Steve_M

quote:

One possible reason for the relative cooling effect in the next decade is the predicted weakening of a system that brings warm water northward into the North Atlantic and offsets an expected rise in greenhouse gases

Does this mean because the ocean is cooler it disolves more CO2 or do they mean "offsets rise in temperature"?

If the heat isn't transported by sea from the tropics will it get even hotter at the tropics or will it transport upwards as latent heat of evaporation and convection or create cloud and cool the tropics? Would this have happened without anthropic CO2 in the atmosphere? Plenty measurable there for the new model to predict.

From the BBC,

quote:

The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe.

The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years.

You see, the whole aerosol-cleaner skies explanation od the 40's-70's cooling was nonsense. But AGW proponents wanted to so believe any explanation they could find (and not admit any faults with their theory), they simply ignored it's inherent sillines. It makes me concerened about how much more silliness these "consensus scientists" spout-off just in order to keep their pet AGW theory looking credible?

Well they may all stay in a job until 2020 now.

Steve_M, you recently predicted that we would see several years with higher average temperatures than 1998 in the next few years. Where do you now stand on this?

The IPCC models clearly do not model ocean currents. What else do they not model. Oh yes that's it the sun.

It will be very interesting (and unfortunately very devastating for many) if the projections of a weak solar cycle 23 and 24 come about, and combine with the projected change in oceanic currents.

quote:

Originally posted by engineerer:
Well they may all stay in a job until 2020 now.

Would that be just in time to quietly retire, for both politcians and those Govt funded scientists?

May be they should have said the cooling will take place until 2050 - but then things will really start cooking!

Meant cycle 24 and 25

M Batchelor,

quote:

From the BBC,

quote:
The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe.

The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years.

It's very irresponsible of you to quote this from the BBC as it hasn't yet been peer reviewed by climate activist, Jo Abbess.

quote:

M Batchelor,

quote:
From the BBC,

quote:
The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe.

The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years.



It's very irresponsible of you to quote this from the BBC as it hasn't yet been peer reviewed by climate activist, Jo Abbess.

It'd probably been changed by the Beeb 'bout 1/2 doz times any-how so who knows what the original story was(though the date stamp was probably from the orginal

More interesting stuff over on Climateaudit where there has been a debate about the validity of averaging the outputs from the models to give IPCC predictions. It now seems that only one model is reasonably close to predicting what is actually happening to tropospheric temperature and it's a long way different to the average of the models.

google climateaudit douglass comments

I suspect that there is a lot more to come out about the lack of validity in methods used to prop up IPCC's position on AGW.

All quiet on the Alarmist front!

quote:

The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon.

"We've always known that the climate varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade," said Richard Wood from the UK's Hadley Centre, who reviewed the new research for Nature.

"We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)."

Next decade 'may see no warming'

This is in fact a logical non-sequiter. In the past Al Gore have led us to believe that the warming trend caused by human CO2 is so devisating because it can overrule natural weather systems. Now this latest report says the exact opposite. Human induced temperature rises are so weak that they will be over-ruled by natrual variablilty.

quote:

Steve_M, you recently predicted that we would see several years with higher average temperatures than 1998 in the next few years. Where do you now stand on this?

The IPCC models clearly do not model ocean currents. What else do they not model. Oh yes that's it the sun.

Here's hoping for a civilised discussion...

I guess this is the second model I'm aware of that has done a decadal-style prediction. Both of the models are "IPCC" models. This one is ECHAM and MPI-OM (ie. the german atmosphere and ocean models). I guess I'd prefer it if the british model turned out to be right...

The difference from the IPCC projection is the initial conditions. These tests attempt to get the initial conditions as close to the observed state as possible so as to try and do a forecast. Long climate runs, on the other hand, assume that the initial conditions will not have a significant impact on the model run after many decades to centuries.

These scientists' confidence in their prediction is based on the fact that their method has reasonable skill in decadal hindcasting within the period from 1955-2004. As you know, that period covers the significant warming from the 1970's till the present. So the model they are using also supports the view that recent global warming is due to anthropogenic emissions.

Furthermore, when they extend their forecast to 2030, they observe rapid warming from 2015-2030 such that it catches up with the projection without the accurate initial conditions. ie. a warming of about half a degree between 2015 and 2030. This confirms what I said above about the initial conditions being less relevant for long term projections.

For these reasons, this paper has no comfort for those who deny a possible link between CO2 and warming. It is simply an illustration of what I've said on many occasions. The earth, and most models, exhibit significant natural variability on top of the long term warming trend. ECHAM-MPIOM is no different as can be seen in IPCC FAR Chapter 10 page 763 Figure 10.5.

Steve_M

quote:

This one is ECHAM and MPI-OM

And does it's hindcast also predict the observed behaviour of the tropical troposphere?

Google climateaudit tropical troposphere.

There they have been having problems finding models which correctly hindcast surface and tropical troposphere temperatures.

quote:

And does it's hindcast also predict the observed behaviour of the tropical troposphere?

I'm aware of a paper under review that deals with modelling of the tropical troposphere. I don't know how well it applies to this model. The author was pretty confident that it puts the "tropical troposphere" issue to bed. For info the models have been pretty consistent in their predictions throughout all the IPCC reports while the satellite and radiosonde data have gradually converged on the model data. Other than assuming that the paper should appear in J Clim. in a few months if it passes peer review, I can't help any more.

Steve_M

The natural variation appears to be able to cause a cooling. Therefore the natural variation must also have caused some of the warming. (otherwise there would be nothing natural to cool down from)

How much warming is caused by natural causes and how much is caused by CO2?

In particular how much of the much vaunted 0.6 deg rise in the 20th century was due to natural causes?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

And does it's hindcast also predict the observed behaviour of the tropical troposphere?

I'm aware of a paper under review that deals with modelling of the tropical troposphere. I don't know how well it applies to this model. The author was pretty confident that it puts the "tropical troposphere" issue to bed. For info the models have been pretty consistent in their predictions throughout all the IPCC reports while the satellite and radiosonde data have gradually converged on the model data. Other than assuming that the paper should appear in J Clim. in a few months if it passes peer review, I can't help any more.

I thought that the models predicted warming in the tropical troposphere and that in reality it had cooled?

quote:

I thought that the models predicted warming in the tropical troposphere and that in reality it had cooled?

They used to think that, but it turned out that the satellite data was dodgy. Additionally, I understand it is quite hard to do proper correlations due to uncertainty in the structure of the warming and expected natural variability.

Some of the 20th Century rise is attributed to reduced levels of volcanoes and increased solar activity. Note that "constant temps from now to 2015" is only 0.1-0.2C off the predicted long term trend over 7 years. I don't know if this is particularly extreme variability as compared with 20th century observations. One might suspect that the 1940's warm peak is comparable.

Steve_M

quote:

They used to think that, but it turned out that the satellite data was dodgy. Additionally, I understand it is quite hard to do proper correlations due to uncertainty in the structure of the warming and expected natural variability.

I've seen it stated on Climate Audit (google climateaudit tropical troposphere) #46 that

"All of the models show increased warming trends starting just above the surface and increasing
upwards.

All of the data shows decreased warming trends starting just above the surface and decreasing upwards."

Is this correct?

You state that the data is dodgy. In what way is the data dodgy? I've seen it suggested that the
methodology of using average means instead of standard deviations in comparing the models and data is dodgy but not the actual data and as such the above quotes look pretty accurate to me. ie looking at the results from 22 models and 4 seperate data sets. see #144 on the climateaudit page referenced above.

I've seen someone on there suggest that the data is "potentially flawed" but when challenged has at this point not attempted to justify the statement.

Maybe the data is dodgy because it doesn't match the output from the models. Who has demonstrated the data is dodgy? And by dodgy I assume you mean untrustworthy for this exercise.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

I've seen it stated on Climate Audit (google climateaudit tropical troposphere) #46

Interesting data SoM!

When the perspective between surface readings and satellite readings for temperature are taken into account the data shows a lag and lead between the two, when temperature trends show a +tive or -tive forcing. This 'may' be explained as 'stress' on the relative humidity caused by temperature change, with an 'offset' caused by the time it takes for water vapour to gain altitude.

It isn't surprising that the data 'looks' a bit garbled. Perhaps some 'other' correction factors need to be applied.

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

This 'may' be explained as 'stress' on the relative humidity caused by temperature change, with an 'offset' caused by the time it takes for water vapour to gain altitude.

If you mean they haven't correctly represented tropical convection, cloud and humidity in the models then we may be in agreement as to what the explaination could be.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

If you mean they haven't correctly represented tropical convection, cloud and humidity in the models then we may be in agreement as to what the explaination could be.

Err... I was actually remarking on the graph in fig. 1 of the main article. Sorry for the confusion. This graph shows a disparity between land based and satellite based observations of surface temperatures 'after correction'. Yes?

The disparity between modelled and observed temperature change with altitude, as in your reference #46 and #144 graph, looks to be a lot more than just incorrect representation of convection, cloud and humidity. I think that Steve_M has mentioned in the past that these values are parameterised in models anyway. Could it be that the models are showing 'radiative heat' and the observations are showing 'temperature'? I know that sounds a bit 'daft', but I thought that the models were based on 'radiative theory'.

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

Err... I was actually remarking on the graph in fig. 1 of the main article. Sorry for the confusion. This graph shows a disparity between land based and satellite based observations of surface temperatures 'after correction'. Yes?

Fig 1 is temperature anomoly for the tropical troposphere. 1998 looks like El Nino effect other than that it looks like ups and downs of the various cycle interactions. AGW, as I understand it, expects anomolies to be greater nearer the poles so a small upward trend here is not a fingerprint for catastrophic anthropic global warming although I have no surprise that an increase in CO2 will have some upward effect.

quote:

The disparity between modelled and observed temperature change with altitude, as in your reference #46 and #144 graph, looks to be a lot more than just incorrect representation of convection, cloud and humidity. I think that Steve_M has mentioned in the past that these values are parameterised in models anyway. Could it be that the models are showing 'radiative heat' and the observations are showing 'temperature'? I know that sounds a bit 'daft', but I thought that the models were based on 'radiative theory'.

The models can't be just radiative other than at the top of the atmosphere (whereever that is) because convective transfer bypasses the radiative interactions.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

Fig 1 is temperature anomoly for the tropical troposphere. 1998 looks like El Nino effect other than that it looks like ups and downs of the various cycle interactions.

Yes. However, this isn't what I referred to. I was interested in the apparent 'phasing' between the 'red' and 'green' traces in the graph, but on closer inspection ('blow up' of the graph) I'm not so sure that 'phasing' is apparent. More to this, I've now read the processes that Steve McIntyre has applied to the raw data that the graph is produced from. I'll refrain from further comment on this until I have the time and inclination to obtain and process the data for myself (just to be sure of its authenticity). Though don't hold your breath as my interest only stemmed from my first 'brief' observation of the graph.

quote:

The models can't be just radiative other than at the top of the atmosphere (whereever that is) because convective transfer bypasses the radiative interactions.

I disagree. The models can represent almost anything in almost any form that the architect of the model wants to employ. Now, 'observations' are a different matter. Radiative observations of IR from space can only begin at about 3-4 kilometres above sea level due to IR saturation within the lower atmosphere (caused by the extreme optical diffusion [and other interactions, such as change of state within the hydrocycle] of that electromagnetic frequency below this altitude).

Needless to say, any model that follows a 'radiative transfer' representation will interpolate, or interpret, an energy transfer in whatever 'form' as a 'radiative quantity'. This can only be honestly described as a 'parameterisation of the data' from another system of energy source.

Is there another way to describe this form of energy for inclusion into a model that is designed to show a different type of energy (as radiative transfer)?

All this doesn't mean that I agree that the 'radiative transfer model' is one that I agree with. A model that is more acceptable and understandable to the 'general populace' would be more appropriate, but this would be for the 'public at large' to decide upon with their 'feed back'.

Best regards, suricat.

Son of Mulder.

On the subject of surface temperature, I happened upon this page recently.