Is the planet warming?- truly independent study a resounding YES

[tacoman25]

As does the price of beans in China which has also increased over that period.

Unlike the price of beans in China, the PDO is a part of natural climate fluctuations.

[tacoman25]

Well you can define a skeptic however you want, but to me somebody that understands we will likely warm 1.5C+ by 2100 and that this will have serious consequences is not a skeptic. Anybody who doesn't understand that is a skeptic and is also wrong in that their 'position' isn't supported by a rational objective view of the evidence.

Sounds like you want things to be as black and white as possible. But that's just not reality.

[tacoman25]

Unlike the price of beans in China, the PDO is a part of natural climate fluctuations.

Skiier, I hope you realize that admitting the PDO cycle obviously plays a role in global temperatures does not undermine AGW theory. But it does provide a more well-rounded perspective on the amount of warming over the past three decades or so. Just saying: "about half the warming in the past 100 years has occurred since 1970 or 1975 or whatever" gives an incomplete picture.

[WeatherRusty]

And about 75% of the warming occurred during +PDO phases. The 1975-2005 period was dominated by +PDO, so of course that plays a role in the amount of warming since 1970.

Where did the heat energy come from? If from the oceans then the oceans should have cooled. They have warmed right along with the atmosphere. PDO can add nothing to long term climate change.

[skierinvermont]

Unlike the price of beans in China, the PDO is a part of natural climate fluctuations.

That doesn't prove it has had any effect or more than a very marginal effect.

[tacoman25]

Where did the heat energy come from? If from the oceans then the oceans should have cooled. They have warmed right along with the atmosphere. PDO can add nothing to long term climate change.

See my post above. You are correct in that the PDO/oceanic cycles have no effect on longterm temperature change. But for shorter time periods, they definitely play a significant role in the temperature trend.

[WeatherRusty]

I still can't believe that there has been anyone in the field of science that actually believed the earth hasn't warmed the last 50yrs. I think someone already posted this but I'll do it again...the debate for most is not whether the earth has warmed but the debate is "WHY" has the earth warmed.

The study in which this thread is the topic does not help answer that question whatsoever. So no one should be claiming anykind of victory at all.

But the point of "climategate" was to discredit the instrumental temperature record. Lots of folks question whether the world has been warming, including the Republican Party. They have even voted on it, and they denied the warming.

[tacoman25]

That doesn't prove it has had any effect or more than a very marginal effect.

It proves that the beans remark was pointless and unrelated.

There is a lot that is unknown about the ocean cycles still, but it is clear you haven't put nearly as much research into these as you have many other things about AGW. The case for the PDO phases effecting global temperature trends is quite strong, and like AGW and warming over the past 100 years, there really is no better explanation available for the multi-decadal fluctuations we have seen with temperature trends.

[skierinvermont]

Sounds like you want things to be as black and white as possible. But that's just not reality.

No not at all.. there are many thousands of types of skeptics with varying degrees of rationality and irrationality, varying degrees of knowledge and ignorance. But they're all wrong in so far as they reject the high probability that we will warm 1.5C+ by 2100 and that this will have serious consequences.

I don't think it is very useful to call somebody who accepts that we will warm 1.5C by 2100 and that this will have serious consequences a 'skeptic.' Otherwise, we're all skeptics including the most well-known climate scientists and IPCC authors. The distinction loses all meaning once we start calling essentially everybody 'skeptics' except Hansen, Bill McKibben and the HuffPo science writers.

[skierinvermont]

It proves that the beans remark was pointless and unrelated.

There is a lot that is unknown about the ocean cycles still, but it is clear you haven't put nearly as much research into these as you have many other things about AGW. The case for the PDO phases effecting global temperature trends is quite strong, and like AGW and warming over the past 100 years, there really is no better explanation available for the multi-decadal fluctuations we have seen with temperature trends.

If the case is so strong point me to ONE just ONE peer-reviewed paper which concludes the PDO has had a significant long-term influence on global temperature.

I have done plenty of research on the PDO having once believed it to be a major player myself. But I have never been comfortable with the fact that there is no plausible mechanism. The oceans have absorbed an incredible quantity of heat from the atmosphere. The atmosphere is warming the ocean, not the other way around.

[WeatherRusty]

It proves that the beans remark was pointless and unrelated.

There is a lot that is unknown about the ocean cycles still, but it is clear you haven't put nearly as much research into these as you have many other things about AGW. The case for the PDO phases effecting global temperature trends is quite strong, and like AGW and warming over the past 100 years, there really is no better explanation available for the multi-decadal fluctuations we have seen with temperature trends.

Well we agree then. What is the magnitude of lower troposphere temperature change on a global scale produced by the PDO as it rides along the long term trend line?

+ and - 0.1C? 0.2C?????

[tacoman25]

If the case is so strong point me to ONE just ONE peer-reviewed paper which concludes the PDO has had a significant long-term influence on global temperature.

I have done plenty of research on the PDO having once believed it to be a major player myself. But I have never been comfortable with the fact that there is no plausible mechanism. The oceans have absorbed an incredible quantity of heat from the atmosphere. The atmosphere is warming the ocean, not the other way around.

Completely missing the point. Did you read what I wrote to Rusty? The PDO does not affect longterm temperature increase. But it does play a significant role in temperature trends over shorter time periods. We have already seen its affects on the trend over the past decade, it clearly played a role on the relatively rapid warming from the 1970s to the 2000s, the flatter trend from the 1940s to the 1970s, and the more rapid warming seen from the 1920s to the 1940s.

[Go Kart Mozart]

The planet has warmed about 0.9C since the LIA with about 0.8C occurring during the 20th century until now. 0.4C to 0.5C has occurred since about 1970.

What is considered to be the end date of the LIA?

[tacoman25]

Well we agree then. What is the magnitude of lower troposphere temperature change on a global scale produced by the PDO as it rides along the long term trend line?

+ and - 0.1C? 0.2C?????

I'm not sure. If I remember correctly, I've read estimates of around .2 to .3C. So in a +PDO, the temperature trend from the 1940s to 1970s would have been about that much warmer. In a -PDO, the temperature trend from the 1970s to 2000s would have been that much cooler.

All the PDO does is enhance or mask the underlying warming trend, depending on what phase it is in.

[skierinvermont]

Completely missing the point. Did you read what I wrote to Rusty? The PDO does not affect longterm temperature increase. But it does play a significant role in temperature trends over shorter time periods. We have already seen its affects on the trend over the past decade, it clearly played a role on the relatively rapid warming from the 1970s to the 2000s, the flatter trend from the 1940s to the 1970s, and the more rapid warming seen from the 1920s to the 1940s.

Show me one peer-reviewed study that supports this.

Moreover, if it has a significant impact on 30 years it would still have a significant impact over 100 years which encompassed a +/-/+ regime.

Any effect over even just 30 years is likely very very small. The primary reason that global temperatures rose 1920s-1940s, flatlined, and then rose again, is NOT the PDO. The correlation is merely incidental.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not sure. If I remember correctly, I've read estimates of around .2 to .3C.

Not peer-reviewed you haven't

should be pretty easy to find.. because any study which proved this supposed .2-.3C effect would be truly revolutionary and publishable in JoC or nature or science

[tacoman25]

No not at all.. there are many thousands of types of skeptics with varying degrees of rationality and irrationality, varying degrees of knowledge and ignorance. But they're all wrong in so far as they reject the high probability that we will warm 1.5C+ by 2100 and that this will have serious consequences.

I don't think it is very useful to call somebody who accepts that we will warm 1.5C by 2100 and that this will have serious consequences a 'skeptic.' Otherwise, we're all skeptics including the most well-known climate scientists and IPCC authors. The distinction loses all meaning once we start calling essentially everybody 'skeptics' except Hansen, Bill McKibben and the HuffPo science writers.

So someone who believe that is likely, but also believes that higher estimates are overdone and probably the alarmism over the consequences as well is not a skeptic? I think you are still too narrow in your view of what makes a skeptic a skeptic. You would like to be able to say all skeptics are wrong, but that only works if you use your own tailored definition.

[WeatherRusty]

Well we agree then. What is the magnitude of lower troposphere temperature change on a global scale produced by the PDO as it rides along the long term trend line?

+ and - 0.1C? 0.2C?????

As ENSO imparts warming and cooling on the temperature trend line on a 1 - 2 year basis, maybe the much more spatially diffused temperature anomaly of PDO can bring about a much lower magnitude change. How much?

[skierinvermont]

So someone who believe that is likely, but also believes that higher estimates are overdone and probably the alarmism over the consequences as well is not a skeptic? I think you are still too narrow in your view of what makes a skeptic a skeptic. You would like to be able to say all skeptics are wrong, but that only works if you use your own tailored definition.

I believe the higher estimates are probably wrong. Does that make me a skeptic?

I do not consider myself a skeptic.

[aslkahuna]

This whole pissing contest (thread) between those who all agree that warming is occurring and who see a human factor in it is all over differences in opinion over how much of a human factor, how much warming can be expected. If we have so much disagreement among this group then how can we ever expect that there will ever be agreement outside the community. BTW some of the comments of a personal nature seem to me to be uncalled for and out in left field.

Steve

[WeatherRusty]

This whole pissing contest (thread) between those who all agree that warming is occurring and who see a human factor in it is all over differences in opinion over how much of a human factor, how much warming can be expected. If we have so much disagreement among this group then how can we ever expect that there will ever be agreement outside the community. BTW some of the comments of a personal nature seem to me to be uncalled for and out in left field.

Steve

It would be great if the science explicitly stated the temperature will rise 1.8C by Dec. 31, 2090. The best the science can do is to state that climate sensitivity resides somewhere between about 2.0C and 4.5C and final figure will be reached once the system has reached equilibrium to the forcing....whenever that may be...probably a few extra decades.There is no particularly good reason to choose a lower or higher number within that range...it could be anywhere in there. We just don't know.

[tacoman25]

Show me one peer-reviewed study that supports this.

Moreover, if it has a significant impact on 30 years it would still have a significant impact over 100 years which encompassed a +/-/+ regime.

Any effect over even just 30 years is likely very very small. The primary reason that global temperatures rose 1920s-1940s, flatlined, and then rose again, is NOT the PDO. The correlation is merely incidental.

You are disputing something that is largely accepted in the climate science community now, or at least by those that study PDO/ENSO. Not sure why.

From NOAA:

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO.htm

The folks at skeptical science agree that the PDO phases influences short term variations: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pacific-decadal-oscillation.htm

A great read on the PDO/global warming relationship: http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/08/03/on-the-relationship-between-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo-and-the-global-average-mean-temperature/

This peer-reviewed paper references the effect of the PDO on short term variation: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2007GL029698.shtml

The mechanism by which the PDO influences temperature trends within its phases is no different than how ENSO influences short term temperature variation. The two are linked, we've been over this before.

[tacoman25]

Not peer-reviewed you haven't

should be pretty easy to find.. because any study which proved this supposed .2-.3C effect would be truly revolutionary and publishable in JoC or nature or science

No, it was an article by someone who studied the PDO, I believe at the University of WA (there are not many, it's such a young field right now and so much more energy/money is devoted to studying AGW than natural climate occilations), I'll have to see if I can find it.

[tacoman25]

As ENSO imparts warming and cooling on the temperature trend line on a 1 - 2 year basis, maybe the much more spatially diffused temperature anomaly of PDO can bring about a much lower magnitude change. How much?

The best guess at this point is that -PDO brings more -ENSO, which then allows less surface temperature warming. There is no more reason to doubt the mechanism behind PDO influencing temperature trends than ENSO influencing temperature trends, and of course the correlation for both is quite robust. I'm not sure why skiier is so set on denying the PDO's influence on decadal trends, when that says nothing about AGW or underlying warming.

[tacoman25]

I believe the higher estimates are probably wrong. Does that make me a skeptic?

I do not consider myself a skeptic.

Well, that's fine. But I could say I consider all believers that warming over the coming century will cause serious consequences to be alarmists. Does that make you an alarmist?

In other words, it's subjective. Someone doesn't have to fit your definition to be considered a skeptic. Your definition simply allows you to say what you want: that all skeptics are wrong.

[skierinvermont]

You are disputing something that is largely accepted in the climate science community now, or at least by those that study PDO/ENSO. Not sure why.

From NOAA:

http://www.appinsys....Warming/PDO.htm

The folks at skeptical science agree that the PDO phases influences short term variations: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pacific-decadal-oscillation.htm

A great read on the PDO/global warming relationship: http://atmoz.org/blo...an-temperature/

This peer-reviewed paper references the effect of the PDO on short term variation: http://www.agu.org/p...7GL029698.shtml

The mechanism by which the PDO influences temperature trends within its phases is no different than how ENSO influences short term temperature variation. The two are linked, we've been over this before.

I've read those and none of them come remotely close to supporting your unsubstantiated claim of .2 to .3C effect by the PDO.

[WeatherRusty]

The best guess at this point is that -PDO brings more -ENSO, which then allows less surface temperature warming. There is no more reason to doubt the mechanism behind PDO influencing temperature trends than ENSO influencing temperature trends, and of course the correlation for both is quite robust. I'm not sure why skiier is so set on denying the PDO's influence on decadal trends, when that says nothing about AGW or underlying warming.

There are many modes of variability superimposed on the background trend. PDO is one of them. PDO warms as the overall climate warms. If we could strip away all other cases of internal variability other than PDO, the phasing of PDO would be seen to imprint a non-uniform oscillating waveform over the background trend. The high points of PDO would represent the warmest periods, but the warmest periods would be seen to be warming generally along with the background trend. It is the background trend which represents warming, not the PDO.

[skierinvermont]

Well, that's fine. But I could say I consider all believers that warming over the coming century will cause serious consequences to be alarmists. Does that make you an alarmist?

In other words, it's subjective. Someone doesn't have to fit your definition to be considered a skeptic. Your definition simply allows you to say what you want: that all skeptics are wrong.

That makes absolutely no sense. Why would I want to define something in such a way that I can call it wrong as if I have something against the very word itself?

What I am against is people who do not accept/understand the consensus science supporting 1.5C+ of warming by 2100 under an A1B-like scenario.

I have nothing against the word 'skeptic.'

I just don't think it is very useful to call people, like me, who accept the likelihood of 1.5C of warming and associated serious consequences 'skeptics.'

[tacoman25]

I've read those and none of them come remotely close to supporting your unsubstantiated claim of .2 to .3C effect by the PDO.

Think about it: if there was about .5C of warming from 1970-2000, and with a -PDO over most that period there only would have been .3C warming, that would still would be about .10C/decade warming over that period, which I believe would be within AGW forcing expectations for that time period.

There is nothing remarkable about the number I threw out (which I said I didn't know for sure if was accurate).

[tacoman25]

There are many modes of variability superimposed on the background trend. PDO is one of them. PDO warms as the overall climate warms. If we could strip away all other cases of internal variability other than PDO, the phasing of PDO would be seen to imprint a non-uniform oscillating waveform over the background trend. The high points of PDO would represent the warmest periods, but the warmest periods would be seen to be warming generally along with the background trend. It is the background trend which represents warming, not the PDO.

Agreed.

But when you throw out numbers like ".5C warming since 1970", natural variations over that period should be accounted for as well, instead of just assuming that warming amount was all AGW.