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

 

[rb1957]

damnit ... we nearly made 2 weeks without a single GW posting!

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

…that article…just…wow…

This is not “the nail in the anthropogenic global warming theory”. This is not “just weather”. This is a climatic event.

Scientific research on the subject suggests that the warming of the Arctic is the cause of the polar vortex dipping over North America. Rather inconclusive whether anthropogenic climate change can be said to be the cause of cold snap but it certainly is not an argument against the theory.

(Speaking of scientific research, England et al, 2014. Sheds even more light on “the pause”.)

 

[hokie66]

You have to give one thing to the AGW researchers...they are masters at ducking and weaving.

 

[zdas04]

Polar Vortex. New buga-boo. Going to explain the cold weather. The arctic is warming. Nonsense. Temperature at the North Pole is currently -13°F and it is expected to get to -25°F "overnight". Long term forecast is a warming trend to +11°F by the end of the month. So we have several months of dark accompanied by sub-freezing weather and that is creating unusual "polar vortex" conditions? Every year the Arctic gets dark early in December and the sun comes up in March. Every year. Not affected by Humvees or coal-fired plants. Sometimes the pressure is high, and this cold air heads south. Sometimes the pressure is low and the "warm" air of Ft. McMuarry, BC (their high today was +8°F, the Banana Belt) screams north. Sometimes the differential is so great that the wind blows right across the frozen waste"land" blows into the U.S. (or Siberia, or Norway, etc.) and it gets cold and stays cold for days on end. It is called "weather".

The phenomena with the pseudo-scientific name of "polar vortex" has been around for a while. Typically it has been called things like "Alberta Clipper" or "Nor-Easter" depending on how far east it hits (but those terms aren't nearly as scary). Exactly the same weather pattern that George Washington saw at the Battle of Trenton. There are two things going on here: (1) weather; and (2) irresponsible fear mongering to further an agenda that is way more about politics than climate.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[rconnor]

You have to give one thing to the AGW researchers...they are masters at ducking and weaving.

Ya, I mean really, what kind of a fool attempts to study physical events in more detail in order to understand the underlying mechanism behind them! Ducking and weaving at its finest! None of that for us, all we need is gut feeling reactions and uninformed opinions!

The arctic is warming. Nonsense.

Firstly, to clarify: not only is the Arctic warming, it has warmed more than any other region on the planet. From NASA GISS:
[image

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/global_temperature_anomaly_532.gif

]

So we have several months of dark accompanied by sub-freezing weather and that is creating unusual "polar vortex" conditions?

You don't know the science and, instead of attempting to learn about it, you cling to your uniformed opinions. As I've said before: self-supporting ignorance.

While, yes, the lack of sunlight during the winter months does create the "polar vortex", that does not explain why it dipped as low and lasted as long as it did during this (northern hemisphere) winter. The current understanding is that this is due to a warm arctic and a weak jet stream which allowed the cold air mass to drop southward and remain there for longer than normal.

Research suggests that this is linked to sea ice loss and reduced snow cover in the Arctic (Tang et al, 2013. Francis et al, 2012 or Cohen et al, 2013 as examples). As these factors decrease, so does the strength of west-east component of the jet stream. This causes more north-south variability and more stagnant weather patterns.

This is certainly still a hot topic within scientific circles and more research into the subject is needed. To reiterate:

Rather inconclusive whether anthropogenic climate change can be said to be the cause of cold snap but it certainly is not an argument against the theory.

Lastly, although a buzz term in the media, "polar vortex" has been a name tagged to this climatic event for a long time; the term dates as far back as 1853. It's not an "invention of the liberal media" as some Fox News talking heads have suggested. The reason why most of us have only heard about it just now is that this vortex dropped much further south this year than it usually does. The first evidence of these more southern dips was found in 1952 (Sherhag et al, 1952).

 

[beej67]

So we're finally back to models?

Yay.

I admit to not reading the giant wall of posts above. Has anyone mentioned how the IPCC's best and most complicated global warming models have R^2 values no higher than simply plotting carbon and temperature in Excel and doing a best fit curve?

Or how you can get similar (sometimes better) R^2 values from plotting temperature vs human population, irrespective of carbon?

Those facts tie in nicely with history, given how mankind tends to turn our environments into deserts. We create microclimates, which aggregate into macroclimates, but the IPCC does everything they can to ignore this in their Chase for Carbon Credits.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

we do have a track record of sucking the life out of something, then looking surprised when we've killed it (re Newfoundland Cod fishery).



Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

So when do we get back to more taxes will solve all our problems?

 

[rb1957]

give it about 5min ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[BillPSU]

zdas04
The north pole temperature are balmy compared Purdhoe Bay, AK. Currently it is -37F with a high of -25F.

I've see Fargo, ND have the high temperature of the lower 48 states before at 100F.

Temperature are a fickle thing.

Bill

 

[rconnor]

Beej67, huh? I don’t believe models were mentioned. Nevertheless, I wanted to discuss models in light of knowledge on the “pause”, so I guess this is a good time.

You’ve admitted to not reading the conversation on the science around the “pause” and yet that doesn’t stop you from drawing conclusions on climate models. The science behind the “pause” and recent climate model accuracy are closely linked; to not understand this leaves you vulnerable to believing silly conclusions from “skeptic” blogs.

However, as my aim here is to try and shed as much light on the science as I can, I’ll provide you with a summary of my previous 11 posts on the subject. I’ll also specifically link how those points are important to consider when discussing model accuracy.

The “pause” is not a valid argument against the anthropogenic climate change version for the following reasons:
Reference Period/ENSO
- The “pause” starts during the strongest El Nino year ever recorded (it was an anomalously hot year)
- Following the strongest El Nino year ever recorded, the period turned to a La Nina dominated period, ending with 2 straight La Nina years
- The only other significant El Nino year during the period was 2010 (which was the hottest year in the modern record)
- When reviewing El Nino, La Nina and ENSO neutral years independently, all three separated trends show continued warming throughout the “pause”, on par with the 30 and 60 year trends

Ocean Heat Content
- Some have argued that global surface temperature trends are not the best metric for understanding climate change (or lack thereof) and I would agree (with some caveats). About 2.3% of heat is absorbed in the atmosphere, while 93.4% is absorbed in the oceans
- Ocean Heat Content has continued to rise during the “pause” at all depths, with the most rapid increase occurring in the “deep ocean” (700 m – 2000 m). See NOAA data.
- This agrees with what we know about ENSO dynamics. During La Nina events, which dominate the “pause”, warm water tends to pool deeper in the ocean as cool water sits at the surface, causing cooler surface temperatures. When we switch to an El Nino period (or positive PDO/IPO), the warmer water is brought to the surface causing warmer surface temperatures. Changes in the trade winds are an important aspect of this mechanism. See England et al 2014.
- Studies have shown that during historic “hiatus” periods, such as the one we are in now, deep OHC increased faster than near-surface OHC. The opposite is true for non-hiatus periods. See Meehl et al 2011.
- So, although surface temperatures have not raised that much, OHC has. This is in keeping with what we know about ENSO. When we switch back to a positive PDO/IPO, expect that stored heat to be released into the atmosphere, causing increased warming – as it has in previous cycles.
- Furthermore, this directly dispels any notion that the radiative energy imbalance has disappeared.

Lack of Arctic Coverage
- Most data sets have very sparse coverage of the arctic; much of it isn’t even included in the global average
- The arctic has been shown to be warming faster than any other region on the planet (by NASA GISS)
- When you account for the warming in the arctic, global temperatures continue to rise throughout the pause. See Cowtan and Way 2013 for an example.

Low Solar Activity
- Although research indicates that solar activity has no discernible correlation with long term temperature trends, the short term solar cycles do have an effect (albeit not a huge one).
- Again, I’ll note that of course the sun is the largest driver of our climate in an absolute sense but changes in solar activity have only a small effect on changes in global temperatures.
- The “pause” occurred during a period of low solar activity, so it would be expected that temperatures would be slightly lower than during high solar activity.

Bringing it All Together
- All four aspects are independent reasons. There is some play between ENSO and OHC but both reasons can be taken in isolation; they just have more weight when considered together (as they should).
- When you understand the complete picture, you’d EXPECT relatively steady surface temperatures during this period. In fact, without some other driver (CO2), you’d EXPECT temperatures to show a statistically significant drop.
- Because you don’t and the fact OHC continues to rise, it not only is not a valid argument against the theory, it actually supports it

As the discrepancy between model predictions and observations has occurred over the period of the “pause”, understanding what is causing the “pause” and how it relates to model predictions is crucial. I will now discuss the links between the previous 4 points and their effect on climate model predictions.

Reference Period/ENSO
- The current understanding of ENSO events are that they are stochastic
- Therefore, models cannot (and don’t attempt to) predict these El Nino/La Nina dominated periods (some may refer to them as PDO/IPO)
- As ENSO is about the temporary storage and release of heat and these PDO/IPO periods oscillate, in the long term, the effect balances out
- ENSO/PDO/IPO events have no known internal mechanism that can affect long term climate trends/energy balance
- PDO/IPO is becoming more well understood and it’s possible that models could be developed to predict them. However, this is not likely to have any major effect on their long term trends.
- When you account for these short term, stochastic events (and others such as volcanoes), temperature trends mirror model predictions very closely. See Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, Kosaka and Xie 2013 for examples.

Ocean Heat Content
- Although ENSO events and the exact dates of PDO/IPO switches are impossible to predict, the fact that they will switch is very predictable
- When this switch back to a El Nino dominated period occurs, the heat stored in the oceans during the current “pause” will be brought to the surface, increasing global surface temperatures
- This cycle of global temperatures going through flat periods followed by sharp increases has occurred throughout the industrialized era. Models don’t attempt to perfectly match the exact time frame of flat periods and sharply increasing periods, they aim to predict the average between the two.
- An excellent example of the opposite side of this coin (models running cool during El Nino dominated periods) and the lack of hand-waving in the scientific community is illustrated in Rahmstorf et al, 2007. The warming rate from 1992 to 2006 was 0.28 deg C/decade which is much faster than the IPCC models had predicted. Did the climate scientists scramble to use this as proof the models were running too cold? No, they actually understand the science and knew “the first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system”. That’s skepticism vs. “skepticism”.
- So, although models appear to be running hot as of late, that is because people are expecting it to do something it was never designed to do - predict ENSO events.

Lack of Arctic Coverage
- When accounting for Arctic regions, the temperature trends are much warmer over the “pause” and are closer to model predictions. See Cowton and Way 2013 for an example.
- So, it’s not purely that models are “running hot”, it’s also that recent temperature trends are cooler than they should be

Low Solar Activity
- This cannot be used to describe the discrepancy between model predictions and observations as the 11-year cycle is included in model calculations

Bringing it All Together
- Energy accumulation has continued to increase throughout the “pause”
- Models aren’t designed to perfectly predict specific ENSO events because they are stochastic
- Models are designed to predict the average warming between both La Nina and El Nino phases
- When you separate out the effect of individual ENSO events, models do a very good job predicting temperature trends over the past decade

This is the science folks. If you choose to ignore it or categorically reject it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. However, if you do, it means your opinion on the matter is baseless and meritless. If, instead, you choose to review the science (the actual science not WUWT’s take on the science) and develop a counter-argument using quantifiable, scientifically defensible points, then an actual scientific debate can be had.

 

[rb1957]

"The warming rate from 1992 to 2006 was 0.28 deg C/decade which is much faster than the IPCC models had predicted. Did the climate scientists scramble to use this as proof the models were running too cold? No, they actually understand the science and knew “the first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system”. That’s skepticism vs. “skepticism”." ... i thought the general albeit political reaction to this news was "worse than previously thought".

"When you separate out the effect of individual ENSO events, models do a very good job predicting temperature trends over the past decade." ... can you show this please? because what you're saying (well, what i understand you to say) is that there is no pause; that the models are consistent with the recent short term lack of warming, which i find to be "odd". i haven't seen models predict the "pause".

still i ask if scientists are confident in their model predictions, how much will they bet on them ? and i don't mean what'll the temperature be in toronto at 12:00 on th e24th July (cause models don't predict local events well), i'd take the global average temperature (measured thusly) will be Xdeg. i expect i'd take low odds for the counter bet "whatever your prediction, it won't be that".


Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[hokie66]

Beej67,
You wouldn't be suggesting that the most important hockey stick is the population one? Taxation won't solve that one, but perhaps the plague or famine will.

 

[GregLocock]

Yes, the double whammy of population growth and economic/social progress in the third world will totally overshadow any attempt by the first world to reduce their CO2 output, even as there looks less and less evidence that it is a politically achievable outcome.or even scientifically worthwhile. AT some point the estimates of temperature sensitivity to CO2 will drop to the level measured in the lab, and we'll all look at each other and wonder what the fuss was about. Rather like the story of electron charge measurements, the GCMs are slowly being revised to fall towards planet earth.

In my own CO2 budget the biggest single contributor is transport. The biggest single contributor in that is air travel. I see no sign that mass air transit will achieve 50-75% improvements in fuel efficincy, which is roughly what would be needed. Similarly I can't see cars improving by 50-75% unless we wean our power grid off fossil fuels, which given the uselessness of wind energy, the aversion to nuclear, and the investment required for solar, seems a bit unlikely even in a country as rich as Australia. For other countries read "Without Hot Air" for an analysis for the UK which would also apply to much of the Northern hemisphere.



Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[TomDOT]

Hokie66: Actually, it's the opposite. Get the childhood mortality rate down low and/or get televisions widely available and the reproduction rate drops.

If lots of children die, parents are much more likely to keep having many additional children. When parents are reasonably assured their children will grow up, they tend to have fewer children. The Gates Foundation vaccination initiatives are probably the single biggest factor in bringing down population growth in the developing world.

If you sit around watching TV, you are spending less time thinking about (and trying to) get into someone else's pants.

 

[cranky108]

I was thinking that most of TV is about watching someone try to get into someone else's pants.

 

[rb1957]

... or kill them ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

Just maybe we are going about this wrong. Maybe we should be encurging bad behavior. Things like smoking, and auto-dueling, etc. Things that will decrease the human life span, but not to the extent that we increase infant mortality.

And if you believe statistics, a betterment of education, but not the system we have in the US, because it sucks.

To my first point, selling people on really small cars that kill there owners on even minor accedents (or is that what the enviromental movment is about and we can't see it)?

 

[rconnor]

rb1957,

re: “worse than we thought” – that’s why I try to stick to peer-reviewed papers and avoid posting op-ed pieces from non-experts.

re: calculated temperature trends with ENSO effects removed – no, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that when you remove the short term effects of ENSO from the temperature trends (i.e. what would the temperature trend have been with all ENSO neutral states), that trend lies right in the heart of model runs. Again, this makes sense as models cannot and don’t try to predict individual ENSO events but do estimate the average between the various events.

As per your request, please see the results of Foster and Rahmstorf 2011. The red line is the calculated trend with ENSO and volcano effects removed. The pink is the observed trend and the green is the IPCC model runs. Note that this is based off AR4 model runs.
[image

https://uknowispeaksense.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/rfc12_fig1.jpg?w=500&h=346

]

Unfortunately, Kosaka and Xie 2013 doesn’t overlay their results on the IPCC model runs but we can eye-ball a comparison. First, the results from Kosaka and Xie 2013. Black – observed temperature trends, red – modeled temperature trends, purple – modeled temperature trends with ENSO effects removed. Note the great match between the modeled temperature trends (red) and the observed temperature trend (black).
[image

http://s28.postimg.org/tv39tp74d/Kosaka_and_Xie_2013.png

]

Let’s take 2010 and 2012 as examples.
2010 observed: 0.35 deg C
2010 ENSO Removed: 0.56 deg C
2010 Difference: 0.21 deg C

2012 observed: 0.24 deg C
2012 ENSO Removed: 0.55 deg C
2012 Difference: 0.31 deg C

Now let’s apply these adjustments to the AR5 graph of model runs vs observed temperature trends. Below is figure 1.4 from AR5. I should note that without any adjustments, the observed trend sits well within the confidence intervals of the model runs. They are on the cool end but this is expected given the short term, stochastic cooling effect of the recent La Nina dominated period. When we remove the effects of ENSO, by adding the adjustment factors taken from Kosaka and Xie, we will see that the temperatures sit on the hot end of the model runs. Note that the actual temperature anomaly values between KX2013 and AR5 are different because they take two different baseline points; hence why I’m using the difference for the comparison.
[image

http://s9.postimg.org/5e4l3n3gv/figure_1_4_final_models_vs_observations.png

]

Admittedly, this is a very rough analysis (but given the effort put in by others, I’m not too motivated to do anything more in-depth). However, the results, plus or minus a few tenths of a degree, illustrate the point nicely.

As I’ve stated, models do not attempt to predict what specific ENSO event will occur in each specific year. Given that ENSO events oscillate between El Nino dominated periods and La Nina dominated periods, the average effect between the two is what is important and that is what models attempt to predict. In other words, you can say that models track the ENSO neutral year average.

This is the reason for my analysis a while ago on the separated ENSO years (El Nino years, La Nina years and ENSO neutral years). If the analysis showed that the temperature of ENSO neutral years were in decline, then you could question the validity of models predicting an average increase between PDO/IPO positive and negative periods. However, given that the trend during the “pause” of ENSO neutral years was both positive and on par with the 30 and 60 year trends, it strongly supports the theory and the validity of models. Numbers from the analysis:

1950-2012 Observed Trend (GISS): 0.16 deg C/decade
1982-2012 Observed Trend (GISS): 0.21 deg C/decade
1998-2012 Observed Trend AKA The “Pause” (GISS): 0.09 deg C/decade
1998-2012 ENSO Neutral Years: 0.193 deg C/decade

Re: climate bets – I really don’t understand why you think this is important but, yes, there are bets on temperature trends. A simple Google search will let you know all about them.

 

[rb1957]

climate bets ... yes, i know you can place bets on the climate (as well as on practically anything else imaginable); the point was which scientists have the confidence in their predictions. ok, i can hear a reply "that would cheapen the science". maybe, but it would also show confidence in their work.

as for removing impacts of natural events ... i haven't read the papers but i reckon i could adjust curves to get a monotonic increasing result.

i don't get the consistency in your figures ... figure 1 shows a monotonic increasing trend, figure 3 shows static for 2000 decade?

the cynic in me notes the faint lines in figure 3 increasing through the 2000's which are predictions from models run in the 90s (and models run in the 2000's show a "pause" ...

and i dislike the term "termperature anormaly" ... what's normal and what's anormal ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati