skierinvermont

So? It's possible to form quality surface datasets with resolutions 10X that size. Quality over quantity. Your post strikes me more as a biased cheap-shot at a reliable peer-reviewed data source.

This is probably only if you include 'papers' published in journals that don't actually have real peer-review. I actually don't know of any peer-reviewed studies that put ECS under 1.5C. There are a few that have the lower bound at 1.5C or just below.

That's not true. The anomalies on the PIOMAS graph are anomalies from average, not from the trendline. Both your graph, and that graph show last year's min was just below 2007s.

Seems to be doing a lot of expelling without much cooling the last decade. What's that called again? Oh yes, the greenhouse effect.

I'm not really up on the current science, but last I really looked into this 3-5 years ago, 10ft was considered a possibility. Not the mean or most likely estimate, but a tail risk in a very uncertain field.

GFS is pretty dang impressive for the Cape. It definitely captures and stalls and racks up the totals. Hopefully it turns out to just be a bit west of the GFS. Looking at radar I think it already looks a bit too far east.

i could totally see him making that post. deniers complain about the brightness of anomaly maps all the time. The NCDC makes a paler anomaly map and in cold months the deniers complain it's not bright enough!

Ok so this has the effect of making most of the map most months appear white or very pale blue or orange. Considering most months are above the 118 year average, most months this will create the perception that positive anomalies are more subdued than they actually are. If they had a more liberal use of the bright orange and blue, most months the whole map would have a lot more bright orange instead of just pale orange.

More denier nonsense. Everyone has smacked you down for this stupid conspiracy bull****. The reason for the difference is obvious to anybody with a brain. They are using a 1901-present baseline for rankings. Anomalies are calculated on a 1981-2010 baseline. Try thinking before posting next time.

While I share some of your sentiment, drying and warming of the SW U.S. is a consistent prediction in a warmer world. It's also been found in paleoclimate data as well... extreme drought in the SW U.S. was prevalent in previous warm periods including the Medieval Warm Period. There's even evidence these droughts caused the downfall of several cultures such as the Fremont people.

And I'd also like to remind bluewave, that if you attribute the recent slowdown in surface warming to the -PDO that that is in fact an argument in favor of more warming in the future not less. If on the other hand you attribute it to low climate sensitivity, that would be an argument for less warming in the future.

I think the President's statement is not a fair or proper portrayal of the facts. Yes some aspects of AGW have occurred faster than expected, but many others have not (most importantly temperature). I'd like to point out that the graph of standardized anomalies for arctic vs antarctic sea ice is extremely misleading. For one, it constrains arctic sea ice decline between the +/- 2 deviations blunting the decline of arctic sea ice, and then it magnifies the very slight long-term decline of antarctic sea ice. The whole point is to conceal that the decline in arctic sea ice has been 4 million sq km, while the increase in the antarctic has been a few hundred thousand. It also ignores the fact that AGW is not supposed to have a strong negative effect on antarctic sea ice. It also ignore the evidence that prior to 1980 there was some decline in antarctic sea ice.

Except over very long periods, especially at the regional level, natural variability will drown out radiative forcing.

Yes over a long enough period surface warming will cause both to rise. But that's why I said "all else equal."

All else equal, warmer SSTs = cooler OHC. In the short term, warm SSTs are likely a product of reduced vertical mixing due to less wind. Reduced vertical mixing would mean more heat accumulates in the upper portion of the ocean and especially the surface where it is more effectively radiated to space and thus reducing overall OHC. Now if all else is not equal, warmer SSTs and warmer OHC could be a byproduct of something else (surface air warming, increased sunlight, or increased ocean heat transport from outside the region)

And ORH is right, the flip side of the higher ECS is a lower TCR. But ORH, SoC, and I are all agreeing that if OHC uptake is faster than thought, it means ECS is higher. This is a basic logical fact about which there is no debate. Only poor communication due the vastly oversimplified (to the point of being fallacious) 'heat in the pipeline' fallacy. If the -PDO has been slowing surface warming over the last decade, it means that ECS is higher than one would otherwise (ignoring the -PDO) conclude.

Yes, even if the oceans heat faster than the surface during -PDO intervals like we are in now. In fact, precisely because of that. If the oceans are absorbing heat at a faster rate than thought in the deep, as recent evidence has suggested, (due to the -PDO perhaps) it necessarily means we are farther from equilibrium than previously thought, and that climate sensitivity is higher than thought. If today, with 400ppm of CO2, you thought the earth's energy imbalance was .4W/m2, then that means the earth is .4W/m2 away from equilibrium and if the atmosphere were to remain completely unchanged for the next 1000 years you would see only another ~.3C of surface warming. But, if tomorrow we found out that the earth's energy imbalance was actually .8W/m2 and OHC was rising faster than thought because of the -PDO storing it in the deep oceans, then that would mean if the atmosphere were to remain unchanged for the next 1000 years you would see another ~.6C of surface warming. This is in addition to the .9C of surface temperature warming that has already taken place. In both cases radiative forcing was exactly the same 2.3W/m2 (1.1-3.3)* but in the former the total surface temperature response was 1.2C while in the latter it was 1.5C. In the former ECS is 1.9C (1.3-4.0) but in the latter it is 2.4C (1.7-5.0) per doubling CO2. *Note the primary uncertainty is aerosol forcing. The bottom line is the surface must reach radiative balance. If the oceans are currently rapidly absorbing heat, that is because the surface is far from balance and there is 'warming in the pipeline.' When Trenberth says 'the heat will come back to haunt us' that is a very poor and conceptually incorrect way of phrasing it. The heat is not ever coming back to the surface. But if the earth is gaining heat more rapidly than thought, that means the surface is far from equilibrium, and there is much warming remaining. This is not 'a problem' or 'something that invites more study in the future to try and solve.' It is a basic logical fact. If the oceans are gaining heat faster than thought, it means the earth is farther from equilibrium than thought, more surface warming will occur before equilibrium is reached, and ECS will be higher. The oceans can't effect what the eventual ECS actually is. They can only alter the pace at which ECS is reached. All that matters is the surface reach radiative balance. If the oceans are rapidly absorbing heat, the surface is a long ways away from radiative balance and have much warming remaining.

I don't believe this is saying what you think it is. I believe it is saying that observed surface temperature increase has been more effective at restoring radiative equilibrium than modeled by CMIP5 (heavily dependent on accurately knowing radiative forcing over the period X and also on knowing the radiative balance of the earth at the start and end of that same period X). If the oceans are currently (ie at the end of this period X) absorbing faster than thought, then surface temperature increase has been less effective at radiative restoration, the current imbalance is larger, and ECS is higher (more in line with CMIP5).

I know, and it does not make sense for the reasons I gave.

That statement does not make sense. If the oceans are 'taking the heat more' it just means it will take longer to reach equilibrium. In fact, it means that we are farther from equilibrium than we thought and climate sensitivity is larger than we thought. "Won't exhale it as much" seems to be a vague reference to the 'heat in the pipeline' fallacy.

Discussion of the science and facts of AGW has put NOAA and NASA on the chopping block and direct targets of GOP lawmakers. In terms of preserving their funding, they would be better served to shut up about climate. This also assumes that the agencies function as cohesive units rather than thousands of individuals, and have a centralized messaging plan with the primary purpose of maximizing funding and that all of the individuals within the agency stand to get salary increases or some other material benefit from participation in this messaging plan and assisting the agency maximize its funding. Sort of conspiratorial if you ask me. More likely, the scientists within the agencies whose job it is to study weather and climate and serve the public interest are trying to do their jobs and inform the public.

There aren't that many scientists being funded by oil companies. But that various scientists have accepted big oil money and then gone on to produce unscientific results is a fact. There are several names out there that have done it specifically. More often than not though, the fossil fuel industry doesn't try to interfere directly in science. They just fund denier websites and lobbying groups that talk about how great fossil fuels are and make up nonsense about AGW. I don't suppose your thought experiment was intended to suggest that there has not been denier 'science' done by people taking money from oil was it? Because I can give you names of where it's happened if you need...

1.3W/m2 would be a lot. The actual change in forcing from peak to valley is much less than that because not all of the earth is facing directly at the sun all the time (only the equator does at noon). Half the earth faces away at any given time, and the rest except the equator at noon of the earth faces the sun at various angles. So the actual forcing when the sun changes brightness by about 1W/m2 ends up being about .2W/m2.

Solar made up a lot of the difference for the 2007-2010 period, but we're currently in a solar max one (although a a very weak one). I've done some work on statistically adjusting for the various known sources of natural variability in this thread here: http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/38887-adjusting-global-temperature-for-oni-tsi-and-pinatubo/ The statistical adjustments can do a reasonable job (not perfect) of removing ENSO, solar, and Pinatubo effects. When this procedure is performed we see that the last 15 years have had a pretty normal rate of warming. There's been a bit of a slowdown since 2005. This could be due to the imperfections of the statistical procedure, or it could be due to other sources of natural variability, or it could be due ECS lying on the lower side of the 1.5-4.5C confidence interval. Here is the relevant chart I produced:

Friv, we have warmed when you look at comparable ENSO states or statistically remove the ENSO signal. But not be all that much. If we used theoretical rates of AGW and ENSO is the only form of natural variability, then today's neutral years should be .25C warmer than neutral years 15 years ago. Ninos, should be .25C warmer than 15 years ago, and the same for Ninas. Usually it's not quite that big of a difference and ends up being around .15C warmer.