Ecocentric

November Was Cold, But the Climate Keeps Warming

The U.S. has seen more record cold days than record warm days this year. But globally, the climate is still changing—and it's not getting cooler.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Hunter Martin / Philadelphia Eagles / Getty Images

Philadelphia Eagles fans endured a freak snowstorm at an NFL game, part of a recent cold snap

Global warming is a misnomer. “Warming” makes it sound as if the climate will get hotter at a steady, predictable pace—like a pot of soup heating on the stove. But that’s not how our enormously complex climate system works. The increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and other warming gases in the atmosphere is just one of many factors affecting the global climate—including the natural year-to-year variability that has always been at work. Over the short term, temperatures can rise and fall like the fluctuating value of a single company in the stock market. But the long-term trends—the important trends—remain unchanged.

Case in point: the National Climatic Data Center revealed yesterday that the average temperature in the contiguous U.S. in November was 41.6 F—0.3 F below the 20th century average. That’s unusual—as the U.S. and the rest of the planet has warmed, most months in the country have been hotter than the average of the last century, which is considered a benchmark for a normal climate. (Globally, there hasn’t been a month with average temperatures lower than the 20th century mark for nearly 29 years.) In fact, there were nearly three times as many record cold daily highs and lows in November (2,238 altogether) as record warm daily highs and lows (749 combined).

That shouldn’t be a surprise for the Americans who braved a chilly Thanksgiving weekend, or for the Midwesterners who suffered through biting cold and heavy snow earlier this month. And if the cold weather continues—as I’m writing this the expected high in New York today is 27 F, well below the historically average high of 41 F—something even more unusual could happen: for the first time in 20 years, the U.S. may have more daily record lows over the course of a calendar year than daily record highs, as Andrew Freedman of Climate Central explained earlier this month:

That’s a stark reversal from last year — the warmest year on record in the U.S. — when record daily highs dwarfed record lows by a staggering 4-to-1 ratio. It’s also a stark reminder of the vagaries of short-term natural variability set against the backdrop of long-term global warming.

According to statistics from the National Climatic Data Center, the U.S. had 9,023 daily record high temperatures through Dec. 1, compared to 9,932 daily record lows. About 1,000 cold temperature records were set or tied during the last week alone.

(MORE: H2Whoa! Hubble Telescope Finds Geysers of Water on Jupiter’s Moon of Europa)

The Arctic, too, got a bit of relief from climate change. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) today released its report for the Arctic, which has seen some of the most rapid warming on the planet. Summer across much of the Arctic was cooler than it had been in years, and while the extent of summer sea ice—a good measurement of the impact of climate change on the Arctic—melted to its sixth-smallest level since NOAA began keep records in the late 1970s, it still rebounded from a far worse year in 2012. “The Arctic caught a bit of a break in 2013 from the recent string of record-breaking warmth and ice melt of the last decade,” David M. Kennedy, NOAA’s deputy under-secretary for operations, told reporters at the American Geophysical Union scientific conference in San Francisco.

So should we call off the alarm over climate change? Not quite. As Kennedy went onto say, even a relatively “good” year for the Arctic is still a bad one historically. “The relatively cool year in some parts of the Arctic does little to offset the long-term trend of the last 30 years: the Arctic is warming rapidly, becoming greener and experiencing a variety of changes, affecting people, the physical environment, and marine and land ecosystems,” he noted. The Arctic kept getting greener (a strong sign of warming), Greenland’s ice kept melting and the snow extent across the Northern Hemisphere in May and June was below average. Average Arctic temperatures have increased by 3.6 F since the 1960s, twice as fast as the rest of the world. A slightly less warm year isn’t going to change that long-term trend.

And that will be true for the U.S. as a whole, even if this year does see more record cold days than record hot ones. November might have felt unusually chilly, but that’s just compared to the especially warm years we’ve had recently. (2012 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous U.S.) During most of the 20th century, November would have felt perfectly average. And while the U.S. has experienced a cold snap, the world has still seen above-average temperatures overall, and 2013 is expected to be among the top 10 warmest years on record. If 2014 becomes an El Nino year—and the odds are about even—we could well experience the hottest year ever. Climate change won’t be derailed by a few cold days.

(MORE: Unusual Number of Arctic Snowy Owls Seen in U.S.)

112 comments
citizenschallenge
citizenschallenge

"Global warming is a misnomer. “Warming” makes it sound as if the climate will get hotter at a steady, predictable pace—like a pot of soup heating on the stove. "

~ ~ ~ 

Nonsense.  Global is Global !  Encompassing our entire global heat distribution engine, including Cryosphere and Oceans !


Anyone who claims that global warming has stopped has not taken the time to learn about what our climate is all about.

Check out the YouTube video > Earth from Space, HD -NASA < for an introduction to the various components of this system.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


As for the attitudes and empty PR soundbite that I've read in the comments.  Here's some food for thought :


" I suggest it boils down to two different perceptions of our planet and Earth sciences.


At the heart of one is an appreciation that our Earth is a living organism, one that has taken four and a half billion years, evolving one day at a time, to arrive at the beautiful cornucopia that awaited a restless inquisitive human species.

The other mindset sees our planet through the lens of ancient texts and tribal dogmas.  To this group of humanity our life sustaining planet, Earth, isn't any more "real" than the Hollywood movie on the other side of the screen.  It's only function is to fuel our economy."


noblebutts
noblebutts

7th is a dismal finish for 2013...you guys will haave to try harder next year.

GeraldWilhite
GeraldWilhite

Until the release of the Climate-Gate I and Climate-Gate II emails, most people were unaware of the significant scientific concerns and weaknesses in the IPCC process. Those concerns deepened in October 2011 with the best-selling IPCC expose entitled "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert" by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise.


If you are interested in a scholarly minority report written by world class scientists you will want to read the latest publication of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II). For the free-to-download publication, see: http://www.nipccreport.org/


This new publication represents the latest independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science. Previous volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series were published in 2008,2009, and 2011.


LEAD AUTHORS AND EDITORS 

Idso, Craig D. -- Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change - USA 

Carter, Robert M. --- Emeritus Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Australia 

Singer, S. Fred --- Science and Environmental Policy Project, USA 

CHAPTER LEAD AUTHORS  

Ball, Timothy --- Research Fellow, Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Canada 

Easterbrook, Don J. --- Professor Emeritus of Geology, Western Washington University, USA 

Idso, Sherwood --- Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA 

Khandekar, Madhav --- Former Research Scientist, Environment Canada 

Kininmonth, William --- Science Advisor, Australian Climate Science Coalition 

de Lange, Willem --- Science and Engineering Department, The University of Waikato, New Zealand 

Lüning, Sebastian --- Geologist and Author, Germany 

Lupo, Anthony --- School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, USA 

Ollier, Cliff --- School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia 

Soon, Willie --- Independent Scientist, USA 


CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

Armstrong, J. Scott --- Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, USA 

D’Aleo, Joseph --- Co-chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytic USA 

Green, Kesten --- International Graduate School of Business, University of South Australia

McKitrick, Ross --- Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada 

Ollier, Cliff --- School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia 

Segalstad, Tom --- Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway 

Singer, S. Fred --- Science and Environmental Policy Project, USA 

Spencer, Roy --- Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville, USA 



TimeIsBiasedGarbage
TimeIsBiasedGarbage

Bryan Walsh is Al Gore's little bitch in the political push for a carbon tax. He's a complete nimrod with a pea sized brain who doesn't know a damn thing about what he's writing about.

I AM A PUBLISHED SCIENTIST who has put in thousands of hours of research, wheras Bryan is just a little rat paid for by those who want to tax the air. His claims are a joke and bear no scientific weight in the community and show Time magazine for the biased garbage that they really are.

Bryan, you are a parasite: Please pay the the air you've wasted.

williamholder
williamholder

Enough already - we haven't seen any significant warming in over 16 years. Obviously our CO2 emissions are not the primary driver of climate as we have been led to believe for the last quarter century. A generation of resources and talent wasted on this folly.

Climate "scientists" would have us believe the heat is hiding in the ocean - a convenient enhancement of the AGW hypothesis after it was clear the warming had ended.

Climate scientists are not unanimous about the reasons for the "pause". Evidence that we don't know all the factors that impact on our climate and how much each is a factor.

The climate crises wasn't predicated on some very slight warming of the ocean, it was based on ever warmer surface and higher lower troposphere temperatures. This warming stopped in 1998. Moreover, we don't have the historical records to confirm if any warming of the ocean is natural, temporary or uncommon.

It's past time for a liberal media to stop providing cover for the myriad inconsistencies and do some solid investigative journalism.

Seriously - how many years do we have to go without warming before we recognize the emperor isn't wearing any clothes?

DavidNutzuki
DavidNutzuki

Science does not work in absolute certainties but they tell us that 97.3%  of them are 95% certain that climate change "could" be (never will be) a climate crisis. YOU can't say it WILL until science does.



Juscurious
Juscurious

It hasn't warmed for 15 years. We know this.

My question is this, how many years of no warming or even cooling need to happen before the believers in AGW would even consider that they might be wrong?  I don't think that even if they saw glaciers coming down from the Artic and completely covering Canada, they would change their minds. It's a religion to them.

JefferyGreen
JefferyGreen

@TimeIsBiasedGarbage

I AM A PUBLISHED SCIENTIST who has put in thousands of hours of research, wheras Bryan is just a little rat paid for by those who want to tax the air. His claims are a joke and bear no scientific weight in the community and show Time magazine for the biased garbage that they really are.

Bryan, you are a parasite: Please pay the the air you've wasted.



Read more: Temperatures Were Colder in November, But Climate Change Continues | TIME.com http://science.time.com/2013/12/12/november-was-cold-but-the-climate-keeps-warming/#ixzz2nkn5EvX5


Interesting comment by a supposed scientist. How biased are you in studying science when you profoundly try to slap around the writer of this article? I wouldn't trust your supposed science publishings if you are so emotional without backup evidence to support you.


williamholder
williamholder

Global warming is not a misnomer - not only were we to get warmer but there was to be a point of runaway warming. It hasn't happened and climate scientists agree the runaway scenario is unlikely. The hypothesis is being twisted and amended in every conceivable way. I've spent 24 years looking at this. Like most of you I was schooled in college about the evils of CO2 and was a great proponent up until a decade ago when it was clear that warming had stopped.
It's not just me. Outside of the climate science community there are countless scientists from other disciplines (Freeman Dyson for example) and intellectuals who don't accept that our CO2 emissions are the primary driver of climate.


The observations generally just don't seem to support this hypothesis. Regardless if it's warmer temperatures (recovery from LIA), weather (nothing unprecedented), rising oceans (steady for as long as we have records) or even ice melting (Antarctic is fine). Whatever new twist or old prediction - the numbers don't bear out (polar bears are fine). Skeptic blogs like Climate Depot or Watts Up With That make short thrift of each new study. This shouldn't be possible if the foundation for CAGW were solid.


Hype it if you will but don't call us deniers - we called it like it is - you warmists better hope we see some real warming soon or the jig is up. Our climate is better represented by models that factor only solar activity and ocean cycles - these models suggest the "pause" will continue out 20 years or more and at least a few climate scientists agree that's possible.


JefferyGreen
JefferyGreen

@DavidNutzuki

I have watched other deniers purposely confuse themselves because they don't want to accept the truth of the situation.


CO2 is one of the main reasons we have had a great Holocene for humans to thrive in. We change that, we change the climate. Providing evidence for that was a great deal of work over the last 150 years. But reach a conservative 95% certainty they have. It's really more like 99% certainty.


The overall trend of co2 emissions is a warmer climate.

DaveLeaton
DaveLeaton

@Juscurious The trend in global mean surface temperature for the last 180 months is 0.11C per decade.  That's a positive trend.  So your first claim is simply wrong.  


As to your question, you didn't specify what might be "wrong."  Since the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not really based on global mean surface temperature (GMST), your question doesn't make sense.  Arrhenius didn't have GMST when he first theorized AGW in 1896, and Tyndall certainly didn't have it 30 years earlier when he theorized the greenhouse effect.  The mechanism is basic physics.  GMST could be plunging downward over 50 years, and it wouldn't falsify the theory of AGW.  It would simply be colder still without AGW.  The direct observation and quantification of downwelling longwave radiation is all the confirmation we need that our millions of lab tests of the greenhouse theory are, in fact, what's going on in the atmosphere.


Or perhaps you've falsified the greenhouse theory, and you're holding out on the world.

JefferyGreen
JefferyGreen

@Juscurious


2.3% of the warming goes into the atmosphere and 93% goes into the oceans. Once in awhile the oceans burp out the warmth and really give us a severe warm spell, like 2010 Russia, 2003 Europe, and 2012 United States, etc, etc.

GeraldWilhite
GeraldWilhite

@JefferyGreen @DavidNutzuki  


Jeffrey, real science starts with real data. It can be direct data like actual thermometer readings, or it can be good 'proxy' data like ice core isotope readings, if it is handled carefully. Computer generated data based on speculative assumptions fed into computer models doesn't cut it except in so-called soft sciences like psychology and sociology. Climate science is not supposed to be a soft science. 

Here is what the real data shows:

1. The Earth has been in a warming trend since about 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age.

2. This year the IPCC finally admitted the inescapable reality that global surface temperatures had "paused" and have been statistically flat for 17 years. 

3. Meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 from Hawaii's Mauna Loa station have increased over 8% during the same period. 

4. Thus, the real data is in direct conflict with the primary prediction of the IPCC's Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.

Think about it. Do you believe it would be smart to rush into multi-trillion dollar public policy commitments under these circumstances?  Or would it be wiser to spend a couple of years or so carefully investigating what is happening.

We made a insane mistake a few years ago with the "Ethanol-from-Corn" program. The impact was a  tripling of world grain prices, which means we are literally killing tens of millions of the world's poorest people each year through malnutrition and starvation. 

To the rest of the world we appear to be hard-core diabolical eugenicists that make Hitler look like a rank amateur. For some reason we can't get Congress or the President to shut the Ethanol-from-Corn debacle down.

Let's do things right this time so you and I can all sleep at night.. 





DavidNutzuki
DavidNutzuki

@JefferyGreen @DavidNutzuki Why should we believe you, science is not saying what you are that it WILL be a crisis.

YOU can't say it WILL be until science does.

Should we believe science's "could be" consensus or your "will be" consensus?

DanHB
DanHB

Dave,

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers, but Juscurious is correct.  The temperature trend over the last 180 months is only 0.007C per decade.  That is not significantly different from zero.  In fact, you extend the data 12 more months, the trend becomes a negative 0.03C per decade.  This just emphasizes the problems using short-term data.  Since 1880, the temperature trend is 0.06C / decade, with oscillations above and below the line exceeding 0.1C at times.  There appears to be no reason to expect temperatures to deviate from this trend in the near future.

alanmc95210
alanmc95210

@JefferyGreen@Juscurious

So all of the heat magically goes dowin into the ocean!   Please explain the physices- personally it sounds like hocus-pocus MAGIC to me

DaveLeaton
DaveLeaton

@TimeIsBiasedGarbage 


I don't like Al Gore, TIBG.  He's just another f-ing capitalist and politician to me.  I've never seen or read An Inconvenient Truth, and I don't plan to.


Not liking a particular solution, though, is a pretty idiotic reason for discarding the science that's pointing out the problem.  I'm not suggesting that you're discarding the science.  I'm asking you if you are.  Which of Walsh's claims are a joke?

Arthur123
Arthur123

@JefferyGreen @williamholder If this process was truly warming the planet, then in the winter when CO2 levels are at the highest (very limited plant based photosynthesis) then why is it so cold outside?????? Record cold, not just cold.


The answer is obviously the energy capture of CO2 in our atmosphere at 400 ppm is very, very tiny and are several orders of magnitude lower than the natural variability of our climate system and therefore the little warming it results in does not show up


. My guess is that CO2 levels would have to exceed 40,000 ppm before they begin to add any warming to the atmosphere. Which will likely never happen. World wide technology innovations  will likely lead to new energy generation long before we pass even 1,000 ppm


The little warning that has been exaggerated (historical climate record tampered by GISS and others) over the last 150 years is not due to CO2 but to natural variability in our planet's climate system. Climate records show other warm periods similar to today over the past           10, 000 years.


The truth is AWG is a complete fraud being perpetrated on the world by greedy men who want to control the free world's energy. 

.  


JefferyGreen
JefferyGreen

@DanHB


In the last 25 years the sun has slightly decreased in output and other natural factors are cooling also. What's left is ACO2

DanHB
DanHB

Dave,

Quite simple.  The higher the solar contribution, the less must be the contribution from ghgs.  Even if the sun was responsible for only 25% of the 20th century warming (most scientists think it was higher), then that would reduce the calculated climate sensitivity by 25% (assuming no other factors have contributed to the temperature rise).

DaveLeaton
DaveLeaton

@GeraldWilhite @DaveLeaton @Mlebauer @JefferyGreen 


Talking to me?  Yes.


Btw, here's an excellent post on the surface temp "hiatus."  It's written by a very well-published climate scientist.  If you're a true skeptic, you'll read it sentence by sentence and take it all into consideration. 

JefferyGreen
JefferyGreen

@Mlebauer@JefferyGreen@GeraldWilhite


Science spends its time naming the reasons based in evidence why things are the way they are. You must do the same if you want a different reason for what is happening to our climate.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm


The main drivers of the Little Ice Age cooling were decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity. These factors cannot account for the global warming observed over the past 50-100 years. Furthermore, it is physically incorrect to state that the planet is simply "recovering" from the Little Ice Age.

DaveLeaton
DaveLeaton

@GeraldWilhite @DaveLeaton @Mlebauer @JefferyGreen 


I guess another way of looking at it, Gerald, is that there are far more scientists who are what I would call "alarmists" than there are what I would call "denialists."  Those alarmist scientists are talking about a potential major extinction event and major reduction in human population over the next two centuries--perhaps back to less than a billion.  Those alarmists offer solid arguments, but they bet on high-end sensitivity, full carbon burn, and the worst of human reactions.  The lukewarmers, like Lindzen and Pielke Sr., bet on low-end sensitivity, miracle energy tech, and the assumption of general economic stability over centuries.  The IPCC supports modeling for emissions scenarios in the general middle of those two positions.  There is a substantial group of scientists in climate-related areas who see the IPCC as conservative.  However, not even the relative thimble-full of lukewarmers denies the role of CO2 in climate.  Even the direct 1.1C forcing from CO2 would be enough to dominate the solar signal of the last 50 years, and only the crackpot self-publishers are pushing the idea that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas with an established and observed level of forcing.

DaveLeaton
DaveLeaton

@GeraldWilhite @DaveLeaton @Mlebauer @JefferyGreen 


Gerald, nowhere in any of the ARs is it written that CO2 is "evil."  The assessment reports, as Jeffrey points out, are summaries of the existing science.  You say you are skeptical, but in order to be properly skeptical you need to weigh the evidence.  in order to weigh the evidence, you need to understand it.  


For example, you claim that CO2 is not the dominant factor in the GMST trend of the last 50 years.  You speak confidently, but you cite no evidence.  Nor do you account for the existing attribution studies that make the claim of dominance.  You are not practicing skepticism.


You claim that the IPCC somehow manages world governments, forcing them to let scientists who accept the theory into key positions.  This is another evidence-free claim, and it's bizarre given the fact that there are so few scientists working in climate-related areas who don't accept the theory.  Every major scientific organization in the world has issued a statement of acceptance of the theory.  Of the tens of thousands of climate-related studies, roughly 35 do not accept the theory of AGW, and every one of them has been debunked.  Most are by a handful of authors.  


For example, there are several papers by Loehle & Scafetta.  One proposes a 60-year climate cycle as responsible for the current trend.  L&S offer no physical mechanism, nor do they discuss how long the cycle has been around.  It's just a curve-fitting exercise.  In fact, if we use their Case 2 methodology to extend their cycle back several thousand years, we find that the Earth is a frozen ball.  This is the kind of crap that "skeptics" give a free pass to.          

JefferyGreen
JefferyGreen

@GeraldWilhite@DaveLeaton@Mlebauer@JefferyGreen


IPCC really has no version. It is a review body only. Volunteers come in and review the world's literature of which they covered 9200 pieces of peer reviewed science. This is where being in denial and proving its something else gets tough. You have a long hill above you.

JefferyGreen
JefferyGreen

@GeraldWilhite@DaveLeaton@Mlebauer@JefferyGreen



If you were to go into the science itself to overturn this, you would have to provide evidence that this is wrong and then provide evidence as to what is really causing the warming. THis is very deep well worked in evidence. Good luck on that one.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

GeraldWilhite
GeraldWilhite

@DaveLeaton @GeraldWilhite @Mlebauer @JefferyGreen 


Of course I accept the GHG theory. What I am skeptical of is the IPCC's version of the AGW hypothesis --- i.e. that CO2 is the evil culprit and human emissions are the dominating force reason for force in climate global warming. in change. . 

DaveLeaton
DaveLeaton

@GeraldWilhite @DaveLeaton @Mlebauer @JefferyGreen 


Gerald, if you're willing to defend that website's claims, here and now, I'll go through it.  


Point me to a published attribution study that shows that the enhanced greenhouse effect is not the dominant factor in the GMST trend since 1950.  There are no such studies, "credible" (whatever that means to you) or not.


The theory of AGW can be nothing more than a proposed mechanism for an increase in global energy storage that involves human activity.  Climate modeling helps more tightly define climate sensitivity and probable changes to the climate.  The only models that directly support the basic theory are the LBL spectral models, and those have been confirmed by direct surface observation (e.g. Puckrin et al. 2004).


Now, if you want to talk about climate modeling, that's fine, but have the awareness to separate between the basic physical mechanism and the attempt to project trends in future climate.  Again: if you don't accept the theory of the greenhouse effect, please provide the evidence that has led you to such a conclusion.


DaveLeaton
DaveLeaton

@DanHB , how so on sensitivity?  How does a low sensitivity come out of a flattish sun and a strong surface temp response?  Seems kind of obvious.  Perhaps you misread my hypothetical.

DaveLeaton
DaveLeaton

@DanHB  


Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%." http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract

Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..." http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf

Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract

Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century." http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full

Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified." http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf

Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years." http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf

Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone." http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Sun%20&%20Global%20Warming_GRL_2006.pdf

Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source. http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf

Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades". http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects." http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14604941

Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases." http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf

Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf

Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-3X9YR6N-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9f89b27c032ed62c31c9593387adb5e7

Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend." http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/309

Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade." http://ieg.or.kr/abstractII/G0102523037.PDF

DaveLeaton
DaveLeaton

@DanHB  , I prefer PMOD to sunspot numbers: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/plot/pmod/mean:24


The list of solar references is a copy/paste, but I can't be expected to re-type it every bloody time someone says "It's the sun."


Ch 10.2 AR5: "
More recently, it is extremely unlikely that the contribution from solar forcing to the observed global warming since 1950 was larger than that from greenhouse gases (Section 10.3.1.1.3). It is very likely that there has been a small decrease in solar forcing of –0.04 [–0.06 to –0.02] W m–2 over a period with direct satellite measurements of solar output from 1986 to 2008 (Section 8.4.1.1.1). There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to global warming during that period."



Pasini et al. (2012): "The Sun has surely been a major external forcing to the climate system throughout the Holocene. Nevertheless, opposite trends in solar radiation and temperatures have been empirically identified in the last few decades. Here, by means of an inferential method—the Granger causality analysis—we analyze this situation and, for the first time, show that an evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature has appeared since the 1960s."
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020

Huber and Knutti (2011): "Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950." http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf

Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRD..11414101B


GeraldWilhite
GeraldWilhite

@DaveLeaton @Mlebauer @JefferyGreen @GeraldWilhite  


I respectfully disagree. AGW is not simply the greenhouse effect. It has been redefined in Orwellian style as the cast-in-stone IPCC assumption that man-made CO2 is the predominant factor in global warming.and climate change. There is no significant credible scientific evidence that this is true. 


The IPCC definition was handed down to them in 1988 by the UN's WMO. It is supported by speculative computer models, all of which are built on the cast-in-stone IPCC assumption that the IPCC version of AGW is valid. This isn't science. This is the blatant political abuse and perversion of science by an unelected power structure. History has shown us that we should be very wary. 


I highly recommend the following scientific challenge to the IPCC's position to you.

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/#tabs-1-1


DanHB
DanHB

Solar output decreased slightly thorugh the 1970s, but then increased throughout the remainder of the 20th century.  Solar activity has only recently started to decrease. 

http://www.mcoscillator.com/data/charts/weekly/HadCRUT4_sunspots_2013.gif

Whether hte MWP was warmer than the present may never be fully known.  Some proxies indicate that it was, others not so.  Most indicators show that it was global, as likely solar-driven,  Similar with the LIA.  I disagree with your statement about climate sensitivity.  If the solar response was greater, than the climate sensitivity to CO2 must be less.

DaveLeaton
DaveLeaton

@Mlebauer @JefferyGreen @GeraldWilhite  ,


Jeffrey can answer for himself.  However, I would like to point out that the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not based on any surface temp record.  In other words, even if surface temp were plunging negative, the theory would still hold (it would simply be cooler still without AGW).  AGW is simply the greenhouse effect, one of the most well-established and well-evidenced theories produced by science.  The other part of AGW is the proposition that humans are responsible for the recent spike in atmospheric CO2.


Thus, pointing to the MWP and LIA as evidence against AGW shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening.  Whatever alternative explanation anyone comes up with for the recent 50 year trend in global energy storage, it >>must<< account for the human-enhanced greenhouse effect.  Unless, of course, one of you has falsified one or more of the extremely well-tested hypotheses that underwrite the theory of the greenhouse effect.  Holding out on us, are you?


On the MWP: there's little evidence right now that the MWP was a sun-related (i.e. global) event.  Also, there's little evidence that global surface temp was warmer than it is right now, even at the peak of the MWP.  We can cherry-pick NH proxies and get a high value, but if we look at a wide range of proxies (e.g. Marcott et al. 2013: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/), the MWP isn't as warm as current conditions.  


However, let's suppose that the MWP was both warmer and global.  That would probably mean that it was sun-driven.  If it was sun-driven, then climate sensitivity is much higher than currently estimated, because solar activity wasn't all that great during the MWP.  The climate response must be very strong, and we must update model inputs and plan for an even warmer future.


On the LIA: the LIA was sun-driven (Wolf, Sporer, and Maunder minima).  The modern solar maximum occurred during the late 1950s.  Solar has been flat or falling since.  GMST has not.  In order for the current trend to be attributed to solar, two major problems must be overcome.  1. a 50+ year solar-climate lag mechanism must be described and must be consistent with climate of the past (i.e. it can't be a suddenly new phenomenon).  2. the enhanced greenhouse effect (AGW) must be accounted for.  Go for it.  A Nobel, job security, and a boatload of money await, as they have for decades.

GeraldWilhite
GeraldWilhite

@Mlebauer @JefferyGreen @GeraldWilhite  


Interesting question, Meibaur! I look forward to Jeffery's response. 


I'm not sure of its direct relevance to climate change history, but then again science is often advanced by 'things of indirect relevance', 'aka accidental discoveries', 'dumb blind luck', or the 'Eureka Moment'.  


Of course the 98% settled scientific consensus is a 'Church of the AGW True Believers' propaganda marketing myth. Jeffery has an inventive mind so he may come up with something significant if he'll exercise his right to veer from the AGW Church's party line. 


I wonder if there has been been much historical research work, if any, done on the subject. Shooting from the hip, I'll offer the speculation that there is indeed a relationship between industrialization.and the end of the LIA. Necessity being the mother of invention, and killing cold certainly sparked the need for solutions. 


Other factors? How about cheap New World energy? It made escape from the cold of the LIA possible. How about the Franklin stove (a European invention)?  How about Europe's crippling warmongering religious and economic oppression? 


A motley crew of refugees with big dreams moved to the New World. My guess is they were the best of Europe's young people, so it was a brain drain. Freethinkers, shipbuilders, artisans, convicted criminals, mental misfits, Shakers, and Puritanical Christians. After all freedom and working for yourself was not just tolerated there, it was aggressively encouraged. .  


Jeffrey?

GeraldWilhite
GeraldWilhite

@Mlebauer @JefferyGreen @GeraldWilhite


Interesting question, Meibaur. I look forward to Jeffery's response. I'm not sure of its direct relevance to climate change history, but then again science is often advanced by 'things of indirect relevance', 'aka accidental discoveries', 'dumb blind luck', or the 'Eureka Moment'.  


Of course the 98% settled scientific consensus is a 'Church of the AGW True Believers' propaganda marketing myth. Jeffery has an inventive mind so he may come up with something significant if he has the courage to veer from the AGW Church's party line. I wonder if there has been been much historical research work, if any, done on the subject. 


Shooting from the hip, I'll offer the speculation that there is indeed a relationship between industrialization.and climate change. Necessity being the mother of invention, the killing LIA cold certainly sparked invention. 


Other factors? How about cheap New World energy that enabled escape from a cold LIA climate, the inclusion of the first modern patent system in the US Constitution (thank you, Ben Franklin), the warmongering religious oppression that was crippling Europe. 


A motley crew of refugees moved to the New World. Freethinkers, shipbuilders, artisans, convicted criminals, mental misfits, Shakers, Puritanical Christians, fortune-seekers. They were all escaping to the New World and the markets that enabled the birth of industrialization was following them. After all, freedom was not just tolerated there, it was aggressively encouraged.  

Mlebauer
Mlebauer

@JefferyGreen@GeraldWilhite 

The Little Ice Age had gone on for 550 years, since about 1300, it had to end sometime. It may well be a coincidence. The Medieval Warm Period preceded it for about 400 years, when it was warmer on average than today.

There was no industrialization in 900 when the MWP started. How does the 98.3% settled scientific consensus explain it?

JefferyGreen
JefferyGreen

@GeraldWilhite


!850 is also when the Industrial age started. Coincidence?


energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.    coincidence?


c12 to c13 ratio has changed in the atmosphere relating to fossil fuel co2. coincidence?


arctic sea ice is melting in an unprecedented manner compared to the past. coincidence?




poss0021
poss0021

@JefferyGreen@DavidNutzukiRight humans appear to be causing roughly half of the warming with their C02 emissions, but isn't the point whether or not continued warming is going to be catastrophic?  How do we know?  That, and whether huge monetary investment, taxes, price controls, lifestyle changes, etc. are worth phasing in immediately, eventually, and/or ever in order to attempt to prevent this?  At what cost?  To who?  How do we know this is the right thing to do?  What if millions of people were forced to relocate?  Wouldn't the left's preferred Keynesian economics consider this to be a wonderful phenomenon to spur economic growth?  It's really hard to plan for stuff, isn't it?  Do you ever wonder if sometimes it's best to see what happens rather than taking drastic action that may not be productive?  Have you ever seen anyone caught in this trap before?  If you have a plan, I'd love to hear it.  If not, I think that you might be the one playing mind games with yourself.

JefferyGreen
JefferyGreen

@DavidNutzuki@JefferyGreen


There is reality and then there is mindful confusion about the reality. You fit in the latter


THis is basically a beginning explanation of how there is warming in the pipeline of all our extra co2 in the atmosphere. The science is very clear. The uncertainty is very low or the certainty is high enough that a conservative group of scientists can go from 90 to 95% certainty humans are the cause of the warming in the last 50 years.


You are just mindgaming yourself. Good luck with one..



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

DanHB
DanHB

The satellite data may be a better measure.  Is the hybrid land and sea combined?  Inlcluding the recently released November data, the trend for hadcru3 is 0.009 C/decade for the last 180 months.  However, one could be accused of cherrypicking as the 168-month and 192-month trends are both -0.023 C/decade.  Either way, surface temperatures have been flat for the past 14-16 years.  How long this will last is uncertain, depending on whether CO2 or solar forcings dominate.

JefferyGreen
JefferyGreen

@DanHB

Trend: 0.115 ±0.166 °C/decade (2σ)

hadcrut4 hybrid


Trend: 0.068 ±0.144 °C/decade (2σ)

GISS


1998 to 2013


cowtan and way have covered the areas of the earth not covered with temperature stations using satellite data.

JefferyGreen
JefferyGreen

@alanmc95210@DaveLeaton@JefferyGreen@Juscurious


This is from a peer reviewed scientist in climate.



http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/thermocline.png

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/


This argument reveals once again the shocking lack of understanding of basic physics in “climate skeptic” circles.  First the alleged problem is lacking any factual basis – after all, in the last decades the upper layer of the oceans has warmed faster than the deeper (even if recently not quite as fast as before).  What is the problem with the heat first warming the upper layer before it penetrates deeper? That is entirely as expected.

Second, physically there is absolutely no problem for wind changes to cool the upper ocean at the same time as they warm the deeper layers.  The following figure shows a simple example of how this can happen (there are also other possible mechanisms).

DaveLeaton
DaveLeaton

@alanmc95210 @JefferyGreen @Juscurious  


Alan, downwelling thermal radiation warms the skin of bodies of water. In order for the given body of water to radiate to the atmosphere, it must overcome the increase in skin temp (i.e. it must get warmer than the skin).  The entire convective column then must warm.  If the atmosphere warms, the oceans will store more energy.  Wind-driven mixing and circulation pull the warmer top layer water down to depth.  http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

Arthur123
Arthur123

@JefferyGreen @GeraldWilhite

The Arctic Sea Ice has recovered since it reached its minimum a few years ago.

Arctic melt is more likely related to black carbon (soot) and has nothing to do with CO2. 

On the other side of the globe Antarctica is exploding with record ice growth. Why is CO2 limited to only the northern hemisphere? Ridiculous! 


Read more at:

http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sea-ice-continues-low-while-antarctic-reaches-new-record-high



CO2 circulates around the entire globe by the general circulation winds of the planet. You can't cite the north pole without also looking at what's happening at the south pole. 


The most probable explanation is black carbon soot from Asian factories which do not use any air pollution control technology. A black body absorbs 100 of the solar radiation (Wein's & Steffan Bolman Laws). Therefore black carbon soot is causing the melting NOT CO2. In some states salt is not used on roads, they use sand instead which has a similar dark color. Which when  thrown on the snow, aids in its melting. Anybody can do this test themselves in their yard with a small amount of sand or soil on snow that is exposed to the sun.  


Arthur123
Arthur123

@poss0021 @JefferyGreen @DavidNutzuki If this process was truly warming the planet, then in the winter when CO2 levels are at the highest (very limited plant based photosynthesis) then why is it so cold outside?????? Record cold, not just cold.


The answer is obviously the energy capture of CO2 in our atmosphere at 400ppm is very, very tiny and are several orders of magnitude lower than the natural variability of our climate system and therefore the little warming it results in does not show up


. My guess is that CO2 levels would have to exceed 40,000 ppm before they begin to add any warming to the atmosphere. Which will likely never happen. World wide technology innovations  will likely lead to new energy generation long before we pass even 1,000 ppm


The little warning that has been exaggerated (historical climate record tampered by GISS and others) over the last 150 years is not due to CO2 but to naturalvariability in our planet's climate system. Climate records show other warm periods similar to today over the past           10, 000 years.


The truth is AWG is a complete fraud being perpetrated on the world by greedy men who want to control the free world's energy.