In the meantime climate is still altering and , from the data I've seen ,looks set to continue changing for a good while yet. If that change has an element of AGW to it then those changes will continue to amass and impact for over 1,000yrs at least even if we stopped producing atmosphere altering pollutants. As such we have time to settle the debate and prove those folk who are wrong to be just that , plain wrong.

Name calling will not change the science nor will raking up matters resolved by three separate enquiries that found "no wrongdoing" but a lot of naivety......does that foil hat come in my size.....the lack of solar wind is exposing my brain to dangerous levels of cosmic influence.......

---

Name calling will not change the science

Worth emphasising - and it applies to everyone.

---

Your PM box is full Gandalf.

I maintain my position as regards this thread.

Hi - I've just done cleared out the PM box.

Still don't understand the comment?  You seem to have two different standards to apply according to the poster?  That's not a reasonable stance.

As Gray-Wolf has said, the planet continues to warm.  We have had an exceptionally quiet sun for over a year now and a strong (exceptional, according to Robertski) La Nina for several months.  Something is going on and its not a hoax...

 

 

---

Your PM box is full Gandalf.

I maintain my position as regards this thread.

Hi - I've just done cleared out the PM box.

Still don't understand the comment?  You seem to have two different standards to apply according to the poster?  That's not a reasonable stance.

As Gray-Wolf has said, the planet continues to warm.  We have had an exceptionally quiet sun for over a year now and a strong (exceptional, according to Robertski) La Nina for several months.  Something is going on and its not a hoax...

 

 

No,its the greatest hoax ever, the threat of man made co2 to man is non existant, it is just an economic and politcal scam. Yes Co2 is anthrogenic but the feedbacks are nothing like as serious a the alarmist try to make out. if the Northern hemisphere shiver this winter yet again, the already doomed hoax, will be even further down peoples agendas. 

Your PM box is full Gandalf.

I maintain my position as regards this thread.

Hi - I've just done cleared out the PM box.

Still don't understand the comment?  You seem to have two different standards to apply according to the poster?  That's not a reasonable stance.

As Gray-Wolf has said, the planet continues to warm.  We have had an exceptionally quiet sun for over a year now and a strong (exceptional, according to Robertski) La Nina for several months.  Something is going on and its not a hoax...

 

 

No,its the greatest hoax ever, the threat of man made co2 to man is non existant, it is just an economic and politcal scam. Yes Co2 is anthrogenic but the feedbacks are nothing like as serious a the alarmist try to make out. if the Northern hemisphere shiver this winter yet again, the already doomed hoax, will be even further down peoples agendas. 

'greatest hoax ever',  'scam', 'alarmists'. Humm, ever is a long time.

But, I agree, it's clearly a hard sell to try and convince people the globe warms while, locally, it cools or neither warms or cools. Otoh, it's going to be a harder sell for you if the globe continues to warm and you, give it time, still bang on about 'the greatest hoax ever' - if AGW pans out as projected you are the one facing the charges you level above.

 

 

 

---

Just a brief interjection the northen hemisphere winter last year was one of the warmest on record !

Just a brief interjection the northen hemisphere winter last year was one of the warmest on record !

Yeah, well the Northern Hemisphere is clearly in on the scam

---

Just a brief interjection the northen hemisphere winter last year was one of the warmest on record !

Aye, that will be down to an El Nino topping up an already warm ocean, due to 30 years of a negative PDO Tom! 

Now a pedant might wish to pull you up on your "30yrs of PDO-ve" seeing as it was positive for most of the period and is now struggling (since98'?) to turn negative .Even though NASA called it a few years back the figures are still not all that convincing with seemingly an even spread of neg and pos figures across the period. Strangely is you -1 from all the figures you get a convincing pdo-ve since 98'..............

---

Now a pedant might wish to pull you up on your "30yrs of PDO-ve" seeing as it was positive for most of the period and is now struggling (since98'?) to turn negative .Even though NASA called it a few years back the figures are still not all that convincing with seemingly an even spread of neg and pos figures across the period. Strangely is you -1 from all the figures you get a convincing pdo-ve since 98'..............

So thirty years of a warming ocean should just flip to cold just like that. Come off it GW, I say come back in 12 months, and if we haven't started too see a  reduction in those anomolies, the you have a case!

Now a pedant might wish to pull you up on your "30yrs of PDO-ve" seeing as it was positive for most of the period and is now struggling (since98'?) to turn negative .Even though NASA called it a few years back the figures are still not all that convincing with seemingly an even spread of neg and pos figures across the period. Strangely is you -1 from all the figures you get a convincing pdo-ve since 98'..............

So thirty years of a warming ocean should just flip to cold just like that. Come off it GW, I say come back in 12 months, and if we haven't started too see a  reduction in those anomolies, the you have a case!

SC, sometimes this debate is akin to trying to nail jelly to the ceiling....

So, you want me to believe that an average El Nino event was responsible for one of the warmest northern hemisphere winters on record? 

Or alternatively you want me to believe that somehow the heat of the cumulative excess of El Ninos over La Ninas since 1976 has somehow been retained somewhere in the system?  The latter would be surprising, considering that the sceptics keep flagging that the "missing heat of AGW" cannot be explained - in which case where is this latent effect please?

Here's the ENSO graph, for ease of reference:

http://www.oarval.org/MAI_1950-2010-Nov4-2010-ts.gif

If you have a mechanism that explains this, and which Tom and the other experts agree is sound, then I will very willingly accept that something needs revising in the AGW modelling.

---

No,its the greatest hoax ever, the threat of man made co2 to man is non existant, it is just an economic and politcal scam. Yes Co2 is anthrogenic but the feedbacks are nothing like as serious a the alarmist try to make out. if the Northern hemisphere shiver this winter yet again, the already doomed hoax, will be even further down peoples agendas. 

That's what I like about your posts Robertski.  A well structured and reasoned argument, supported by data.  Or not.

Good work.

 

 

---

Now a pedant might wish to pull you up on your "30yrs of PDO-ve" seeing as it was positive for most of the period and is now struggling (since98'?) to turn negative .Even though NASA called it a few years back the figures are still not all that convincing with seemingly an even spread of neg and pos figures across the period. Strangely is you -1 from all the figures you get a convincing pdo-ve since 98'..............

So thirty years of a warming ocean should just flip to cold just like that. Come off it GW, I say come back in 12 months, and if we haven't started too see a  reduction in those anomolies, the you have a case!

SC, sometimes this debate is akin to trying to nail jelly to the ceiling....

So, you want me to believe that an average El Nino event was responsible for one of the warmest northern hemisphere winters on record? 

Or alternatively you want me to believe that somehow the heat of the cumulative excess of El Ninos over La Ninas since 1976 has somehow been retained somewhere in the system?  The latter would be surprising, considering that the sceptics keep flagging that the "missing heat of AGW" cannot be explained - in which case where is this latent effect please?

Here's the ENSO graph, for ease of reference:

http://www.oarval.org/MAI_1950-2010-Nov4-2010-ts.gif

If you have a mechanism that explains this, and which Tom and the other experts agree is sound, then I will very willingly accept that something needs revising in the AGW modelling.

You make some good points here Gandalf and I've been waiting to see what replies you get!

In the meantime I'll ask what may well be a dumb question -  looking at the ENSO graph you posted it's clear that since about 1975 there has been far more Nino's than Nina's and that they peaked in intensity between the early eighties and 2000. Since then it has been fairly even. So, I'm sat here thinking doesn't this match the increase and subsequent leveling off of global temps?

I'm probably missing something obvious here.

You make some good points here Gandalf and I've been waiting to see what replies you get!

In the meantime I'll ask what may well be a dumb question -  looking at the ENSO graph you posted it's clear that since about 1975 there has been far more Nino's than Nina's and that they peaked in intensity between the early eighties and 2000. Since then it has been fairly even. So, I'm sat here thinking doesn't this match the increase and subsequent leveling off of global temps?

I'm probably missing something obvious here.

Hi NS,

I think the answers may be in other threads.  In essence we are being told to believe that this heat was taken into the THC.  It doesn't fit the facts but that's the answer I got.   There's not enough heat in the surface waters and it's not been there long enough to explain the scale of warming but Stephen and Polarwind maintain that this mythical heat has been slowly escaping from the 'system' since 2003 and has now virtually ended, hence the cooling (coupled with quiet sun).

I think it's in the 'colder winters' thread.

Anyhow, Stephen has predicted that 2011 will be noticeably cooler than 2010.  For him to be correct we will need to see a trend back down to 1961-90 levels quite quickly....

Watch this space....

 

---

You make some good points here Gandalf and I've been waiting to see what replies you get!

In the meantime I'll ask what may well be a dumb question -  looking at the ENSO graph you posted it's clear that since about 1975 there has been far more Nino's than Nina's and that they peaked in intensity between the early eighties and 2000. Since then it has been fairly even. So, I'm sat here thinking doesn't this match the increase and subsequent leveling off of global temps?

I'm probably missing something obvious here.

Hi NS,

I think the answers may be in other threads.  In essence we are being told to believe that this heat was taken into the THC.  It doesn't fit the facts but that's the answer I got.   There's not enough heat in the surface waters and it's not been there long enough to explain the scale of warming but Stephen and Polarwind maintain that this mythical heat has been slowly escaping from the 'system' since 2003 and has now virtually ended, hence the cooling (coupled with quiet sun).

I think it's in the 'colder winters' thread.

Anyhow, Stephen has predicted that 2011 will be noticeably cooler than 2010.  For him to be correct we will need to see a trend back down to 1961-90 levels quite quickly....

Watch this space....

 

Thanks for the reply Gandalf. I must admit though, this missing heat thing is rather confusing: I mean who's looking for it the sceptics, the warmists, either, niether? My tiny brain is struggling to cope...

Work on the global energy budget and changes due to increasing greenhouse gases is being performed in mainstream science. Here is a recent paper, title and abstract unfortunately the full text is behind a paywall or requires login from a university site

Trenberth, Kevin E., John T. Fasullo, Jeffrey Kiehl, 2009: Earth's Global Energy Budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 311–323.

Earth's Global Energy Budget

Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl
National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado



Abstract

An update is provided on the Earth's global annual mean energy budget in the light of new observations and analyses. In 1997, Kiehl and Trenberth provided a review of past estimates and performed a number of radiative computations to better establish the role of clouds and various greenhouse gases in the overall radiative energy flows, with top-of-atmosphere (TOA) values constrained by Earth Radiation Budget Experiment values from 1985 to 1989, when the TOA values were approximately in balance. The Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) measurements from March 2000 to May 2004 are used at TOA but adjusted to an estimated imbalance from the enhanced greenhouse effect of 0.9 W m−2. Revised estimates of surface turbulent fluxes are made based on various sources. The partitioning of solar radiation in the atmosphere is based in part on the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) FD computations that utilize the global ISCCP cloud data every 3 h, and also accounts for increased atmospheric absorption by water vapor and aerosols.

  ... measurements from March 2000 to May 2004 are used at TOA but adjusted to an estimated imbalance from the enhanced greenhouse effect of 0.9 W m−2.

For all the technology the satellites offer, these presumptive (of AGW=enhanced CO2) 'adjustments' still have to be made, rather than the data being able to be used in its raw form.  This does not inspire full confidence in the results.

As to the previous comments about warmth from the prolonged El Nino period (1976-1998), if the acquired atmospheric heating has not been retained, it has been lost from the atmosphere to space. Therefore the climate system as a whole has cooled as a result of this effect (TomC has explained this previously, I believe).

But why should the partition of heat between atmosphere and ocean components not be able to vary over finite periods? Is this not what climate variability is all about?

You make some good points here Gandalf and I've been waiting to see what replies you get!

In the meantime I'll ask what may well be a dumb question -  looking at the ENSO graph you posted it's clear that since about 1975 there has been far more Nino's than Nina's and that they peaked in intensity between the early eighties and 2000. Since then it has been fairly even. So, I'm sat here thinking doesn't this match the increase and subsequent levelling off of global temps?

I'm probably missing something obvious here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/26/global-warming-met-office

The latest Meto report doesn't see any 'levelling off' , just the opposite in fact!

---

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/26/global-warming-met-office

The latest Meto report doesn't see any 'levelling off' , just the opposite in fact!

There was a good interview on Radio 4 this morning with, I think, Vicky Pope.  I thought the timing was interesting as we are entering a quite unusual early winter cold spell.

Anyway, the core of the discussion was around the slowing of the warming trend but that it was explained by the less active sun.

---

The work is significant because the rate of global warming from 2000-2009 is lower than the 0.16C per decade trend seen since the late 1970s, a fact climate scientists have been keen to explain. Including the new sea surface temperatures, which push up global temperatures by 0.03C, the warming rate for the past 10 years is estimated at 0.08-0.16C. The new analysis of sea surface temperatures adjusts underestimates which arose from the change from predominantly ship-based temperature measurements before 2000 to mostly buoy-based measurements afterwards

It took a while, but once they realised the warming wasn't happening, they found a way to adjust the data so it looks otherwise - but still below predicted 0.16C
The article as usual is idealogically loaded with no mention of the real reason why 2010 has seen higher temperatures - other than implying it''s a symptom of CO2 induced global warming.

---