Leading Paleoclimatologist: Prepare for the Next Ice Age

[BethesdaWX]

The ENSO trend is positive if we start in late 1998-2000. It is negative if we start in 2001-2005. It's fairly neutral if we start in early 1998 or earlier.

The ENSO trend IS corrected more negative for start dates between late 1998 and 2000.

Look at the Graph. I've posted it a half dozen times. Slow down and think.

I don't think you understand my point on removing MORE THAN JUST ENSO Mr. Numbnut.

"Yeah thats right, lets just take ENSO out and nothing else impacts temperature"....

Are you kidding me?

[nzucker]

The ENSO trend is positive if we start in late 1998-2000. It is negative if we start in 2001-2005. It's fairly neutral if we start in early 1998 or earlier.

The ENSO trend IS corrected more negative for start dates between late 1998 and 2000.

What is the uncorrected temperature trend from the peak of the 1998 El Niño to the peak of the 2010 El Niño?

[skierinvermont]

What is the uncorrected temperature trend from the peak of the 1998 El Niño to the peak of the 2010 El Niño?

Well from the start of 1998 to the end of 2010 the trend is +.13C/decade. It happens to be an ENSO neutral period, so the ENSO corrected trend is also about .13C/decade (I think it's a hair under .13C because the ENSO trend is a hair positive).

[tacoman25]

Well from the start of 1998 to the end of 2010 the trend is +.12C/decade. It happens to be an ENSO neutral period, so the ENSO corrected trend is also about .12C/decade.

For GISS. It's lower for all other sources. For UAH, 33% lower at .08C/decade.

[skierinvermont]

He did correct the temperatures to account for the slightly positive ENSO trend;

Starting in late 1998 to 2000 can actually lead to some pretty large positive ENSO trends, and the ENSO corrected trends are nearly 50% less than the raw trends.

[BethesdaWX]

Well from the start of 1998 to the end of 2010 the trend is +.13C/decade. It happens to be an ENSO neutral period, so the ENSO corrected trend is also about .13C/decade (I think it's a hair under .13C because the ENSO trend is a hair positive).

Use UAH please

thanks!

[skierinvermont]

Use UAH please

thanks!

No, I prefer to use GISS/HadCRUT from 60S-60N with UAH infilling of the poles.

[BethesdaWX]

No, I prefer to use GISS/HadCRUT from 60S-60N with UAH infilling of the poles.

Can you do me a favor and create a Graph with UAH trend from the middle of the 1998 spike to the 2010 spike?

You don't need to believe it or use it yourself

[tacoman25]

No, I prefer to use GISS/HadCRUT from 60S-60N with UAH infilling of the poles.

Using the Wood For Trees Index, which is simply a combination of all 4 major temperatures sources (and therefore removing bias towards any one), yields a trend of .08C/decade from Jan 1998 to Dec 2010.

I think it's fair to assume that the ENSO-corrected trend over the past 9-12 years has been in the .07C/decade - .10C/decade range.

[skierinvermont]

Using the Wood For Trees Index, which is simply a combination of all 4 major temperatures sources (and therefore removing bias towards any one), yields a trend of .08C/decade from Jan 1998 to Dec 2010.

I think it's fair to assume that the ENSO-corrected trend over the past 9-12 years has been in the .07C/decade - .10C/decade range.

The skier^TM index is .077C/decade 1998-2010 (using annual values which isn't as good). ENSO corrected it is .057C/decade. And ENSO and TSI corrected it is .21C/decade.

I'm just going to say the skier index now because it's easier than explaining what it is each time

[Isotherm]

Even if removing ENSO from the picture doesn't change the trendline over the past 15 years, I still don't understand the reasoning for doing it. Should we remove the PDO from the equation as well since its usually in its cold phase during Nina conditions and vice versa? Examining anthropogenic climate change cannot be done in a vacuum, in which Earth's natural factors are extracted from the puzzle. Obviously if we've got no ENSO, no PDO, no natural feedback systems, the human induced climate change would be much more substantial. ENSO is not an independent, stand-alone variable, and considering we're all meteorology enthusiasts here, I'm surprised that anyone would think of taking it out of the equation. ENSO impacts and is impacted by many other variables, so I'm not sure how one can assign a statistical, numerical value to it as if its a singular index. I'd wager that if we looked further back, the "ENSO corrected" numbers would not look nearly as similar to the ENSO inclusive numbers.

In addition, this is part of the debate regarding the AGW theory - that it's very difficult to account for potential feedbacks caused by ENSO and numerous other natural factors. We can't just go removing pieces that are important to the puzzle.

Furthermore, I've never even heard of removing ENSO from the picture; have seen zero papers asserting that this should be done (on the AGW side too).

[BethesdaWX]

Even if removing ENSO from the picture doesn't change the trendline over the past 15 years, I still don't understand the reasoning for doing it. Should we remove the PDO from the equation as well since its usually in its cold phase during Nina conditions and vice versa? Examining anthropogenic climate change cannot be done in a vacuum, in which Earth's natural factors are extracted from the puzzle. Obviously if we've got no ENSO, no PDO, no natural feedback systems, the human induced climate change would be much more substantial. ENSO is not an independent, stand-alone variable, and considering we're all meteorology enthusiasts here, I'm surprised that anyone would think of taking it out of the equation. ENSO impacts and is impacted by many other variables, so I'm not sure how one can assign a statistical, numerical value to it as if its a singular index. I'd wager that if we looked further back, the "ENSO corrected" numbers would not look nearly as similar to the ENSO inclusive numbers.

In addition, this is part of the debate regarding the AGW theory - that it's very difficult to account for potential feedbacks caused by ENSO and numerous other natural factors. We can't just go removing pieces that are important to the puzzle.

Furthermore, I've never even heard of removing ENSO from the picture; have seen zero papers asserting that this should be done (on the AGW side too).

You are absolutely correct. As you say, there are zero papers, and zero evidence, that it can be done, because the cimate feedback spectrum is circular. Removing ENSO may seem possible at Face Value, but in realiy, it is not.

If you're going to attempt to remove ENSO, you have to remove everything else as well and we simply don't know how to do it. Much of the issue we cannot even measure!

In fact, the radiative feedback imbalance from CO2/AGW is Too small to measure, so we cannot even measure the phenomenon that supposedly causes AGW

[BethesdaWX]

The skier^TM index is .077C/decade 1998-2010 (using annual values which isn't as good). ENSO corrected it is .057C/decade. And ENSO and TSI corrected it is .21C/decade.

I'm just going to say the skier indexnow because it's easier than explaining what it is each time

Where do you get your TSI formula from?!?! .2C in an intracycle Min? Impossible, even the biggest Solar freaks would laugh at you.

Show me the source. Also show me the formula to remove ENSO (which cannot be done due to differing atmospheric response).

I hope you're not making that up, or you'll get a very hard time here.

[skierinvermont]

Even if removing ENSO from the picture doesn't change the trendline over the past 15 years, I still don't understand the reasoning for doing it. Should we remove the PDO from the equation as well since its usually in its cold phase during Nina conditions and vice versa? Examining anthropogenic climate change cannot be done in a vacuum, in which Earth's natural factors are extracted from the puzzle. Obviously if we've got no ENSO, no PDO, no natural feedback systems, the human induced climate change would be much more substantial. ENSO is not an independent, stand-alone variable, and considering we're all meteorology enthusiasts here, I'm surprised that anyone would think of taking it out of the equation. ENSO impacts and is impacted by many other variables, so I'm not sure how one can assign a statistical, numerical value to it as if its a singular index. I'd wager that if we looked further back, the "ENSO corrected" numbers would not look nearly as similar to the ENSO inclusive numbers.

In addition, this is part of the debate regarding the AGW theory - that it's very difficult to account for potential feedbacks caused by ENSO and numerous other natural factors. We can't just go removing pieces that are important to the puzzle.

Furthermore, I've never even heard of removing ENSO from the picture; have seen zero papers asserting that this should be done (on the AGW side too).

Peer reviewed studies have done it, tacoman and I have posted it before.

Also, over the long run, the ENSO-corrected and raw trends will converge to the exact same numbers because in the long run, ENSO averages to zero.

The point of removing all these variables isn't to say "this is what the real temperature is." The point is to say this is what the underlying trend is related to CO2.

As we can see, the underlying trend after removing ENSO, TSI, and volcanoes, is remarkably consistent. So we know that CO2-warming is still occurring at around the theoretical rate of .15-.2C/decade. Natural factors can and are temporarily masking it. Whether they can or will continue to do so is an interesting question.

You may come up with your own answer to that question, but given a multitude of natural factors converged to produce cooling late this decade, I would say no. TSI is likely to ramp up somewhat over the next 4-7 years and induce substantial warming when combined with the underlying trend.

[BethesdaWX]

Skier, from now on, please post data/references in your posts.

Please answer my above post.

[skierinvermont]

Where do you get your TSI formula from?!?! .2C in an intracycle Min? Impossible, even the biggest Solar freaks would laugh at you.

Show me the source. Also show me the formula to remove ENSO (which cannot be done due to differing atmospheric response).

I hope you're not making that up, or you'll get a very hard time here.

I already provided the study on which the TSI formula was based. Camp and Tung 2007.

The formula for ENSO was -.105C per degree of ONI. This is based off of a correlation analysis which I performed.

[BethesdaWX]

I already provided the study on which the TSI formula was based. Camp and Tung 2007.

The formula for ENSO was -.105C per degree of ONI.

Are you nuts? I found your paper: http://www.amath.was...s/solar-jgr.pdf

1) They say nothing about your referenced timeframe, its unrelated!

Here is their conclusion! What ever happened to IPCC superiority? What do the last 3 solar cycles and a study done in 2007 have to do with today?

The pattern shows a global warming of the Earth’s surface of about 0.2 °K, with larger warming over the polar regions than over the tropics, and larger over continents than over the oceans. It is also established that the global warming of the surface is related to the 11-year solar cycle, in particular to its TSI, at over 95% confidence level. Since the solar-forcing variability has been measured by satellites, we therefore now know both the forcing and the response (assuming cause and effect). This information is then used to deduce the climate sensitivity. Since the equilibrium response should be larger than the periodic response measured, the periodic solar-cycle response measurements yields a lower bound on the equilibrium climate sensitivity that is equivalent to a global warming of 2.3 °K

Do you know what they're speaking of? I'll tell you if you want

Oh... But But But But But.....They are Not Climate Scientists, the are staticians, so its automatically wrong!.,...and they Go Against the IPCC,which is even more wrong!

So, when an argument supports your point of view, you use it...even if it is unrelated

2) Lets see a Peer reviewed paper removing ENSO, and what they base their formula off of.

Here is your problem:

The suns ability to manipulated the climate system and its feedbacks, not accumulated solar energy.

REMOVE TREE RINGS!

Do you know why the Maunder Minimum dropped temps temps 1.2C or more in 100yrs? You need to focus on the true aspects of Solar that may effect Global Cloud Cover. Look at 10/BE concentrations, UVA & UVB rays, Geo-AA, etc, and HOW THEY AFFECT/FEEDBACK ON THE CLIMATE SYSTEM. Not energy Imbalance from a <1% change in TSI.

Remove Tree Rings Fromproxy data. This Peer reviewed Study explains how to do it.

http://www.ncasi.org...il.aspx?id=3025

[skierinvermont]

I realized that I had made a slight error in the first versions of the graph in that only HadCRUT temperatures were used (I had accidentally used the HadCRUT 60-60 data twice). I've corrected it so that it uses an average of HadCRUT 60-60 w/ UAH poles and GISS 60-60 w/ UAH poles as I intended to. Here are the first graphs I posted again. The first is a comparison before and after the adjustments. The second is only after the adjustments, but showing a 5 -year smoothing. As you can see, the picture has changed very little, showing fairly monotic underlying warming.

same thing as the purple line but showing a 5-yr smoother in red:

[skierinvermont]

You found the wrong paper Bethesda. As I said already, the link to the paper was posted earlier in the thread.

[WeatherRusty]

Even if removing ENSO from the picture doesn't change the trendline over the past 15 years, I still don't understand the reasoning for doing it. Should we remove the PDO from the equation as well since its usually in its cold phase during Nina conditions and vice versa? Examining anthropogenic climate change cannot be done in a vacuum, in which Earth's natural factors are extracted from the puzzle. Obviously if we've got no ENSO, no PDO, no natural feedback systems, the human induced climate change would be much more substantial. ENSO is not an independent, stand-alone variable, and considering we're all meteorology enthusiasts here, I'm surprised that anyone would think of taking it out of the equation. ENSO impacts and is impacted by many other variables, so I'm not sure how one can assign a statistical, numerical value to it as if its a singular index. I'd wager that if we looked further back, the "ENSO corrected" numbers would not look nearly as similar to the ENSO inclusive numbers.

In addition, this is part of the debate regarding the AGW theory - that it's very difficult to account for potential feedbacks caused by ENSO and numerous other natural factors. We can't just go removing pieces that are important to the puzzle.

Furthermore, I've never even heard of removing ENSO from the picture; have seen zero papers asserting that this should be done (on the AGW side too).

The reason one can consider isolating greenhouse warming from other factors is that with the exception of solar radiation none of the other factors are radiative forcings. The temperature of the Earth is the result of the balance between incoming and out going total energy. Only processes which affect this exchange of energy at the interface of Earth's atmosphere and the vacuum of space are relevant. Ocean cycles do not produce energy, they only move energy around and zero out over time.

The Sun, greenhouse gases, clouds, ice and aerosols do matter to the eventual temperature of Earth because they affect the radiative balance.

[skierinvermont]

Special delivery just for you Bethesda..

http://www.skeptical...al-warming.html

The study is Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection by Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung. They find a global warming signal of 0.18°C attributable to the 11-year solar cycle.

They concluded that from solar minimum to maximum (eg - from 1996 to 2001), the forcing from the sun increases global temperatures by 0.18°C. Conversely, from solar maximum to minimum (eg - from 2001 to 2007), the reduced forcing from the sun cools global temperatures by 0.18°C. This 11 year cycle is superimposed over the long term global warming trend.

[BethesdaWX]

You found the wrong paper Bethesda. As I said already, the link to the paper was posted earlier in the thread.

What page?

[skierinvermont]

What page?

See above.

[BethesdaWX]

http://www.skeptical...al-warming.html

The study is Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection by Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung. They find a global warming signal of 0.18°C attributable to the 11-year solar cycle.

They concluded that from solar minimum to maximum (eg - from 1996 to 2001), the forcing from the sun increases global temperatures by 0.18°C. Conversely, from solar maximum to minimum (eg - from 2001 to 2007), the reduced forcing from the sun cools global temperatures by 0.18°C. This 11 year cycle is superimposed over the long term global warming trend.

Going against the IPCC? Staticians Not Climate Scientists? I cannot read the paper for some reason., why is this?

Although this helps me prove my point on TSI being a short term influence whether its true or not.

The problem:

This is where our lack of understanding in mechanisms cause the two opinion groups Split and diverge unfortunately.................Long term trends are removed from the dataset...those long term trends [that were removed] reflect solar influence in other regards, the Suns ability to Manipulate the Climate System and its Internal Forcings/Feedbacks. Not through TSI fluctuations, but through Magnetic Impact and 10/BE concentrations......these are Multi Century Correlations that, while we have no known feedback mehcanism yet, correlate better than CO2.

Feedbacks within the climte system are the problem, being negative as they most likely are, an external forcings is what will create an altering in these feedbacks together internally.

[skierinvermont]

Going against the IPCC? Staticians Not Climate Scientists? I cannot read the paper for some reason., why is this?

Although this helps me prove my point on TSI being a short term influence whether its true or not.

The problem:

This is where our lack of understanding in mechanisms cause the two opinion groups Split and diverge unfortunately.................Long term trends are removed from the dataset...those long term trends [that were removed] reflect solar influence in other regards, the Suns ability to Manipulate the Climate System and its Internal Forcings/Feedbacks. Not through TSI fluctuations, but through Magnetic Impact and 10/BE concentrations......these are Multi Century Correlations that, while we have no known feedback mehcanism yet, correlate better than CO2.

Feedbacks within the climte system are the problem, being negative as they most likely are, an external forcings is what will create an altering in these feedbacks together internally.

None of the things (magnetism, 10/BE concentrations) you mentioned correlate well at all, and none of them have plausible causative mechanisms.

[BethesdaWX]

None of the things (magnetism, 10/BE concentrations) you mentioned correlate well at all, and none of them have plausible causative mechanisms.

Wrong

1) They correlate well Multi century, better than CO2 even in the past 70 years.

2) We do not know of any Mechanism, thats all. Our knowledge sucks in that regard.

[skierinvermont]

Wrong

1) They correlate well Multi century, better than CO2 even in the past 70 years.

2) We do not know of any Mechanism, thats all. Our knowledge sucks in that regard.

Just because two things go up doesn't mean they correlate well.

If magnetism correlates well, so does piracy.

[BethesdaWX]

Just because two things go up doesn't mean they correlate well.

They go up and down, ebb and flow together over the past 1,000yrs+. (Hint, this has nothing to do with Magnetism from the sun directly, its not the AA index).

It has to do with Clouds, but applying a double relationship between 10/BE and the AA index.

Now we just need to find a mechanism, otherwise we'll get nowhere. Its there somewhere.

[skierinvermont]

They go up and down, ebb and flow together over the past 1,000yrs+.

No, they don't

[BethesdaWX]

No, they don't

Do you know what I'm referring to? Aparently not.

10/BE's relationship to GCC thru GCR and magnetic impacts/changes in the IMF+Earths MagF are Always thrown away by Warmists/IPCC because "We do not know of a Mechanism, and we have no ability to measure it".

Pathetic.