Recent Comments

Prev  768  769  770  771  772  773  774  775  776  777  778  779  780  781  782  783  Next

Comments 38751 to 38800:

38751. Klapper at 12:12 PM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       @ Esop #55:

       What baseline are you using? The UAH v5.5 TLT only shows an anomaly of 0.53 against a baseline of the compete record.

38752. Klapper at 11:59 AM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       @ #54 Kevin C:

       I can see I've been trumped on the Antarctic. I did I rolling 10, 15 and 20 year trends, which is a way to either optimize cherry picking or avoid it depending on how you use the results but didn't get your number of .58C/decade from UAH. Nor did using your exact time frame give the same number. However since I'm extracting data using the KNMI data explorer I have to use v5.5 not v5.6.

       Using v5.5, the numbers are not so close. UAH TLT 70S v5.5 gives only a warming rate of 0.45C/decade 1998 to 2012 inclusive which is below both your C&W trends, and significantly below the "hybrid" version. The rolling 15 year does give some high warming rates in the range of 0.6C/decade, but that was trends ending in 2007 and the warming rate south of 70 has been declining since.

       Without access to either C&W datasets (hopefully this will show up on KNMI data explorer) I can't comment on shorter or longer trends comparing TLT to C&W surface, however I certainly can comment on how sensitive 15 year trends are for this area. If I had picked a 15 year trend ending in September 2012 not December, the trend would be 0.27C/decade so I think 15 years for these kind of data are probably not enough.

       Which brings up the question of why you chose a 16 year period? Looking at your graph it appears the C&W data have been smoothed but the inflection point appears to be around 2000 for Antarctica for very steep warming

       As for your comment on the contamination of the TLT data by the surface, Roy Spencer recently did a post re: the record low Antarctica temperature and noted that actually the microwave emissivity is pretty constant from the surface in Antarctica (and much less of a challenge then areas with sea ice like the Arctic.

       In summary, you're not really answering the question of why a dataset which fills big holes is better than a dataset with actual data. Using the UAH v5.5 dataset I find at least the "hybrid" version of C&W appears to run hot for Antarctica.

38753. Esop at 10:18 AM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       Klapper (#52):

       You might be right that the 0.6C figure for Antarctica is wrong.                           According to UAH, Antarctica was on average 1.2C warmer than normal during 2013, so 0.6C for the past 10 years could thus be too low. Good observation.

38754. Kevin C at 10:07 AM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       Kapper@52: That assumes temporal homogeneity in the AMSU data, an assumption we are unwilling to make on the basis of the divergenece between UAH, RSS and STAR (also RSS doesn't cover Antarctica). Also you cannot assume that TLT temperatures reflect SATs at altitude because of surface contamination issues.

       So I have grave doubts about the validity of your test. However, for what it is worth, here are the trends on 1997/01-2012/12 for 90S-70S:

       •  UAH v5.6 0.581C/decade
       •  CW v2 krig 0.467C/decade
       •  CW v2 hybrid 0.699C/decade

       UAH falls almost exactly between these two reconstructions.

       Validation against independent data sources provides a far more challenging and informative test of the reconstructions - this is one of the things we are working on at the moment. I'm afraid the backlog of results to write up is rather long though.

38755. Ken in Oz at 08:53 AM on 10 February 2014
       Establishing consensus is vital for climate action
       

       Widespread agreement that the problem is serious and deserves community wide effort is a kind of prerequisite. I think we have seen a kind of 'commerce and business grass roots' opposition to action on climate because businesses weigh things up in terms of cost, competitiveness and profitability, not on the validity of the science.

        Because commerce and industry is the part of society that does stuff, it quite rightly deserves to have it's concerns taken seriously and , however PR, lobbying and tankthink are considered stock in trade means to influence public opinion as well as government policy, and these do not come with an innate ethical requirement for truth or balance; on the contrary they are about changing opinions in ways that are most beneficial in terms of costs, competitiveness and profitability.

       The problem is not necessarily the innate amorality of commerce and industry when it comes to promoting it's/their interests - that should be taken as given; minimising costs in order to maximise profits is normal and necessary. They will - even if reluctantly - operate within the regulatory framework that goverments set, even as they use the tools they have to influence the formulation of that framework. It's at governement level, in that formulation process, where the broader ethical decisions reach the branching decision point. It breaks down with those elected and appointed to positions of trust and responsibility to the community/polity as a whole, who duck and dodge that responsibility and give precedence to the obligations and agreements to those who support and vote for them over things like science based information and advice.

       To what extent political parties successfully 'frame' the climate issue and become part of the PR, tankthink process that changes public opinion, and to what extent they simply reflect the opinion that exists is always a question, but in this case I think we are seeing too much willingness within the political system to put those obligations to their 'partners' and backers and the stance they find most advantageous ahead of the greater obligation to be well informed, cognizant of the bigger picture for the broader constituency they act on behalf of.

38756. scaddenp at 07:26 AM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       I haven't followed this closely, but I thought Loeb 2012 showed slight increase in cloudiness with increased TOA (and hence increased albedo), but that doesnt necessarily mean negative feedback. Dessler and Loeb 2013 show slight positive feedback from cloudiness. Either way, effect appears to be small.

38757. Klapper at 07:22 AM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       @Kevin C #49:

       I studied Kriging in a 500 level geostatistics university course many years ago. It's a technique developed in South Africa to interpolate gold grades. It's certainly more sophisticated than inverse distance squared. However you would be crazy as an investor to think because you have interpolated your grade using kriging you can drill your exploration holes 1 kilometre apart.

       You didn't need to show me the graph for me to guess the C&W warming trend for the arctic was pretty extreme. However, I am surprised at the steep trend in the Antarctic for the last 10 year or 12 years. It looks like by the dark blue line it was warmed about 0.6C in the last 10 years. That seems wrong.

       You do have a good cross-check against it however. Due to the elevation of the continent, the TLT trend should be very close to the SAT trend since the TLT sampling zone overlaps the SAT zone. If the C&W warming trend is substantially above the TLT trend for either or both datasets (RSS or UAH) then it is probably wrong. Which begs the question: Why would you use C&W as opposed to the TLT sets for the last 34 years?

       After all having actual data should trump filling in gaps with interpolation techniques every time.

        

        

38758. Klapper at 06:15 AM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       @ Tom Curtis #36:

       "...Therefore any widespread net change in surface temperatures would be expected to result in further changes in the same direction globally as a result of feedbacks..."

       Loeb et al 2012 pretty clearly shows that changes to net TOA radiation act as negative feedbacks to ENSO events, not positive.

38759. scaddenp at 04:57 AM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       Michael. Not true. For details on this I highly recommend the series at Science of Doom on "Does Back Radiation warm the ocean" and the follow up.

38760. Bob Lacatena at 03:33 AM on 10 February 2014
       Establishing consensus is vital for climate action
       

       ubrew12,

       Part of the issue is that (1) nobody has the title "Climatologist, and (2) scientists don't look at things in such oversimplified terms.

       Dr. Daniel Nepstad studies the Amazon, and the extreme droughts that have threatened that region in the past decade.

       Dr. Jennifer Francis studies Arctic sea ice and environs.

       Dr. Andrew Dessler studies atmospheric water vapor.

       The list goes on and on.  They're not, individually, "climatologists," but they variously study different facets of climate change.  The point is not that if they all get together, they'll all agree on statement X about climate change.  The point is that Dr. Nepstad says something like "whoa, look down here at the Amazon, this is unusual and bad," while Dr. Francis says something like "hey, hold it, look up here in the Arctic, this is really bad," and Dr. Dessler says "yikes, look here in the atmosphere, this looks like everything else is going to get even worse."

       The consensus is not some simplistic agreement with a simple statement of fact.  The consensus is a culmination of thousands of investigations into thousands of branches of science, from measurements and observations of impacts to attributions of cause to the physics that both explains what we see and tries to predict what we will see.

       In the end, the consensus is neither (IMO) served by nor able to be represented by some simple statement and a poll as to its veracity.  The consensus is far more nuanced, multidimensional and deeper than that.

       And that is what people really need to understand, and is perhaps the real value of The Consensus Project.  Dismissives want to express everything as an either/or, and whittle it down to numbers they can argue about.  What TCP really shows is that the consensus permeates every field of modern science which even tangentially crosses into climate science.

       The consensus is so pervasive and complete that it is, at this point, irrefutable.

       As the original post says, we shouldn't even be discussing it.  It's there.  Arguing about how to clarify its existence is of tantamount importance in getting the debate to move from "if" to "what's next" and "what to do," but I don't think there's a much better way to do it than the methods which have already been tried.

       The results are in.  There are just a lot of people who refuse to accept them, and that's what needs to be changed.

38761. Kevin C at 03:11 AM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       Klapper:

       The fact that the CW datasets (all versions, i.e. UAH, kriging or a new hybrid to be released this week) produce trends which diverge from HadCRUT4 from about 1998 is both expected, and in fact inevitable for any global temperature series. Take a look at this figure from GISS and you will see why:

       

       (Hint: Look at the Arctic and the Antarctic lines, the main regions missing from HadCRUT4.)

       You get the same result if you look at GISTEMP, UAH, NCEP/NCAR, ERA-i, or MERRA.

       The much more intriguing question is why our trends are higher than GISTEMP. We will be addressing that question in a month or two, and the answers are looking very interesting indeed.

38762. One Planet Only Forever at 02:30 AM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       Klapper,

       I am aware that a warmer global surface generally means a higher rate of radiation emissions (but all feedbacks including added capture of energy due to more water vapour need to be considered). That is why the norm of the global average is trending up. It needs to reach a new balance norm with the higher rate of energy capture due to added greenhouse gases and feedback effects resulting from the added CO2 like added water vapour.

       As you note, and I am aware, when an El Nino is occurring the bump in the global average can send more heat out than is coming in, but it is only noise in the trend line of global average surface temperature. When the La Nina occurs, more heat energy gets captured into the oceans as the planet stores up more heat energy because the surface is not as warm, not emitting as much.

       As for the satellite data values of the troposphere, those are a completely different way of tracking the changes of energy of the planet. The NASA/GISS data set also show 2013 to be 'as warm as 1998'. The satellite values are not 'comparable to the global average surface temperature data set'. They are just another measure of things that is 'trending up' as expected. It is improper to claim that a difference between the satellite and surface data sets proves that one or the other is inaccurate. However, the clear difference of the HadCRUT4 with other surface data sets did ‘beg an explanation’.

       Which brings us to C&W. They pointed out the 'siginificant gap' in the method of determining global averages in the HadCRUT4 data (large areas of the planet are not accounted for leading to a presumption that the areas not accounted for are trending just like the areas that are accounted for...which they aren't). Their algorithm filled the gap in a rigorous manner that resulted in 'correcting' the 'global average' in the data set (producing what you refer to as ‘magic’), resulting in trends that were more in line with the other surface data sets. This shows how ‘using HadCRUT4 exclusively as the basis for the IPCC AR5 report statements about warming since the late 1990s' was not necessarily producing an accurate representation of the changes. This is not ‘magic’ it is science.

       These are indeed complicated issues to develop a clear understanding of, but it can be harder to develop the understanding if you are tempted to not want to ‘change your mind’ as you strive to better understand things. And on this issue there is a very powerful motivation for many people to ‘not want to change their mind’. Their desire to benefit more in their moment from the unsustainable and damaging burning fossil fuels becomes less acceptable as they better understand this issue.

38763. jsam at 02:26 AM on 10 February 2014
       The History of Climate Science
       

       Typo alert, "climatologist Hubert Lamb among others, that the uncertainties included a failure to explain previous temperture fluctuations". Temperture?

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Fixed; thanks!

38764. mgardner at 01:41 AM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       @46 Tom Curtis

       Tom,

       This may be more on topic on one of the strategy/tactics threads, but...

       I don't agree that a significant numbers of readers may become misinformed or confused by my leaving out details. I'm trying to demonstrate an approach to teaching-- one which requires that we listen more than we lecture. My 'target audience' is people who do know some of the details but may not be good at communicating basic concepts to those who are less educated. I thought that was a major thrust of the effort at SkS?

       Someone like topal may be sincere and willing to learn, or may be ideologically biased and just trolling, I don't know. But you have to engage in an actual dialogue to figure that out, and to figure out where to begin his education if the former. It is almost universally the case that performing a data dump of all you know is not where to begin.

       As for 'rebuttal' by deniers, I think their greatest weapon is exploiting the honesty of scientists, by conflating what is well established with the areas under exploration and debate--simply because long explanations appear equivocal even when they are not.

       So, with all due respect, I will continue to do my best when I feel I can contribute, and suffer any subsequent academic purity humiliation with good grace.

38765. Tom Curtis at 00:36 AM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       mgardner @45, in public forums on the internet, you are never just talking to the person you directly address.  Rather, you are being read (in a popular and widely accessed blog like SkS) by a large number of other observers.  The little detail you left out may well be irrelevant to your discussion with Topal, but as you stated it was inaccurate.  Without correction the potential consequence is that a significant number of readers may become misinformed, or confused.

       For that reason, while I recognize the need for simplicity in language in communicating the gist of complex ideas, we should err on the side of accuracy rather than simplicity.  Also for the same reason, when we encounter an unfortunate turn of phrase or mistatement, we should correct it.  I also understand that that can be inconvenient, and even irritating at times.  Better that, however, than for a casual reader peaking up a false idea from SkS, only to have it rebutted by a denier, who thereby gains false credence.

38766. mgardner at 00:15 AM on 10 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       tom curtis @36,

       Sorry, I missed your comment before I replied to klapper. You say:

       "However, for ENSO to work as a ratchet that elevates tempertures in the long term (rather than simply results in oscillations around the mean), the feedback response to temperature would need to be greater than 1, and would need to be higher for rises in temperature than for falls in temperature. Both are known not to be the case from past climates."
       
       As I pointed out to klapper, how is this information relevant to my interaction with topal? It seems clear that topal does believe that (it is being claimed that) ENSO somehow increases the long-term energy gain for the entire climate system.

       I don't mean to be argumentative or critical-- well, a little critical-- but the obsessive need to avoid correction from one's peers can interfere with providing information that matches the educational level of the person we are trying to educate.

       I'm not a specialist in this area, but I am well aware that ENSO has knock-on effects, and, exactly as you explain in what I quoted, that it doesn't matter much at all, in terms of the public debate. I enjoy reading and learning from interchanges by the real experts, but I don't think those are much use to people like topal. Sometimes, less is more.

38767. Michael Whittemore at 23:50 PM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       Just a question regarding ocean warning. I read that due to the warning affect of extra greenhouse gases, the oceans don't release as much heat because of the thin water layer on the surface of the ocean. Does this mean that greenhouse gases can't warm the earth up very fast because ocean can only rise from short wave radiation? Also with increasing greenhouse gases will this mean that El Nino's will not release as much heat due to it being warmer in the atmosphere then in the ocean?

38768. mgardner at 22:43 PM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       klapper@39

       I'm not convinced that your conclusion from Loeb is probative or even correct, but for the purpose here it isn't really relevant. My interest is in educating people who are getting the basic physics wrong, whether due to their own misconception or the efforts of denialists.

       Clearly, topal is far from the point of being able to formulate simple questions properly, so a debate at the margins of significance is hardly useful pedagogy, don't you think?

        

38769. Klapper at 14:42 PM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       @#41 scanddenp:

       I know how C&W use the UAH dataset. Re-read the 1st sentence in the 2nd paragraph of my post.

       Over the long term the C&W dataset produces a warmer trend than either the source or target datasets it creates it's adjustment from. From 1979, the beginning of the satellite record, the C&W-adjusted HadCRUT4 is .17C/decade vs. .15C/decade for unadjusted HadCRUT4 and 0.14C/decade for UAH TLT (global trends).

       A little analysis shows where the magic of C&W comes from. In the early half of the satellite record (1979 to 1996, C&W mimics the trend of HadCRUT4 while UAH lags (.11 C&W vs. .11 HadCRUT4 vs. .03C/decade UAH). Then in the last half of the satellite record period, 1997 to 2013 it follows UAH which in this period is warming faster than HadCRUT4 (C&W = .11C/decade vs .05 HadCRUT4 vs .09 UAH).

       The C&W algorithm creates an opportunistic result. That doesn't mean it's wrong. However, we should investigate further why there is some kind of mode change 1/2 way through the record with the adjustment.

38770. ubrew12 at 14:10 PM on 9 February 2014
       Establishing consensus is vital for climate action
       

       Consensus has been proven in so many ways, but if its so important perhaps one more demonstration is needed (but it'll be expensive).  Go to every Climatologist, employed AS a Climatologist, in a particular nation (say, the U.S.), and ask them.  

       Ask three questions

       1) Do you think Global Warming is happening, leading to Climate Change?

       2) Do you think humans are primarily responsible for warming in the last century?

       3) Do you think humans are solely responsible for warming in the last century?

       Get everybody on record, no ifs, ands, or buts.

38771. Markoh at 13:28 PM on 9 February 2014
       Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
       

       Vonnegut.

       i have posted on 'How global warming is driving mass coral bleaching' which is where this thread should be moved to. I posted about www.sustainableoceans.com.au a company that has developed technology for relocating coral. It is an exciting technology that has already proven successful.

       Perhaps their technology could be used to relocate some Palau coral that has the low ph capability into areas where the coral is currently suffering from OA?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Vonnegut has recused himself from posting on SkS.

38772. blnelsonusa at 13:18 PM on 9 February 2014
       Newcomers, Start Here
       

       My go-to resource. Thanks guys. Y'all rock.

38773. Michael Whittemore at 11:49 AM on 9 February 2014
       Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
       

       @scaddenp, I have to admit there is a lot to consider when looking at temperature records. Yes I want to find specific temperature graphs, in key areas, but I also just wanted a quick answer to these google earth temperature records. I have not looked into it and have finally got my laptop out of storage to actually use google earth, but I wanted to know if the graphs are reduced to show no warming from urban heat? I wonder because when considering your local regions climate, I don't think urban heat should be taken out, or at least have an option to see the difference.
       

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Global bold usage removed.

38774. scaddenp at 11:27 AM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       I dont think you are understanding how C&W use UAH. What is obvious when you overlay the surface temperature record with the satellite lower troposphere, is that UAH has much stronger response to ENSO that than any surface record. Therefore you do not expect neutral 2013 to top an extemely strong El Nino in 1998 in UAH. However C&W do not use UAH measurement to replace missing data, but instead use the relationship between UAH and surface records to infill the surface record.

38775. Klapper at 11:14 AM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       "...What's also interesting is that despite being a Neutral year, 2013 was hotter than 1998.."

       Only in the Cowtan and Way dataset. This is not true in any of the other atmospheric datasets. It is definitely not true in the datasets with the best spatial coverage, RSS and UAH TLT. The satellite data shows 2013 is 2/10's off of 1998 in the UAH TLT dataset and 3/10's lower in the RSS dataset.
       

       This is significant in that Cowtan and Way use the relationship between surface air temperature and the lower troposphere to help fill the big spatial holes in the instrument network, especially in the Arctic. However, while the adjusted version of HadCRUT4 shows 2013 to be warmer than 1998, UAH, the source of the adjustments clearly does not.
       

       
       

       
       

38776. Klapper at 10:48 AM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       @ #35 mgardner:

       @ #38 One Planet:

       "...However, El Nino doesn't add any energy to the climate system as a whole ('the planet')...."

       "...As others have pointed out an ENSO or El Nino event does not 'add energy to the global system'...."

       ENSO can change global heat content. Read Loeb et al 2012. Net global TOA radiative imbalance on a monthly basis can spike +/- 2Wm2 based on the state of ENSO, and can average +/- 0.5 W/m2 over the period of a year. However the imbalance is the opposite of what you might think. The planet is losing heat during an El Nino and gaining it during a La Nina (which I'm sure shows in in the ocean).
       

       Since the posters here like the metric "Hiroshimas per second", I'll convert the La Nina between the start of 2008 and early 2009 from Loeb Figure 2, which shows a global TOA measured energy imbalance of about 0.4W/m2 (heat gain). Convert global to ocean and you have a heat gain of about 3 hiroshimas per second thanks to La Nina over the 1 and 1/2 year period or so.
       

       
       

38777. One Planet Only Forever at 09:31 AM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       Topal,

       As others have pointed out an ENSO or El Nino event does not 'add energy to the global system'. It only ceates a short term global average surface temperature that is higher than the 'norm' (the norm being the average trend line of global average surface temperature - or the line created by a long average of temperatures like 20 or 30 year averages which can be created for each new month of new data).

       So the period since the extremely strong ENSO event of 1997/98 has 'appeared to indicate a slower rate of warming in the global average surface temperarure record. There have been El Nino events since 1997/98 but they have not produced the magnitude of bump of global average that the 1997/98 event produced.

       If you are wondering about recent reports that 'strong El Ninos are expected to be more frequent', that would be the expectation of a more energetic global climate system and the pattern  of global warming that is occurring (more polar warming). The strong El Nino events in the NOAA ONI history (linked to in my earlier post), occurred in 1972/73, 1982/83, 1997/98. These stronger events would be expected to occur more frequently in a warmed planet (our planet with more energy in the surface climate system).

       However, it is not just the strength of the ONI (or El Nino), that matters. The Southern Oscillation occurring with the El NIno (the ENSO), and the relative timing and magnitudes of the combined conditions will affect the magnitude of the temporary bump of global average surface temperature warming.

       The main point remains. Human activity is leading to more energy in the global climate system. This can be seen in many things like the global average surface warming to rebalance the rate of its energy emissions with the higher captured/trapped incoming energy (the higher capture being due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which are mainly due to human activity and additive feedback responses to that human activity - such as less surface ice reflecting incoming solar radiation). The continued increase of global average surface temperature since the very significant ENSO event of 1997/98 (combined with very little volcanic dimming in the same time period), will clearly become more difficult to claim isn't occurring when the next significant ENSO event occurs. The current ENSO conditions are on the La Nina side of neutral (the cooling from the norm side) and yet the global average for 2013 nearly matches the significantly ENSO bumped 1998.

38778. HK at 08:15 AM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       Esop #2, 26, 28

       I agree completely!
       If the surface temperature trend between 1975 and 2000 had continued for the last 14 years we might have seen at least some action in stead of just talk, talk and more talk from the politicians. It’s bad enough that we now have a climate denier party in the Norwegian government, but the effort from the last government led by the Labour party wasn’t particularly impressive either.

       BTW, the average temperature in Longyearbyen, Svalbard, for the last 30 days is now 13.6^oC above normal, though the forecast predicts somewhat colder weather towards the end of next week. In fact, February will very likely become the 39^th consecutive month that is warmer than normal in Longyearbyen!

38779. Tom Curtis at 07:49 AM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       mgardner @35, ENSO warms (or cools with La Ninas) the planet more than would be expected just by adding the warming or cooling of the tropical Pacific to the global average.  Further, the maximum warming (or cooling) of the planet from ENSO is experienced approximately 6 months after the maximum warming (or cooling) of the tropical Pacific associated with ENSO fluctuations.

       In a way that is unsurprising.  Temperature feedbacks are feedbacks on changes in surface temperatures.  Therefore any widespread net change in surface temperatures would be expected to result in further changes in the same direction globally as a result of feedbacks.  If that were not the case, climate sensitivity would be very low.  As it happens, it is not low, and the ENSO effect on global temperatures is one of the pieces of evidence that that is the case.  However, for ENSO to work as a ratchet that elevates tempertures in the long term (rather than simply results in oscillations around the mean), the feedback response to temperature would need to be greater than 1, and would need to be higher for rises in temperature than for falls in temperature.  Both are known not to be the case from past climates.  

38780. scaddenp at 05:57 AM on 9 February 2014
       Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
       

       Michael, the data you need will depend very much on what your purpose is. These datasets are for assessing climate change. To be useful for that purpose, you have to have data that is comparable with past records and comparable with other stations. To do this, you have to make adjustments to account for change of instruments, screens, site location, time of observation, change in environment (urban heat effect), etc etc. The procedures and papers relating to these adjustments is very well documented at each data sets source. You might like to at USHCN or GISS for details. The data sets usually have the unadjusted data as well so you can compare.

       Of course the BEST project assumed they had done it all wrong and with fossil fuel money set out to do different. Funnily enough they got same answer. They also provide their data and methods - see here. There are other useful links on the page I linked to above.  Tamino and Realclimate both have links to the major data sources on their home page. Be sure to read the associated documentation to see whether it is fit for your purpose.

38781. william5331 at 05:34 AM on 9 February 2014
       Establishing consensus is vital for climate action
       

       The only way we are going to get consensus is if we are bludgeoned into it by a series of events that make Sandy and Katrina look like summer breezes.  A failure of Northern Hemisphere crops for a year might do it.

38782. mgardner at 05:14 AM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       topal@32

       You appear to be ignoring my comment @19, so I refer you to it again.

       When you say "Agreed. And it [El Nino] will inevitably warm the planet.", you are incorrect.

       ENSO will not "warm the planet". El Nino will cause the MST to be higher, because it will increase SST (sea surface temp) where it occurs, and that will be part of the computation of average temperature for the entire surface of the planet.

       However, El Nino doesn't add any energy to the climate system as a whole ('the planet').

       If you are serious about learning how this works, you have to distinguish between:

       1) An increase in *one* temperature measurement

       and

       2) An increase in the total energy of the system.

       Why don't you try asking your questions without that ambiguous use of the term "warm"; it will make things clearer.

38783. Composer99 at 04:54 AM on 9 February 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6
       

       The hyperlink for "How to convince your friends to believe in climate change" is broken.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Fixed, thanks!

38784. williamfreimuth at 02:52 AM on 9 February 2014
       Establishing consensus is vital for climate action
       

       Excellent! It is my firm belief that DENIAL denial and it's inertia is causing the entire human race to sit on the train.....heading for the cliff. Environmentalists have moved to the back.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH} The use of all caps is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read and adhere to the policy in future posts. 

38785. One Planet Only Forever at 02:15 AM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       Topal,

       The ENSO strength of consequences will be greater due to the warmer global system it is occurring in.

       Human activity does not 'create ENSO'. Human acivity has led to the capture of more solar energy which is increasing the energy of the climate system (warming of the surface being one clear measure of that added energy in the system, but warming of the deeper oceans also being due to that human impact).

       One item to note about the NOAA OSI in the link in my first comment is they have 'updated the baseline temperature value for idenifying an El Nino'. This is because the long term average of the surface of the Pacific has been warming. So the circulation conditions creating an El Nino now produce an even warmer average surface in the Pacific.

       It is all adding up because of human impacts.

38786. One Planet Only Forever at 02:08 AM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       Markoh,

       I am definitely striving to help the least fortunate, by hoping that many among the more fortunate who are currently callously creating the greater harm for those less fortunate, get 'awakened from their greedy stupor'.

       The reality of the result of their callous behaviour is clear to me. It unfortunately needs to be 'clear to them'.

       The tragedy resulting from the next strong ENSO needs to be squarely and clearly 'blamed on all those who have chosen not to accept the climate science and the resulting need to stop trying to benefit from burning fossil fuels'. The only acceptable benefit from that unsustainable and damaging activity would be exclusive short term benefits for the less developed least fortunate to help the poorest of the poor develop through to a way of living that is sustainable and not damaging (what the most fortunate should have already been doing for 20 years).

       I consider the very informed and intelligent people who have been carefully but deliberately trying to keep public opinion from growing 'against allowing continuation of benefiting from the burning of fossil fuels by any people except temporary development benefit for the very least fortunate' to be the most despicable. I consider their deliberate actions trying to promote unsustainable and damaging attitudes and activities to prolong the benefits obtained by the callous greedy are almost 'criminal'. Burning fossil fuels for benefit is not 'too essential to curtail'. Sure, there are many people who believe they are wealthy. But is that believed wealth is from burning fossil fuels it is make-believe wealth that needs to be wiped from the global socio-economic system. Anyone still gambling on benefiting that way has had 20 years of warning. It is time for those undeserving callous greedy people to lose the full value of their unsustainable and damaging gambles.

38787. topal at 02:05 AM on 9 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       @One Planet: "The next strong ENSO will happen regardless of human actions."

       Agreed. And it will inevitably warm the planet.

       "The severity of it will be significantly due to the lack of reduction of impacts by the 'most fortunate' among our predecessors."

       Can you elaborate on that. What exactly will determine its severity; our predessors, your ancestors? How severe will it be?

       I'm still looking for the anthropogenic footprint in the natural process called ENSO.

38788. ZincKidd at 02:04 AM on 9 February 2014
       Establishing consensus is vital for climate action
       

       "Political debate" is not the solution, it's the problem.  Political debate is polarizing.  In political debate, facts are not checked, wins are by popularity and/or mudslinging contest, "balance" and equivalence is awarded any opinion that can afford to speak.

38789. PluviAL at 01:56 AM on 9 February 2014
       Establishing consensus is vital for climate action
       

       Good point, in my quest, if often confront deniers with that objective. Although I am weak in detailed technical knowledge relative to that found here, I am very effective. I know I have made a point when the worker's comment thread is removed from the discussion. I can also tell by the careless twists and turns in their arguments that they don't care about the point of discussion but only offering doubt. When the political issue is addressed, with simple brushing away doubt on the basis of scinetific consensus, they often change tactic, or wipe out their own conversation in order to remove mine.

       A genuinely convinced person does not twist like that, they just get mad, and will  not comment anymore. In case you are not familiar with my quest, I want people to consider the real solution, which Pluvinergy offers. Most sites do not see my work spam. Becasue, most conversations are dichotomous; there is nothing that climate change will not affect.

38790. David Thornton at 23:42 PM on 8 February 2014
       New Video: Climate, Jetstream, Polar Vortex
       

       Here in the UK a super active jet stream has for the past 2 months been sending deep depressions, one after the other, across the Atlantic, with storm force winds and giving the south the wettest winter for over 200 years.  Coastal defences have been battered away (including a coastal railway line), and large parts of Somerset have been under water for months - people have been evacuated from their homes and villages abandoned.  More heavy rain and gales are forecast for the foreseeable future.

38791. Markoh at 21:13 PM on 8 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       One Planet. I have a concern for humanity and would never wish bad on the helpless. 

38792. Michael Whittemore at 18:58 PM on 8 February 2014
       Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
       

       If i could have some more clarity on the topic, are each of uthese data sets raw or have they been corrected for urban heat effect? I want to use this data but want to know if it's the raw data or not. I know that when they do global estimates they take it into account. 

38793. ajki at 17:45 PM on 8 February 2014
       Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies
       

       I do not like the bomb thing (rotting apples vs. contaminated dead or starving oranges). But I do like the underlying message. In showing how absurd and blatantly false this "it stopped warming since [whenever]" gibberish really is, tamino has found a visually appealing answer recently (I think).

       Hypothesis: "Warming has stopped in 1998":

       

       Measured data:

       

       Putting this into a nicer graphic and you should have another "Escalator".

38794. scaddenp at 16:20 PM on 8 February 2014
       Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
       

       Of course. See here for discussion and papers.

38795. Michael Whittemore at 14:54 PM on 8 February 2014
       Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
       

       Are these data sets altered to take into consideration urban heat? 

38796. ubrew12 at 12:31 PM on 8 February 2014
       2014 SkS News Bulletin #1: Keystone XL Pipeline
       

       All politicians need to be seen to say 'yes', not 'no'.  Yeah, its stupid, but there it is.  Hence, if we say yes to solar and wind, and electric and hydrogen powered vehicles (the hydrogen gotten by solar-hydrolysis of water), then the natural IMPETUS impetus of the trends will overwhelm fossil fuels REGARDLESS regardless of any 'yes' votes given on behalf of fossil fuels.  SUPPORT support solar and wind, and fossil is history.  Even without a punative action AGAINST against fossil for destroying Nature (and, I might as well mention though its 'not important', killing 5 million people every year with their exhaust products), the trend over the last 20 years is that renewables are going to overtake fossils, in pricing and installed base, ANYWAY anyway.  So why risk a possible Republican Senate in 2014, because you felt you had to 'take it to fossil fuels'?  This would be disastrous for America, but not for those fighting Global Warming, since fossils are soon going to be overtaken by events anyway.

       "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."  You win because you kept at it, not because you engaged in a fight.  The PHYSICAL physical impetus is with solar and wind - thats the history of the last 20 years.  Don't engage in a politically expensive battle.  Don't react to challenges of a fight.  Just put your shoulder to the wheel and push.  Keep in mind 2 things: 1)in a decade solar and wind with be the low-cost alternatives anyway and, 2)in a decade everyone and his great aunt are going to get the reality of climate change, and what is causing it.  In the meantime, I think America could be hurt by an action against Keystone.  Hurt in ways far beyond the issue of AGW.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] The SkS Comments Policy prohibits the use of all caps. Please comply with this policy in your future posts.

38797. One Planet Only Forever at 11:24 AM on 8 February 2014
       2014 SkS News Bulletin #1: Keystone XL Pipeline
       

       Unfortunately we still live in times when 'democracy' is misunderstood to be 'the wealthy majority gets its way'.

       Democracy needs to be the protection of everyone from the unsustainable and damaging pusuits and desires of others.
        And it is time to clarify that to be protection of 'future humans and all opther life' from the unsustainable and damaging pusuits and desires of others.

       Anything less than implementation of that form of 'democracy' is unsustainable and unacceptably damaging.

       Popularity needs to be understood to only really matter in things like 'entertainment ratings'. The best undertanding constantly developed and improved through additional research needs to 'rule', even if it isn't popular.

38798. One Planet Only Forever at 11:13 AM on 8 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       Markoh, I share ESOP's 'sentiment'. The lack of an ENSO event since 1997-98 as powerful as that one was has fueled far too much 'unacceptable belief' about what is going on.

       Some people seek any excuse to 'refuse' to better understand what is going on (I say refuse because they are choosing not to better understand this issue and so many other issues). They correctly sense that they will not be able to enjoy as much benefit if 'popular opinion' fails to support those unsustainable and damaging activities they enjoy benefiting from.

       The next strong ENSO will happen regardless of human actions. The severity of it will be significantly due to the lack of reduction of impacts by the 'most fortunate' among our predecessors. Into the future, the increased harm will be due to the deliberate lack of understanding among the current generation and demands that 'their popular interest must be accepted'. They already make absurd claims like "life would be horrible without burning fossil fuels the way they do". If everyone's lifestyle matched the fossil fuel burning habits of the biggest per-capita impacters that lifestyle would be over in a moment, with massive battles among the population fighting to get the most of the last possible benefits.

       This is a really serious issue. But it is only regarding one of the many fundamentally unsustainable and damaging activities in the current global economy that not only have no future, they damage the future others will have to try to live in.

       The next strong ENSO event will hopefully wake more of the global population out of their greed induced stupor. That awakening is essential for the development of a sustainable better future for all life on this amazing planet.

38799. kanspaugh at 09:59 AM on 8 February 2014
       2014 SkS News Bulletin #1: Keystone XL Pipeline
       

       If the White House were keeping Keystone "above political influence" it would have been rejected without question. 

38800. Markoh at 08:44 AM on 8 February 2014
       2013 was the second-hottest year on record without an El Niño
       

       ESOP. So you would wish for a big El Niño knowing that it would mean drought, death and disease to South Eastern Africa? I couldn't do that. I'm one hoping El Niño stays away. 

Prev  768  769  770  771  772  773  774  775  776  777  778  779  780  781  782  783  Next