another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[Worldtraveller]

Except you're looking at it backwards. Climate scientists not associated with the gov or making money off the issues (except being paid to study it) determined that there is a notable upward trend when they started compiling the best data we had. This led to some increases in spending to study the effect, like the improved weather satellites, and refinements of techniques to get more accurate data in places where it couldn't be directly measured as easily.

Only then did the government decide that taxing CO2 emissions might be a way to dissuade excess pollution, and promote greener thinking. Yes, follow the money, but do it chronologically as well as just looking at where the money trail is now.

Also, as I have seen asked before, there is a form of Pascal's Wager here that I think is appropriate: What if we're wrong about MMGW? We'll still wind up with cleaner air, cleaner water, a better environment overall, and possibly some nice new tech to make our lives better. If we're right, and we don't do anything (and it may be too late), the next generation(s) will be paying for it for a long time.

 

[ornerynorsk]

Chronologically??? Tax the effect, instead of the cause. Makes perfect sense to a bureaucrat, I suppose. I think it has been at least somewhat established, or open for discussion at the very least, that CO2 increases follow temperature rise, and not the inverse. Let's tax cancer, and car accident victims, and people who lose their homes in floods and other disasters. Hell, let's just sign all of our property over to the state and get it done with straightaway.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[rb1957]

"Climate scientists not associated with the gov or making money off the issues" ... Mann is one of these virtuous poeple, eh?

"Only then did the government decide ..." ... well, i'd suggest that Al Gore got involed pretty early on, and his masterpiece "Inconvenient Truth" is a realistic portraital of the future of the world?

"What if we're wrong about MMGW?" ... i'd say that then we'd've spent a lot of money making a few people quite rich and having next to no impact on the climate.



Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[SomptingGuy]

We've also changed CO2 from being a benign gas into being an evil pollutant. Marketing people, politicians and newspaper hacks can't help themselves.

- Steve

 

[zdas04]

I'm working on a guidance document for the implementation of the EPA's GHG Reporting Rule in Oil & Gas (Subpart W). I have wanted to use your sentiment SomptingGuy a half dozen times today but I didn't have the words. Thanks for providing them.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[GregLocock]

"What if we're wrong about MMGW? We'll still wind up with cleaner air, cleaner water, a better environment overall, and possibly some nice new tech to make our lives better."

True, for rich first world countries, but economists such as Lomberg would argue that the costs of doing so outweigh the advantages, and that a better approach /globally/ would be to carry on without extra taxes and prohibitions, and fund the adaptations necessary if GW turns out to be real (whether AGW or not) from the increased resulting global prosperity. Frankly solar and wind power are a rich people's solution, and there are 5 billion poor peole who want a/c and fridges, and will (and are) burning coal in order to get them.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rconnor]

Worldtraveller, folks here don't take kindly to that sort of sense.

I actually love your first point because it implicitly points to how a lot of "climate skeptics" formed their opinion - in reverse chronological order. The situation goes like this:
1) Scientists develop anthropogenic climate change theory
2) As the theory gains weight, politicians become concerned over the predictions it makes about future effects
3) Emission taxes/regulations are discussed as possible ways of subverting those effects
4) Skeptics don't like the sound of emission taxes/regulations
5) They begin to pick through the theory, looking for holes
There is nothing inherently wrong with 4 or 5, as long as the skeptics acknowledge the bias and attempt to minimize it when reviewing the evidence (such as understanding that a 15 year period that begins with the strongest El Nino event on record and contains 8 La Nina years and only one other El Nino year - that just so happens to be the hottest year on record - might be a rather biased time frame to draw conclusions from) *cough*. Or don't accuse people that agree with the anthropogenic climate change theory as being blinded by religious-like dogmatic ideology *cough*.

However, I don't love the use of Pascal's Wager as I think it does a disservice to the amount of research and evidence in support of the theory. Although I do agree with the premise of the point you make by bringing it up, to me it's an oversimplification of the problem. Although perhaps it's a better route to take as many have built up a resistance to hearing research or evidence:

Anything from the IPCC - biased research in order to scare politicians into creating a one-world government
Anything involving models - the models are wrong
Anything from peer-reviewed journals - biased research that is let through by the dishonest gatekeepers of the major journals
Anything involving temperature data - the temperature data is corrupt (except if it's the "pause" then it's ok...and it should be interpreted in isolation from any other data)

This resistance is used to "justify" a priori rejections of arguments by stating the argument makes a priori assumptions (without ever having actually read the argument).

Speaking of the "pause", I either want to hear further rebuttals to my points (OHC, ENSO, solar activity, lack of coverage in the Arctic and 20+ papers/articles in the 4+ posts I've made on the topic) or I don't want to have it regurgitated again. After that, I will go back to TGS4's points from Dec. 18.

 

[zdas04]

rconnor,
There is a couple of points in your post that I have to take exception to.

I am a modeler. Computer models are useful tools. Models cannot prove anything, they are only able to project an hypotheses within the limits of the author's knowledge, bias, and abilities. They are very good for illuminating areas that need further study. In "climate science" they are simply taken as proof. Yep, you can spell that as "wrong" in my expert opinion.

There is no unadulterated temperature record. The reason that we "deniers" are willing to quote the pause in temperature change is because the pause is evident in an adulterated data set that includes all of the bias of the researcher's agenda. If they hadn't urinated all over the data, you have to wonder what the curve would look like. Even when they've done their worst, they can't force the data to be what it isn't.

As to "peer reviewed journals", there are just too many stories about papers that were rejected, modified, or re-spun to the party line to accept that the peer review is any more than a check for political purity that the KGB would have been proud of.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rb1957]

"Anything from the IPCC - biased research in order to scare politicians into creating a one-world government
Anything involving models - the models are wrong
Anything from peer-reviewed journals - biased research that is let through by the dishonest gatekeepers of the major journals
Anything involving temperature data - the temperature data is corrupt"

... yep, just about sums it up. note i carefully didn't include your comment about the "pause" ... i believe short term trends show nothing about the long term ... i believe a short term heating trend in the 90s caused much of today's problems, much as a short term cooling trend in the 80s caused predictions of a new ice age.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[debodine]

I am curious how my peers judge this article:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/m-how_leftists_account_for_climate_stability.html

Of course the word "leftist" used in a perjorative manner in the title tells you the author's perspective. However, I would like to know if my peers generally believe this person supported their thesis with facts or simply spread BS. I have my own opinion but I also learn much when my peers discuss issues that are important to me.

 

[zdas04]

I don't know how members of the Church of AGW will react, but I liked that article a lot. He makes one of my points far better than I ever did:

Much of the controversy about the question of man-caused global warming really has to do with the black box emulations that climatologists have created. It is important to recognize that such computer models are tautologies. They tell us the consequences of the assumptions that are built into them -- nothing more. If a model's prediction diverges from measured reality, we know that something is wrong with one, or more, of its assumptions. This divergence does not tell us which assumptions are wrong -- simply that at least one of them is wrong. That is all one needs to know to judge climate models.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[GregLocock]

The good thing about the dialog between the skeptics and the enthusiasts is that it is flushing out issues, and forcing good science to be done. That may have happened without the skeptics, we can't tell.

I suspect that in 40 years time we'll actually have a good idea of CO2's contribution to global temperature, and an analytical understanding of the mechanisms by which that occurs.

However, what won't have happened is any stabilisation in fossil fuel usage by the majority of people on this planet. The USA, Europe, Japan and a few outliers may have indulged their consciences and switched to non fossil energy, but China and India between them will more than compensate. China is already a greater source of CO2 than the USA (not unfair, there are 3 times as many people there), and Asia without Japan already emits more in total than NA+Europe+Japan.






Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rconnor]

zdas04 and rb1957, sounds like my view wasn’t misrepresentative then.

Skeptics seem to sit somewhere between a mistrust (TGS4 put it well with “noble cause corruption”) to accusations of a conspiracy against the experts in the field of climate science. Although many skeptics like to think of their noble fight against the majority of experts as analogous to Einstein/relativity vs. Newtonian physics or Heisenberg (and others)/quantum mechanics vs. classical physics, it’s actually closer to another “debate” still “active” in science – vaccinations.

Amongst experts in the medical field, the vast majority are in support of vaccinations. There is piles of peer-reviewed research that shows the positive effects of vaccinations. However, a few fringe papers (continually discredited – like the “pause”) and non-experts with anecdotal evidence attempt to cast doubt on the body of knowledge that supports vaccinations. They make similar claims to “follow the money” to illustrate a corrupt bias in the medical community. Vaccination manufacturers heavily influence the research and create “gate keepers” that only allow pro-vaccination research to be published. Furthering the analogy, the anti-vaccination crowd didn’t form their opinion through independent research, they heard about the “link” between vaccinations and autism and then combed through the research looking for holes or areas that supported this view (reverse chronological order, as stated before). They too accuse the pro-vaccination crowd as being “blind to the truth”.

In both cases, the skeptic camp shares the same views – don’t trust the peer-reviewed research, don’t trust the experts, don’t trust the data but do trust the non-expert opinion on the matter. This creates a mindset that becomes very difficult to debate with as the person feels justified in categorically rejecting most research/evidence from the other side while allowing non-expert, non-reviewed statements to be accepted with little skepticism. Again, I think the “pause” is a perfect example of this (and I very much so appreciate your sentiment on that topic, rb1957).

Debodine, re: the article
Yep the author’s viewpoint is quite clear, so is his expertise in the area of climate science. Chet Richards may be well reserved in statistical modeling for strategic defense purposes but, like many other modellers with experience in unrelated fields, he incorrectly assumes it makes him an expert on climate models.

His opening point on black boxes is a good one but then it seems to fall apart with the statement “It is important to recognize that such computer models are tautologies”. He then rushes to the grandiose (and tiresome and oversimplified and incorrect) conclusion that if models haven’t correctly modelled the short term “pause” that they cannot be trusted. I’ll explain both aspects in more depth:

How Climate Models Work – From People Who Model Climate
To start, some history on Climate Change Science from AIP.

History of GCM Models from AIP.

(For those interested, history of temperature trends from AIP – NASA talks about changes to GISS – http://tamino.wordpress.com/2006/11/08/tales-from-the-thermometer/]Tamino on temperature records[/url])

Real Climate’s article on models vs temperature trends (2012). (note: Gavin Schmidt runs Real Climate and is an active, published climate scientist)

Real Climate’s article on “Is Climate Modelling Science?”

Real Climate’s FAQ on Climate Models

Gavin Schmidt “On Mismatches Between Models and Observations”

And if you want to review the models themselves, most of it is open source and can be found under “Model codes” here

Climate Model Accuracy and “The Pause”
Well, here we go again...the “pause” gets brought in once again!

As far as we know, ENSO is stochastic – we cannot predict what ENSO condition we will be in 3 years from now or 4 years or 5, etc. However, as ENSO is all about the short term storage (La Nina) and release (El Nino) of heat from the ocean into the atmosphere, it’s long term effect will balance. So models don’t attempt to predict what specific year will have which specific ENSO event, they blend out over the course of various model runs. In the long run, it doesn’t make a difference. If you disagree with this and think that ENSO has some regulating effect, then publish that theory – climate science would love to hear it.

So, when we enter a period that starts with the strongest El Nino event on record and includes 3 ENSO neutral years, 1 El Nino (hottest year on record) and 8 La Nina years (oh ya, and a weak sun and increased deep ocean heat content) – you are going to get irregularly cool temperature trend. The models can’t predict this because, as stated above, ENSO is stochastic. If in the next 15 years, with a few El Nino’s, a few La Nina’s and a few neutral years, we still see steady temperatures THEN climate models have a problem.

Furthermore, when removing the effects of ENSO from the temperature record show, models do incredibly well at estimating temperatures. For the 5th time, look at these papers:
Balmaseda et al 2013
Abraham et al 2013
Levitus et al 2012
Foster and Rahmstorf 2011
Kosaka and Xie 2013 ( Tamino Article on the paper)
Cowtan and Way 2013 (RC article on the paper)
General Discussion on “the pause”

Other Naïve or Incorrect or Misleading Statements in the Article
----“Solar wind, interacting with the Earth's magnetic field, may be a cause of the Little Ice Ages, or so some people hypothesize. In any case, solar wind effects are not built into the climate models -- so their absence may be one of the faulty assumptions.”

The LIA may have been caused by the Milankovich cycle, increased volcanic activity, altered ocean current flows (thermohaline circulation), reforestation following decreases in human population OR solar activity.

Solar activity and global temperatures (again):
[image

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

]
Meehl et al 2004, Stone et al 2007, Lean and Rind 2008, Huber and Knutti 2011, and IPCC
Oh and this great history of the relationship of Solar activity and climate science from the AIP. The long and short is that solar activity has a weak effect on temperatures but absolutely is considered in climate modeling. Chet should have done some research.

---“Climatologists assume that this relatively constant solar irradiance is true for all time, but it may not be so”
Again, see the history of climate science and solar activity. Chet should have done some research (I mean really, all you need to do is search “solar activity climate models” on Google).

----“Which of these competing cloud effects is dominant? Negative feedback, obviously. Let me explain:… The resulting random walk process would eventually push the Earth's temperature to a hot or cold extreme, and the Earth would be dead…I note that the Earth is alive”

He says that because the Earth hasn’t snowballed into a runaway state (in the cold or hot direction) that there is a balancing act that regulates temperatures. Without any real evidence, he says this is “obviously” due to clouds! No need to worry – clouds will save us! This absurdly silly argument gets a silly (but appropriate) retort – ask the Dinosaurs why you don’t need a runaway effect to seriously threaten the survival of a species (or the 99.9% of species that are now extinct on a planet that is still “alive”). Why do I have to explain this to educated people? And don’t reply saying “those are natural cycles, so it proves that earth’s climate changes naturally” – yes it changes naturally but his point is that there is a balancing force that prevents earth’s climate from snowballing. Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the fluctuations in temperature over short GEOLOGICAL TIMES can’t royally screw over a species.

Furthermore, climate scientists know that we are likely not to have a runaway temperature rise like Venus because of anthropogenic CO2. If Chet did a bit of research, he would know this – “runaway greenhouse effect – analogous to Venus – appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities” (IPCC) or “A runaway greenhouse could in theory be triggered by increased greenhouse forcing, but anthropogenic emissions are probably insufficient” (Goldblatt et al, 2012. But that doesn’t mean it won’t adversely affect humans.

Chet really should have done some research…

Concluding Points on the Article
The article speaks to what I said early about oversimplified, un- to under-researched, un- to under-referenced opinions by non-experts being taken as valid by “skeptics” that don’t apply the same form of skepticism to opinions that reinforce their viewpoint. Look at the number of references – zero. Look at the number of quantitative facts – zero (you can’t really count his rough emissitivity numbers as they contain nebulous qualifiers and no references). How you can attempt to argue climate science without either, I don’t understand. But it sounds quasi-reasonable (as long as you don’t look at it too closely…like, you know, using google), so people will gobble it up. (I made the mistake of reading a few comments…just wow…).

I appreciate you sharing this article and opening it up for criticism because I think it’s a great example of the point I’m trying to make – for many “skeptics”, their skepticism only works in one direction.

still waiting on hearing some rebuttals towards my arguments against the pause

 

[GregLocock]

tamiflu

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[zdas04]

rconnor,
I promised myself I wouldn't do it again, but I did. I read all of the links (and followed the links within links) in your post and I find the reverence that the articles hold the term "climate physics" to be amazing. One of the elements of that "physics" is fluid mechanics. I have spent my life in that field and claim a bit of knowledge there. In that field there are a half dozen closed-form equations, thousands of special cases that converge to a closed form equation if you ignore inconvenient truths like body forces, rigid body rotation, swirl, and friction. Ignoring any of those real forces in a model really and truly turns the "physics" into "random number generation". Article after article after article claimed "physics" like a Viking claimed "the hand of Odin". Presenting deviations in model behavior as "proof" that the model is working is more than slightly disingenuous. Like any religion, the list of readings that you provide over and over again are only going to convince current members of your faith.

While the words of many in this field say that "it isn't really a positive feedback loop", they all bow to Mann's almighty Hockey Stick which is nothing but the result of a positive feedback loop.

Your "in depth explanation" really and truly added no value. Sorry, I've read those hymns before. The explanation that you put forth for the pause in warming feels very much like a cat scratching on a tile floor. 100 years from now scientists will look back at this nonsense and file it away with other pseudo-sciences of the past. They all feel so real while you are living them, and look so very ridiculous in retrospect.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rb1957]

isn't the ENSO condition pretty central to the climate state ?
then if "we cannot predict what ENSO condition we will be in 3 years from now or 4 years or 5, etc" what's the value of the predictions ?
and saying "it’s long term effect will balance." and "In the long run, it doesn’t make a difference." is just what you're saying others are saying ... unsupported self-proclaimed "facts".

if ENSO is responsible (at least in part) for heat transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere, surely it's relevant and not to be dismissed 'cause we don't understand how it works.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rb1957]

"The long and short is that solar activity has a weak effect on temperatures" ... really? that big glowing ball in the sky has little effect of global climate (or temperature) ? i guess that's where we part company.

as for disinterested scientists seeking only truth, how did Mann (presumably a disinterested scientist seeking truth) allow himself to produce a graph that produced the same result with a white noise input? and where was the peer review that questioned his results and revalidated his curve? Why was his "corrupted" curve only revealed when a non climate scientist asked those questions? IMHO the curve was the result desired and all questioning stopped there.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

rb1957, yes - ENSO is very central to the state of climate on a year to year basis. I suggest reading on ENSO in more detail. You’re welcome to go back and look at my compressed air system analogy (at 23 Dec 18:23) if that helps. Another very good run down by Tamino can be found here. I strongly recommend reading it as, like you said, ENSO is an important aspect. You may also review NOAA’s FAQ on the topic.

Again, ENSO is about the storage (during La Nina’s) and release (during El Nino’s) of heat in the oceans. This is caused by changes in atmospheric pressure and trade winds which brings warmer water that normally pools deeper in the ocean near Indonesia to the surface and across to the west coast of South America (during El Nino).

As far as the research shows, it has no significant effect on climate in long term as it is (1) temporary, with ENSO events lasting ~1 year to 18 months, (2) stochastic, with the norm being (roughly) oscillating between El Nino and La Nina events, and (3) does not impose any long term change in forcing (cloud coverage and precipitation change during these events but no research I’ve seen demonstrates a significant, lasting effect).

To your two quotes that you took exception to, replace ENSO with volcanoes and you’ll see why your argument is rather thin. Can you predict, in the long term, when we will have major volcanic eruptions? No, neither can any expert on the planet. However, aerosols will go into the air, cool the planet for a few years, dissipate and then the climate goes back to normal trends (unless it is a super massive eruption that flips the stability of the climate).

The same applies for ENSO. We have an El Nino – the planet experiences a slightly warmer year. We have a La Nina – the planet experiences a slightly cooler year. Neither La Nina or El Nino events have any notable effect on climate after the event. No trends have been changed in either case. A great illustration of this lack of effect on long term temperature trends by ENSO is when you compare all El Nino years with each other, all La Nina years with each other and all ENSO neutral years with each other. Here is what you get (graphs by me in excel (file attached) usingGISS data (black line) with 3 trend lines for El Nino years (red line), neutral years (green line) and La Nina & Volcano years (blue line), from NOAA data):

First graph - GISS Surface Temperature Anomalies °C from 1950 (start of ENSO data from NOAA) – Present:
[image

http://i.imgur.com/ia6y4ZR.png?1

]
Here we see a linear warming trend of 0.162 °C/decade for the Total Data set. This is very closely matched by the warming trend of El Nino years (0.164 °C/decade), neutral years (0.175 °C/decade) and La Nina years (0.0176 °C/decade). The R^2 is pretty consistent across all 4 trends, which shows a good comparative relationship between the 3 separated trend lines and the total data set. As expected, the ENSO neutral years line is in between the El Nino and La Nina years lines. The total trend line is also very close to the ENSO neutral years line. We can conclude, unsurprisingly that El Nino years are hotter than normal, La Nina are cooler and neutral years are pretty standard.

An important thing to note is that the average of model runs will tend to track the Neutral years trend. As can be seen here, in the long term, the effect of short term El Nino’s and La Nina’s averages out and the Neutral years trend is very close to the total data set.

Second graph – GISS Surface Temperature Anomalies °C from 1983 – Present (30 year period):
[image

http://s13.postimg.org/cwav9qbpj/ENSO_GISS_Trend_30_Year.png

]
Same trends apply to the most recent 30 year period, however we see faster warming rates. Note that this period is heavy on the La Nina years, mainly due to the two major volcanic eruptions (El Chichon which affected 1983-1984 and Mount Pinatubo which affected 1992-1993), as well as the La Nino dominated period of the early 21st century. This is the reason why the Neutral years trend appear to be a little hotter than the total years trend.

The R^2 for this period are still strong when comparing the 3 separated trends against the total trend. Again, this supports the hypothesis, that (1) ENSO is short term noise and (2) when you account for it, the trends are very clear and very positive.

Third graph - GISS Surface Temperature Anomalies °C from 1998 – Present (The “Pause”):
[image

http://s17.postimg.org/4strkru73/ENSO_GISS_Trend_Pause.png

]
The R^2 of course goes down due to the small sample set we have to work with. It would be the height of hypocrisy for anyone that spews the “pause” as reason to falsify the theory to claim that the sample set in this graph is too small to draw any conclusions from. Either it’s too small both or it’s adequate for both. Although I’d learn towards the former, in which case we can stop the conversation here and the points above still apply. However, as the “pause” keeps getting brought up, we’ll analysis this period assuming the latter.

The El Nino years only contain two points but still sit at the top end, Neutral in the middle and La Nina at the lower end. The Neutral years and La Nina years show positive warming close to that of the 60 year period and we can’t really say anything about the El Nino years trend when it only has two data points. The total data is rather flat but this is expected due to the dominance of La Nina years during this period (as well as low solar activity). The neutral years, which attempts to ignore the short term effect of ENSO and matches most closely model predictions, has a warming rate on par with the 30 year trend.

To conclude, when separating out ENSO years, you see El Nino years at the hot end, Neutral in the middle and La Nina years at the cool end. In the long term, there is no pattern to the ENSO events but El Nino, Neutral, La Nina and Total Data have very similar trends. During short term periods, where one ENSO event dominates the other, the Total Data trend is dragged down if dominated by La Nina and it could be projected to be dragged up if dominated by El Nino years. However, the Neutral years trend maintains a consistent and steadily increasing trend. Therefore, I feel this analysis validates my stance that “The Pause” is merely the result of a taking a short term trend that is dominated by La Nina years (and low solar activity) and it is not a valid argument against the anthropogenic climate change theory. Furthermore, this analysis validates my stance that ENSO is (1) temporary (La Nina dominated periods don’t affect Neutral years nor do El Nino/La Nina dominated periods last for very long), (2) stochastic (no apparent predictable metric to estimate ENSO events in the long term other than the fact they tend to oscillate) and (3) does not impose long term changes in climate forcings (again, Neutral years remain unaffected when reviewing 60 year, 30 year or 15 year trends).

rb1957, herein lies the difference between me and others which I criticize – my opinion on ENSO and the “pause” comes from review of the published literature on the subject, which I’ve referenced in each of my posts. When I’m challenged, I address the criticism and provide references or do my own analysis. No categorical rejections – instead I use references and analysis to support my viewpoint. Furthermore, I attempt to establish a narrative to my viewpoints and then compare that to multiple independent lines of evidence.

I am more than open to seeing research that links ENSO to long term climate forcing or a “regulating” mechanism within ENSO that causes more La Nina events during warmer periods and more El Nino events during cooler periods (but even that would be short term regulation and couldn’t do anything to effect climate trends) – and so is the field of climate science. If someone could demonstrate a link, it would be a very important improvement in our understanding of global climate. I’ve never seen anything published on the subject but, again, would be very interesting if you knew of anything I’ve missed. I’ve read a few of Bob Tisdale’s blog posts on the subject but he fails to explain how a short term, quasi-oscillating storage and release of energy can cause any long term climate trends. If he did, he would have a very interesting argument (which would be easily published...instead of insulating it from criticism by only promoting it on biased blog sites).

For stark contrast, look at zdas04’s last post (which at this point has 3 stars). His response to my post which makes a point-by-point critique of the paper by Chet Richards using links to peer-reviewed papers and articles from actual climate scientists and major scientific institutions is:
“I don’t agree with your references [with no specific explanation as to why nor where exactly the references are wrong]. You are wrong [with a bunch of garbage relating the theory to a religion spliced in...again with no explanation as to why the analogy is appropriate]“. I can’t respond to it because, as it is content-less dribble where no rational arguments are even attempted, there’s nothing to respond to. How he gets 3 stars and I get accused of making a priori assumptions, I’ll never understand – I’m really flabbergasted.

...and rb1957, I’ve been over the Sun before but I’ll repeat it again. Of course the sun is the largest driver for the climate on earth in an absolute sense...of course! However, can variations in solar activity explain the variations in global temperatures? My research on the subject says no. Your intuition might say otherwise but that means very little to me. For the third time, from the Stanford Solar Center:
[image

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

]


...and re: Hockey Stick see here

 

[rb1957]

i'll reserve comment on your GISS data ... i'll have to look into what "anormality" means; but looking at your first graph ... there seems to be a reasonable trand through 50+ years of different ENSO events.

for me the sun's effect on climate is more than sun spots ... i've read that Milanovich cycles (ie variations in the earth's orbit) account for much of the heating being observed.

as for the hockey stick, i've already read your link ... not impressed. Mann's analysis has in my mind been completely refuted. Now if other researchers come up with the same conclusion, why is their work irrefutible ? in my mind they tainted with the same smear (if one report prepared by an honest scientist, peer reviewed, is clearly "flawed" why not the others ?) if someone took the time (as McIntyre did for Mann) and validated the findings then that'd be something. Sorry, Mann's report shows clearly that peer review is only as good as the questions asked ... clearly the process failed in Mann's case.

a fundamental problem i have with the proposition that the heating observed is due to CO2 produced over the last 100 years is that this time response is very quick; compared with predictions that even if we stopped CO2 production (all held our breaths?) that gloabl climate would continue along the path for a long time to come (a very long time response).



Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[debodine]

I have to admit that the amound of research rconner submits is quite extensive and supports his thesis. However, when I read articles such as this one below, I find myself wondering about all the underlying data and assumptions built into the research? Of course I have never met the writer of this article and have no valid means of verifying the integrity of his data except to retrace his steps and I do not have the expertise to do that. So I throw this out to others better qualified than I so that I can continue to learn from the responses.

And to all who are taking the time to respond, I greatly appreciate your efforts. I will never be a world class expert on this subject, but I do (like all members of humanity) have a vested interest in the public policy decisions that may result from this area of research.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/06/the-original-temperatures-project/

And to be open about my biases, I am firmly in the skeptic camp until someone can say they have obtained the world-wide original raw temperature data prior to any adjustments by any other entity. As an engineer, I know all too well the results of a well executed design and installation that is based upon assumptions or information that has been "adjusted" by others.