide a more complete way of testing the realism of the cloud simulation in current-generation climate models. The only model that passed this test simulated a reduction in cloud cover over much of the Pacific when greenhouse gases were increased, providing modeling evidence for a positive low-level cloud feedback.
127575. thingadonta at 18:52 PM on 11 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        The main thing about the PDO, if it exists, is that the global warming from 1978-1998 appears to have been enhanced by the shift to a warm PDO, (but yes, the longer term T trend is still up). The shift back to flat T from 1998 would support this. But it also means, and this is the point, that the effects of greenhouse gases on T were super-imposed on the warm PDO from 1978-1998, which would mean they have been over-estimated in models, and it is therefore likely if the PDO is significant, and barring other factors (which are also by no means clear) to be at the lower end of model predictions-say 1 degree C by 2100 (and this is without taking into account any effects from solar changes). The complete failure of the IPCC models to predict the flat T since early 2000s, and also the ocean flat T/cooling, shows that the c02 models have not taken into account these probably true PDO shifts, and have over-estimated the effects of c02 in the period 1978-1998.
127576. Robbo the Yobbo at 18:30 PM on 11 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        The climate shifts are from one ocean state to another over a year or three and back again over 50 years. The states amplify global warming in the warm state and mask global warming in the cool state. It is a cyclic state of sea surface temperature in the world's oceans that influences global surface temp rather than an oscillation in atmospheric temp. The states seem to be associated with changes in cloud cover. Let's accept for the time being that Swanson and Tsonis are correct in assuming that this is 'warming interupted'- 2 or 3 decades of no warming from 1998 - rather than planetary cooling. Swanson and Tsonsis in the graph at realclimate exclude the years of climate shift (1977 and 1998) from the recent trend to get a trend due to greenhouse gases and other factors. You get the same answer if the residual trend is considered for a full cycle between 1946 and 1998 - or even a longer time frame back to 1850. The residual trend for all other factors is 1/2 of that commonly quoted. Seen in the context of prudent foresight - the issue is merely less urgent and more amenable to technological solutions. I have no particular urge to continue the ocean and atmosphere experiment past the middle of the century at most. 100% decarbonisation by 2050 is, I feel, achievable. My 'ideological bias' is in not believing that government intervention will achieve any sigificant gains and do so at great cost in human life and to the legitimate aspirations of the world's poor. This is, I believe, a measured and reasonable bias. Not sure what the McLean et al reference is about. Bob Carter sent me a copy of their latest paper. I have discussed the paper with John McLean by email (who has pedantically corrected my interpretation)and used their Figure 4 in an upcoming non-peer reviewed article for the dreaded Energy and Environment. All that is being claimed is that ENSO has a huge impact on global temperature variation. Fairly obvious but nice to be able to put a number to it. They are not saying anything about a rising trend other than in comment that 'perhaps' ENSO conditons post the 1976/1977 climate shift contributed to recent warming. I suspect you might mean Lean et al from the British Met Office? Who expect that that solar irradiance will reassert itself at the peak in the next 11 year solar cycle and record surface temps will again occur by 2014? This assumes that solar irradiance is not trending rapidly down from a thousand year high - to a Dalton or perhaps even Maunder Minimum. And I wonder what implications there are for temps later in the 11 year cycle?
127577. expat at 16:32 PM on 11 August 2009
        It's the sun
        Thanks to you, Chris and Mizimi. I wondered why I had seen scant reference to that paper. I do have another question - it relates to the tropical tropospheric hot spot or not. Here is a reference. http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf Maybe you can help me do due diligence on this one also. I had put it on the "Satellites show little to no warming of the troposphere" topic but had no response so far.
127578. David Horton at 15:30 PM on 11 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        You do understand that even if S&T are right about the "shifts", they are talking about shifts ever upwards- that is a series f transitions to ever higher temperatures, don't you? These are not "oscillations", these are just jumps rather than a relatively smooth rising temperature line. So no consolation in your denialism to be found there. Nor in McLean and all, who are just talking about variation around a rising mean as well. I'm guessing you have neither read, nor thought about, any of his stuff.
127579. Robbo the Yobbo at 13:34 PM on 11 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Swanson and Tsonis are talking about globally synchonous ocean states that precipitated climate shifts early around 1910, the mid 1940's, the mid 1970's and post 1998. These climate shifts are not speculative but appear in the climate record in both surface temperature and SST records. They identify a climate shift post 1998 – and speculate that the current lack of global warming could last for another decade or more. The future is always speculative – but my expectation is based on ‘the nature of these past shifts in climate.’ There has been no warming for 10 years without an explanation other than vague notions of internal climate variability. What is the next reality test? The West Australian Department of Agriculture and Food as of July 2009 expect: ‘A HIGH CHANCE THAT A WEAK EL NINO WILL CONTINUE TO FORM, BUT A LAGGING SOUTHERN OSCILLATION LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN FOR POSITIVE NEUTRAL .’ http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/lwe/cli/enso_20090710.pdf It seems unlikely that the 1998 (monthly) surface temp record will be challenged this year. Not sure where the PDO comes in - but it has a physical meaning. The cool mode is associated with upwelling of cold deep ocean currents. Upwelling is suppressed in a warm mode. It makes a huge difference in biological productivity in the north eastern Pacific. “The PDO was named by Mantua et al (1997), who demonstrated a connection between salmon abundance and sea surface temperatures in the northern Pacific. Sea surface temperature varied over 20 to 30 year cycles in phase with changes in salmon abundance. Sea surface temperatures were cooler than average for 20 to 30 years – a cool mode of the PDO, and then warmer than average over 20 to 30 years, a warm mode. A warm mode PDO is associated with reduced abundance of coho and chinook salmon in the Pacific Northwest, while a cool mode PDO is linked to above average abundance of these fish. The biology responds to cold but nutrient rich sub surface water upwelling in the north eastern Pacific. The abundance of salmon was greatest in the period between the mid 1940’s and mid 1970’s, least in the period 1976 to 1998 and has, in recent years, rebounded to values not seen since the 1970s (Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) - Climate Impacts Group).” There is also a connection to ENSO. Verdon and Franks (2006) used ‘proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data’ to investigate the long-term behaviour of the PDO and ENSO. They found that ‘during the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.’ Verdon, D. and Franks, S. (2006), Long-term behaviour of ENSO: Interactions with the PDO over the past 400 years inferred from paleoclimate records, Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2005GL025052. It is this latter propensity that McLean et al discuss – the shift in the Pacific from more frequent and intense La Niña to more frequent and intense El Niño in the 1976/1977 climate shift with an obvious potential to impact on surface temperature. The globally linked ocean processes – which include the PDO and ENSO - are the primary manifestation of the climate shifts that Swanson and Tsonis discuss.
127580. Alliecat at 12:01 PM on 11 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        re: 36 You're still displaying no understanding. Just quoting a couple of passages is not contributing anything to a discussion. Swanson and Tsonis's comments are speculation, not evidence - but you don't seem to understand the difference. The first line in post 36 is "The expectation as a result of 50 year climate cycles is for a cooling influence for 20 to 30 years from 1998". This is stated as if it were a fact. It is not. It is speculation based on poor understanding. Do you even realise that, for example, the Pacific Decadal oscillation is *just* the 3rd EOF of SST Anomalies in the pacific? It is not *known* to relate to any physical (atmosphere/ocean) phenomenon - it could just be an artifact of the short period of statistics available. It's at best a minor influence. Especially since it shows no trend. You posts are just a version of the Gish Gallop... ignore the evidence, repeat the same demonstrably wrong statements over and over, and toss in largely irrelevant references to make it sound as if you have a clue. Boring.
127581. Robbo the Yobbo at 10:37 AM on 11 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        The expectation as a result of 50 year climate cycles is for a cooling influence for 20 to 30 years from 1998. This is happening in the real world with no increase in surface temp. for a decade and no increase in ocean heat content since 2003. The reason why clouds are increasingly relevant is that actual real world evience shows a decrease in shortwave flux at the surface since 1998 of 2W/m2. More science...from IPCC contributors... 'Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation Kevin E. Trenberth National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA John T. Fasullo National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA Global climate models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) are examined for the top‐of‐atmosphere radiation changes as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases build up from 1950 to 2100. There is an increase in net radiation absorbed, but not in ways commonly assumed. While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures. Instead the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts. These findings underscore the need to ascertain the credibility of the model changes, especially insofar as changes in clouds are concerned.' As for not understansing Swanson and Tsonis. Well - ‘the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained. The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature.’
127582. Alliecat at 09:07 AM on 11 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        I'm starting to think Robbo and thingadonta are actually perl scripts implementing Markov chain models of English. The scripts produce plausible seeming sentences with the right keywords, but the actual information content is, well, pretty small. Another analogy would be that I could teach my dog to bark whenever I say "stochastic dynamic programming" but I don't really think she's got a lot of useful stuff to say about optimisation techniques. She's more of an abstract algebra sort of dog really :)
127583. David Horton at 08:40 AM on 11 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Robbo is clearly simply going to keep on quoting McLean et al as the last word in climate science, in spite of all the analyses of it, and comments by McLean himself and Carter, showing that it means nothing like what Carter originally claimed. Robbo is clearly able to forget nothing and learn nothing. There is a great deal of discussion on the Swanson paper on RC, did Robbo read none of it, understand none of it? The clouds issue is a dead end, everybody, except Robbo, knows that, and yet he persists. Variation in climate is a dead end. Everybody knows there is variation, and cycling, of various kinds. It creates the variation around the mean RISING world temperature levels. So what? The phrase flogging a dead horse comes to mind. Except in the case of Robbo and Thingadonta on this thread it is more like flogging a dead horse skeleton most of the bones of which have long since decayed and returned to the soil.
127584. Mizimi at 04:31 AM on 11 August 2009
        Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
        Another possibility that in effect alters TSI is albedo. The earth's albedo is not constant and is dominated by cloud cover. Increased cloud can warm or cool the earth depending on the type and altitude. More high level cloud increases the albedo but traps more heat resulting in warming. More mid-low level cloud increases albedo but relects more radiation causing cooling. Goode & Palle (2007) suggest small changes in albedo produce changes in radiation levels over twice as high as GHGs. Charting albedo from 1985 to 2004 shows an interesting correlation to GMT. Albedo declines some 3% from 1984 to 1995 and drops fast (by another 8%) between 1995 to 1998 where it is at a minimum.....and 1988 was of course a very warm year. Since then the albedo has increased ( albeit hesitantly)by 4% up to 2004, which is possibly a major factor in the present downtrend in GMT. http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
127585. chris at 22:10 PM on 10 August 2009
        It's the sun
        1. The paper you refer to is not a scientific paper, expat. It's an "Opinion" piece that Physics Today occasionally publish. 2. This opinion shouldn't be read without reading the responses published in the October 2008 issue of Physics Today, and the Opinion published in the January 2009 issue of Physics Today which John Cook has provided a link to in his response to your post just above: Philip B. Duffy, Benjamin D. Santer, and Tom M. L. Wigley (2009) "Solar variability does not explain late-20th-century warming" Physics Today, January 2009, page 48 3. The latter Opinion highlights some of the flaws of the Scafetta/West hypothesis, a major one being that the solar parameters have been flat, tending in a cooling direction since the early 1980's. Changes in solar output cannot have made significant contributions to the very marked warming of the last 30-odd years. 4. It's worth remarking on the nature of Scafetta/West methodology. They use "phenomenological" approaches to scientific questions [*] in which the physics of the phenomenon is set aside, and the data are treated as a "black box" to which various elements of numerology are applied. More specifically, in the case of their attribution of solar contributions to surface temperature, they make the assumption that the only contribution to pre-industrial surface temperature variation is solar (i.e. they ignore volcanic, greenhouse gas, ocean circulation etc. contributions) and thus derive a solar climate sensitivity by curve fitting that assumes all variation is solar-induced, and then extrapolate this forward into the 20th century. 5. This practice has the result of making the earth's surface temperature extremely sensitive to solar irradiation variation, and has the curious implication that the earth's climate sensitivity to a radiative forcing equivalent to a doubling of atmosphere CO2 is very high; 4.5 – 5.5 oC. Scafetta/West don't address the latter since their analysis is essentially non-physical/non-mechanistic – it's a curve fitting/extrapolation exercise based on a what is almost certainly a false premise (i.e. that the sole contribution to pre-industrial surface temperture variation is solar). 6. Several solar scientists have made detailed physical, empirical and theoretical analyses of solar irradiance contributions to earth's surface temperature. These pretty uniformly indicate that the solar contribution to 20th century warming has been small: e.g. J. L. Lean and D. H. Rind (2008) "How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006", Geophys. Res. Lett.35, L18701., who conclude their analysis with:

        "For the ninety years from 1906 to 1996, the average slope of the anthropogenic–related temperature change in Figure 3d is 0.045 K per decade whereas Allen et al. [2006] concluded that the rate is 0.03–0.05 K per decade for this same period. Solar-induced warming is almost an order of magnitude smaller. It contributes 10%, not 65% [Scafetta and West, 2006, 2008], of surface warming in the past 100 years and, if anything, a very slight overall cooling in the past 25 years (Table 1), not 20–30% of the warming.

        6. In addition to the other Physics Today letters/opinion articles noted in #2 above, anyone considering the relevance of Scafetta/West's phenomenological numerology should read a paper published last month that (amongst other things!) addresses the methodologies of Scafetta/West and shows that these are flawed in relation to a realistic analysis of solar irradiance contributions to earth surface temperature variations. The methods (a) don't result in meaningful reproduction of the 20th century temperature variation, and (b) grossly overestimate the potential solar contributions. Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt (2009), Solar trends and global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14101, doi:10.1029/2008JD011639. Abstract: We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean temperature. In particular, we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic climate variability and multiple forcings. We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives nonrobust results. We also demonstrate that the methodologies used by Scafetta and West (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008) are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980. -------------------------------------------------------[*] To understand where Scafetta/West are coming from it's worth pointing out that they have no background in climate science, nor any empirical science as such…they are numerologists that make phenomenological/statistical analyses of data sets covering subjects from teenage birth statistics, to fatigue crack growth, to human gait, to cardiac rhythms, to wealth distribution…. That's perfectly fine of course! The problem (to my mind) is their attempt to use premise-sensitive numerological analyses to ascribe attributions (solar contributions to surface warming, in this case), under circumstances where this simply isn't justified. Here's some of the other stuff they apply these methods to (cited to indicate the general nature of their work): Scafetta, N; Marchi, D; West, BJ (2009) Understanding the complexity of human gait dynamics Chaos, 19: Art. No. 026108 Froehlich, KF; Graham, MR; Buchman, TG; et al. (2008) Physiological noise versus white noise to drive a variable ventilator in a porcine model of lung injury Canadian Journal Of Anaesthesia, 55: 577-586 Scafetta, N; Moon, RE; West, BJ (2007) Fractal response of physiological signals to stress conditions, environmental changes, and neurodegenerative diseases Complexity, 12: 12-17 Scafetta, N; Ray, A; West, BJ (2006) Correlation regimes in fluctuations of fatigue crack growth Physica A-Statistical Mechanics And Its Applications, 359: 1-23 Scafetta, N; Restrepo, E; West, BJ (2003) Seasonality of birth and conception to teenagers in Texas Social Biology, 50: 1-22 West, BJ; Scafetta, N; Cooke, WH; et al. (2004) Influence of progressive central hypovolemia on Holder exponent distributions of cardiac interbeat intervals Annals Of Biomedical Engineering, 32: 1077-1087 Scafetta, N; Picozzi, S; West, BJ (2004) An out-of-equilibrium model of the distributions of wealth Quantitative Finance, 4: 353-364
127586. expat at 17:07 PM on 10 August 2009
        It's the sun
        Mizimi - thanks, I was able to read the paper. I wont pretend to understand the details of the math, but it seems to provide an alternate explanation (to AGW) for much of the warming which has been observed. What am I missing here?
        Response: There are a number of problems with Scafetta's paper which are outlined in Solar variability does not explain late-20th-century warming (Duffy 2009). To summarise them briefly:

        1. If climate was so sensitive to solar variations, there would be a much strong 11 year cycle in the temperature record.
        2. If climate was so sensitive to solar variations, past climate change should've been much greater such as during the Maunder Minimum when solar levels were much lower.
        3. Solar activity has shown no long term trend since 1979.
        4. Even if you use the ACRIM solar data which shows a slight warming trend, the increase in solar energy is much less than the actual build-up of energy in the world's oceans. The only explanation of the build-up of ocean heat is that the energy radiating back out to space is less which is confirmed by satellite measurements of outgoing radiation.
        5. If solar variations were causing the warming, it fails to explain why the large build-up of greenhouse gases have had such little effect.
        6. Solar warming would mean the stratosphere should show a long term warming trend. In fact, the stratosphere has shown a long term cooling trend which is what has been observed by radiosondes and satellites.

        I will add that Duffy's paper doesn't mention that independent reconstructions of solar activity show greater agreement with the PMOD data (which shows slight solar cooling over the past 50 years) than with the ACRIM data (which shows slight warming). Eg - the sun has shown a slight cooling trend while global temperatures have been rising.
127587. Robbo the Yobbo at 13:19 PM on 10 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Yet still you persist in ignoring multi-decadal cycles of ocean temperature and the impact on global T that I have more than adequately referenced. Some of these multi-decadal influences are defined in An Additional Physical Mechanism for Global Warming Between 1976 and 1998 at: www.earthaondocean.robertellison.com.au There is an extensive science of multi-decadal variation - with at least three new papers just last month. Swanson and Tsonis on realclimate on the 12th of July, Clements et al on clouds and 'positive feedback' and McLean et al. This is a site that trumpets peer reviewed science - let's see the money and not just smart arse comment.
127588. Mizimi at 03:45 AM on 10 August 2009
        It's the sun
        expat: try this site : http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
127589. expat at 16:29 PM on 9 August 2009
        Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
        Refer to http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf This is a discussion by David Evans of the radiosonde data 1879-1999 which appears to show that there is no tropical hotspot. Since a tropical hotspot is a feature of the positive feedback due to water vapour, assumed by IPCC models, is this not a clear disproof of predictions of significant AGW?
127590. thingadonta at 22:20 PM on 8 August 2009
        Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed
        Another example of misrepresentation of what Peisner said, from the same source you quoted: "Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm" You 'conveninently' left this statement, and others like it, by Peisner out. reference: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf.
127591. thingadonta at 22:12 PM on 8 August 2009
        Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed
        In your Peiser 'retraction' link and quote you have misrepresented what he is saying. Here is the longer version (from which you have cherry-picked/distorted) of what he said: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous. Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory. (For the latest developments, see http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i-detect-first-tiny-rumblings-of.html) Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons." http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf
127592. David Horton at 17:23 PM on 7 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Ah yes, but is Grant Foster Tamino?
127593. NewYorkJ at 12:17 PM on 7 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Here is the full refutation: Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (Foster et al 2009)
        Response: Thanks for the URL, all the references I saw to Foster's refutation included no link so good to finally read it. BTW, surely this puts to rest any question that Tamino is Grant Foster, right? :-)
127594. NewYorkJ at 09:41 AM on 7 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        The formal refutation linked by Ian is likely to cover the obvious errors we've seen here and elsewhere, and perhaps a few more. The paper's propaganda value (providing largely faux cover for Bob Carter's public statements) should live on for awhile. I see several now obsolete "skeptical" papers that still float around political circles and the blogosphere.
127595. Ian Forrester at 00:03 AM on 7 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Gareth, over at Hot Topic, has linked to an abstract submitted to JGR as a rebuttal to the paper. It is authored by 9 of the biggest names in climate science. http://hot-topic.co.nz/big-guns-brought-to-bear/
127596. expat at 21:23 PM on 6 August 2009
        It's the sun
        I am adding my first comment to this blog so please treat me gently. I found a reference to a Physics Today paper which is relevant. I cannot reach the paper - at least not without paying. The abstract says the paper claims that up to 69% of global warming may be attributed to solar variations. The reference is Scafetta, N., and B. J. West, Is climate sensitive to solar variability?, Physics Today, March 2008, 50-51, 2008. Any comments on that paper?
127597. Alliecat at 14:56 PM on 6 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        And yet you still say nothing of consequence. You don't "discuss" anything. You provide a link to something that is only tangentially related to the McLean et al paper. You don't comment on the serious and obvious errors in the paper. You quote numbers from the paper that are wrong ("70-80% of the variation"). You ignore the calculations that show that the true figure is around 3.6%, and you just keep ranting. Also, calling the McLean paper "peer reviewed" and "science" is seriously stretching the definition of both terms. This is not as complicated as you seem to want it to be. ENSO moves heat around. It doesn't produce or absorb heat. So it cannot be responsible for the increasing heat content of the earth.
127598. Robbo the Yobbo at 12:48 PM on 6 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        McLean et al discuss, inter alia, innterannual to multi-decadal ENSO variation - as was I? The NOAA web page is a respectable link for the multidecadal ocean SST and pressure cycles - which are globally distributed.
127599. Alliecat at 08:25 AM on 6 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        And as usual, your post doesn't address the issue. Can you do anything other than put a few keywords into google and copy and paste stuff here?
127600. Robbo the Yobbo at 19:01 PM on 5 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Real climate scientists have settled this. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/d2m_shift/index.php Althugh I don't think it's that recent. Hydrologists and Oceanogaphers have been have been working on this for decades. And haven't we got over the comparison of peer reviewed science with an anonymous blogger? Cheers Robbo

Prev  2544  2545  2546  2547  2548  2549  2550  2551  2552  2553  2554  2555  2556  2557  2558  2559  Next