What Is Causing The Warming ?

[Iceberg]

As promised a thread to discuss why we have warmed so much.

Some might not think it exceptional or even noteworthy to have had such a warm globe recently, but I do. This isn't to discuss regional variations, as there will always be regional variations but rather as was said on a different thread recetnly the heat budget of the earth.

So what do I mean my warming.

• Well we've had the warmest oceans on record in June according to NOAA.
  
• GISS/HAD/NCDC have had the last 3 months all in the top 5 months category with NCDC and GISS 2nd warmest on record, HADCRU 3rd warmest, RSS MSU has recently come in as the 3rd warmest and even hot off the press UAH has finally joined the party with the 2nd warmest July on record.
  
• I am sure the other July updates will all be in the very hot category.
  
• The Lower troposphere according to the sats also recorded it's warmest day ever recorded in it's history last month.
  
• UAH and MSU have recorded the biggest monthly increase every recorded etc etc.
  

Remember these are all Global figures.

So given all this why ?.

The obvious answer is ENSO as given by Watts, however there is normally a 3 month time lag for ENSO and 3 months ago we were not even in an ENSO. Going by the CPC ENSO figures we only entered ENSO in July at 0.6, in June we were only at 0.2, May was -0.1.

Enso is still only weak at the moment even going by the weekly figures, (I fully expect it to get stronger but that is several months away).

So If it is ENSO then we have a very short lag and some incredibly warm temperatures which certainly didn't happen in the past. Indeed temperatures of this level have never been recorded from a weak ENSO before.

Is it down to Solar ?......I think that's an easy answer "NO" unless you think that the heat of the last solar maximum can be hidden and not recorded somewhere suddenly to pop out now across the globe.

Is is down to a particularly positive AO.PDO.NAO etc etc, Again "NO" not that I have seen anywhere but I am happy to be shown otherwise.

Is it even down to Rogers magnatism or David's PFM ? Again they might be able to answer this but I doubt this very much. I think the claim re gravitional effects was of cooling throughout 2008/2009.

Is it down to UHI's or something, again the answer is likely to be no, as we are in a recession, global and regional industrial output has actually gone down.

Maybe it's down to rogue data, but again that would require rogue data throughout all the data sets, across satelites, land measurments etc which is unbelivable.

Many know the theory that I subscribe to about GHG induced backgroud trend warming, which would mean that a weak El Nino would raise temps more now than 10 or 20 years ago and this might play a part.

However Even I admit that this amount of trend warming is beyond what I thought. (I honestly thought we would have to wait until late Autumn to get these kinds of global temperature anomalies.)

I would really like to hear peoples views on this.

BTW I am not trying to pretend that a few months of exceptionally high temps are a new trend for Global warming, you need years to prove that. But there does need to be a driver for a few months of exceptionally high temps and by all accounts excluding AGW we should really be cooling.

[jethro]

My first thoughts to your post Ice are our records are incredibly short. "Since records began" makes every thing seem so dramatic, trouble is it's rather meaningless when the records are so short.

When it comes to oceans and heat content, given the length of time some of these positive/negative cycles take, I think it would be more productive to look at the past, rather than the last few years.

Why would there need to be a driver? Why would 20/30 years of warming disappear in an instant? If it takes 30 years to warm something by 0.6c it's likely it will take an equal length of time to cool it the same amount.

I don't think there's anything easy about Solar output and the effect/lags, can't think of a scientist who thinks it's easy, it's one of the great unknowns.

I think we've currently got some of the best brains in the world puzzling over the heat budget of the world, they're struggling; if it were as simple and clean cut as you are suggesting, I think they would have moved onto something else by now and we'd have all the peer reviewed papers we'd ever need on the subject to refer to.

[High Altitude]

Came across this article a couple of days ago and it contradicts your points on warming unless of course the climate of the whole of North America can be looked upon as a local variation in the context of the Earth.

Came across this article a couple of days ago and it contradicts your points on warming unless of course the climate of the whole of North America can be looked upon as a local variation in the context of the Earth.

Heres the link: http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/gore_global_warming/2009/08/04/243871.html

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

The problem HA, is talking about global warming and then looking at regional variances. The two havent got the same variables unfortunately, so it shouldnt be compared (IMO anyway).

[Methuselah]

My first thoughts to your post Ice are our records are incredibly short. "Since records began" makes every thing seem so dramatic, trouble is it's rather meaningless when the records are so short.

When it comes to oceans and heat content, given the length of time some of these positive/negative cycles take, I think it would be more productive to look at the past, rather than the last few years.

Why would there need to be a driver? Why would 20/30 years of warming disappear in an instant? If it takes 30 years to warm something by 0.6c it's likely it will take an equal length of time to cool it the same amount.

I don't think there's anything easy about Solar output and the effect/lags, can't think of a scientist who thinks it's easy, it's one of the great unknowns.

I think we've currently got some of the best brains in the world puzzling over the heat budget of the world, they're struggling; if it were as simple and clean cut as you are suggesting, I think they would have moved onto something else by now and we'd have all the peer reviewed papers we'd ever need on the subject to refer to.

Firstly, no one is claiming that anything is easy or clear cut, as you suggest; and, secondly, we have to work with what we've got. We can hardly factor in effects, lags, cycles etc. etc. - if they haven't even been discovered yet?

And 'why would there need to be a driver?' Because warming without a heat-source (i.e. a driver) would equate to acquiring energy out of nothing. I suspect that looking for a driver(s) will be more fruitful, in the long run, than looking for a free-energy source?

[High Altitude]

South America, parts of Australia and New Zealand are also experiences record breaking cold temperatures and these are not local variances to one another?

This interesting link seems to support both sides of the argument but sways more towards cooling http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

What I was trying to explain HA is this. Lets say Global temperatures are rising. You've noted some colder spots/areas. On that basis, you would expect other areas to therefore have a higher +ve annomoly than those you have listed to create an increasing global temperature.

[Iceberg]

HA,

There can be little arguement about the recent Global warming.

Yes The US 48 states have had a cooler summer so far than normal, but according to the ALL the satelite, HADCRU, NCDC data etc(both skeptic and consensus in origin) this is the only area that has cooled and I think there are regional reasons for that.

Parts have cooled, parts are warmer (It would be truely remarkable if every area on earth had record temperatures.)

However the balance can't really be disputed.

Tbh I could have posted this last month, but I really wanted UAH to come on board so that there was no way that the warming could be denied.

Jethro, Nobody is saying that all the heat from the last 20 years would disappear (although where this heat would have come from in the first place is interesting).

You don't generate heat out of nothing, I can understand a steady increase in heat from the last solar maximum over the following few years. But have seen nothing to suggest that the maximum amount of heating will hit 8 years after the peak. Where would this heat have been stored ?. It's not the oceans otherwise the heat content of the top 100 meters or so would follow a similar cycle but with a lag.

If it is solar I would want something to back it, I agree that solar output isn't easy to predict, we can sure look at the last 8-10 years and see it declining. Equally we can look at the atmosphere, land, oceans to see if the heat and energy from the last peak has gone anywhere, It would be pretty noticable.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Tbh I could have posted this last month, but I really wanted UAH to come on board so that there was no way that the warming could be denied.

Jethro, Nobody is saying that all the heat from the last 20 years would disappear (although where this heat would have come from in the first place is interesting).

Iceberg

UAH has only shown July to be 2nd warmest. It hasn't come on board just recorded one month of warmth. Jan 08 showed one month of 30 year heat gain completely gone....but it was one month. Basically for me a thread that needs to be reviewed at end of the year no matter how interesting because it is one month. Although I agree it is a big anomaly and one I will watch closely

ENSO yes, AMO is still in positive mode [not negative], PDO is -ve but in a less so state at current time.

BFTP

Edited August 6, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Iceberg]

Yes but it still shows that June or July or whatever you want to say was exceptionally hot. More so than it should have been all things considered. I agree that the next few months will be interesting. But with a strong possibility that ENSO will go more positive(the strongest driver of short term temperature variation) over the next few months, I don't think there is likely to be a large cooling reversal.

BTW the AMO has been negative for 5 of the so far 6 months given out.

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.data so this is a good indication that the AMO isn't a driver for this warmth.

If we can break past the warmest few months on record (98) which had the strongest El Nino on record. With what is only currently a weak maybe forecast to be a bog standard moderate El Nino then IMO that would be quite tremendous for scientific research. Although less good for the population of the earth.

Surely there has to come a point somewhen, where warming can't be blamed on solar ?.

If we are at a maximum, solar gets blamed for the warmth, if we are at a minimum it gets blamed, if we are in the middle of either of them it's blamed, sorry it doesn't stack up.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Yes but it still shows that June or July or whatever you want to say was exceptionally hot. More so than it should have been all things considered. I agree that the next few months will be interesting. But with a strong possibility that ENSO will go more positive(the strongest driver of short term temperature variation) over the next few months, I don't think there is likely to be a large cooling reversal.

BTW the AMO has been negative for 5 of the so far 6 months given out.

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.data so this is a good indication that the AMO isn't a driver for this warmth.

If we can break past the warmest few months on record (98) which had the strongest El Nino on record. With what is only currently a weak maybe forecast to be a bog standard moderate El Nino then IMO that would be quite tremendous for scientific research. Although less good for the population of the earth.

Surely there has to come a point somewhen, where warming can't be blamed on solar ?.

If we are at a maximum, solar gets blamed for the warmth, if we are at a minimum it gets blamed, if we are in the middle of either of them it's blamed, sorry it doesn't stack up.

Yes re AMO what i meant was that it is still in its positive phase cyclically but it may be more regional than global like the PDO.

Re the solar the scientists themselves state that there is a lag effect and we had 3 of the most active cycles recorded in the latter part of the 20th century so a long way to go on that I think.

I wouldn't say the globe has been tremendously 'hot' but it is a large anomaly agreed.

Of interest I would like to know where the 'warmth' has come from considering the vast areas that have recorded very cold or record cool conditions. There must be larger areas of very warm or record warmth EVENTS...but they haven't been widely pressed which one would have expected?

BFTP

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

This thread could get circular in debate again and cover the same stuff that is batted to and fro every week. I say this on the basis that asking this question demands the timeframe that has been set to monitor progress of climate change trends to develop. The IPCC have given at least eighty years in terms of their projections, so on that basis alone it becomes rather pointless to try and 'force' a premature answer based on extrapolations of monthly and annual - even 5 to 10 year bases. If the debate becomes short term within the context of analysing for trends then people will cherry pick for eg el nino 97/98 to say, end of 2006 to try and show how the warming trend has continued unabated whilst others will take post strong el nino 98 up to date to show that there has been no warming. That roundabout is done every week on here and becomes, by definition circular, and rather unproductive. In other words you can produce stats to prove almost any point you like.

The simple answer to the question is - 'we don't know' Some of us eschew natural cyclical causes, others man made cause, a few believe it is some of both. In my own opinion what DOES need to happen is that the balance of research in cllimate change and likely direction of future trends needs to become more neutral in terms of better analaysis of ALL feedbacks - which includes solar and Davids PFM cycle amongst others. I've said before that too much reliance and assumption on AGW being the culprit risks us 'acting now' in good conscience to 'save the planet' etc and in response to the cries of 'we can't afford to wait!'....and then in doing so we take our eye of the natural cycles and end up in eighty years time with NO time left to deal with a very different set of issues than the ones assumed by AGW.

Jethro is right in the context with which she speaks - we have seen 0.7C rise over a hundred years, and the climate doesn't usually (barring a rare sudden phenomenon) give up its variance in any one direction quickly over a very short period. Nearly all of that 0.7C has been attributable to the +PDO phases of roughly 1920 to 1940 and again from the mid 70's to very recently. The IPCC have put their own bench mark for future climate direction in terms of how they think AGW will affect the outcome over the coming century approx. Others have put forward natural causes research based over simialr periods of time that differs from AGW consensus. So short term analysis, whilst interesting to watch and point out, is not going to be the way to answer the question. There are far too many uncertain areas - which goes back to the base of nearly all these threads that keep being opened.

Time is the only answer - but that time needs to be spent in terms of researching the greyest and most uncertain areas of the science before making premature assessments. In 100 years time perhaps someone will be opening up a thread 'what is causing the cooling'. And yes, before anyone rushes to point it out that could work out in whichever way.

[MR EXTREMES]

not only most of america australia new zealand south america the alps pretty vast amount of land and lets not forget this is not the only year of record cold being broken for the last few years or so cold records have been broken.

but ofcoarse this would be disscounted.

but in places hot records have been broken to but by far the main focus has been cooling.

during the last decade we have had some of the most extreme solar maximums on record,

which i might add is not long history in terms of technology.

even so we see that solar activity has dropped in a dramatic way over the last few years and its funny how cooler records are being broken now, but not only this global shifts in patterns.

every year i keep a eye on the usa through every season and to be honest they have cooled alot after they to went through a warming period like europe high solar activity in 1998 and a strong el nino aswell so of coarse common sense tells you why it was so warm.

but now we see different wether this hold for longterm depends on many factors but solar being the most influence over all as this to helps run global patterns.

its also got to be added that science is in its infancy,

even if we have been warming up to this very day then this would seem to be normal as colder and warmer period have happened through out earths history wether the rate of warming has been faster and more extreme than anytime in the past there is still no telling wether this is normal or not.

but i really do think we have not warmed any futher since 1998 and strongly feel that the warming is slowly cooling and records are showing this although some warming records to will be broken.

but more time is need to see what happens.

Edited August 6, 2009 by badboy657

[Rob]

isn't the average world temperature falling as opposed to rising?

[Chris Knight]

As promised a thread to discuss why we have warmed so much.

Some might not think it exceptional or even noteworthy to have had such a warm globe recently, but I do. This isn't to discuss regional variations, as there will always be regional variations but rather as was said on a different thread recetnly the heat budget of the earth.

So what do I mean my warming.

• Well we've had the warmest oceans on record in June according to NOAA.
  
• GISS/HAD/NCDC have had the last 3 months all in the top 5 months category with NCDC and GISS 2nd warmest on record, HADCRU 3rd warmest, RSS MSU has recently come in as the 3rd warmest and even hot off the press UAH has finally joined the party with the 2nd warmest July on record.
  
• I am sure the other July updates will all be in the very hot category.
  
• The Lower troposphere according to the sats also recorded it's warmest day ever recorded in it's history last month.
  
• UAH and MSU have recorded the biggest monthly increase every recorded etc etc.
  

Remember these are all Global figures.

So given all this why ?.

The obvious answer is ENSO as given by Watts, however there is normally a 3 month time lag for ENSO and 3 months ago we were not even in an ENSO. Going by the CPC ENSO figures we only entered ENSO in July at 0.6, in June we were only at 0.2, May was -0.1.

Enso is still only weak at the moment even going by the weekly figures, (I fully expect it to get stronger but that is several months away).

So If it is ENSO then we have a very short lag and some incredibly warm temperatures which certainly didn't happen in the past. Indeed temperatures of this level have never been recorded from a weak ENSO before.

Is it down to Solar ?......I think that's an easy answer "NO" unless you think that the heat of the last solar maximum can be hidden and not recorded somewhere suddenly to pop out now across the globe.

Is is down to a particularly positive AO.PDO.NAO etc etc, Again "NO" not that I have seen anywhere but I am happy to be shown otherwise.

Is it even down to Rogers magnatism or David's PFM ? Again they might be able to answer this but I doubt this very much. I think the claim re gravitional effects was of cooling throughout 2008/2009.

Is it down to UHI's or something, again the answer is likely to be no, as we are in a recession, global and regional industrial output has actually gone down.

Maybe it's down to rogue data, but again that would require rogue data throughout all the data sets, across satelites, land measurments etc which is unbelivable.

Many know the theory that I subscribe to about GHG induced backgroud trend warming, which would mean that a weak El Nino would raise temps more now than 10 or 20 years ago and this might play a part.

However Even I admit that this amount of trend warming is beyond what I thought. (I honestly thought we would have to wait until late Autumn to get these kinds of global temperature anomalies.)

I would really like to hear peoples views on this.

BTW I am not trying to pretend that a few months of exceptionally high temps are a new trend for Global warming, you need years to prove that. But there does need to be a driver for a few months of exceptionally high temps and by all accounts excluding AGW we should really be cooling.

We are not warm. Any anomalous temperature increase is due to lack of ice in the Arctic. Ice has the ability to keep the temperature at the freezing point of water about -1.5 deg C for sea water. Otherwise, sea water tends to equilibrate at a few degrees above freezing. There is little ice spread about because there are no strong winds in the Arctic, as has been the weather pattern there for about four years.

Anomalies against a frozen or icy Arctic of 30 years ago make up the apparent warming. Just look at the red in the above image, and think what it is compared to - something different. The rest of the ocean is cool or normal, and that is 70% of the surface. Nothing to do with neutral to El Nino conditions in the central Pacific.

On land we are apparently warm, although there are differences between the SSTs for instance the southern ocean and Antarctica land temperatures, and it is difficult to understand how Japan, for instance, can be surrounded by cold oceans, yet have warm land temperatures.

[MR EXTREMES]

indeed the arctic is rather red.

[mt-leinster-snow-drifts]

Looks like Iceberg got his information from the daily star

from what I can see there isn't much warming going on

[MR EXTREMES]

ive got to add this

in nearly every decline in solar activity there has been colder cooler climate,

im very much in the strong opion that that in 98 we reached a peak in 2003 we had a high solar activity spike,

and 2003 saw 100f reached.

its also said that the medievel period was warmer than today although its not a cert but if this is the case then is it possible that the sun cycle caused this then again maunder min and the dalton min.

its makes me also wonder wether taking science at gospel is a good idear for longterm predictions after all things happen so unexpectedly.

i think the sun is going to take a little rest for awhile.

although like i said unexpected things can happen like a explosive maximum either way we dont know.

what we do know is that warm and cool periods have always preceeded each other.

[Iceberg]

I really wish I could do some headbanging here.

MLSD, Try and have a little respect, I would suggest looking at the GLOBAL temperature data sets, take your pick, anyone you like, NOAA, Hadley, NASA, NCDC whichever you want and you WILL see the same thing.

Unless you think I am making up the first post on this thread.

Chris,

Ditto your better than this, Look at the ocean breakdown of global temps for the northern/southern hemis etc. You can use either the Satelite data or NCDC. Rather than a pixilated map. It is far from just the poles.

Rob,

No, world temperatures are not falling, and in real life never have been no matter how much the Skeptic brigade would like to publish the fact. The one and only definition of falling is if you use the warmest point on record as your start point.

Badboy, we could post regional variations of warm and cold until the cows come home. We are not talking Regional though we are talking Global.

"during the last decade we have had some of the most extreme solar maximums on record,

which i might add is not long history in terms of technology. " No we haven't, the maximum of the solar cycles have been on a downward trend for around 30-40 years now. The last maximum was the lowest maximum for 50 years.

If you don't think we have warmed any further than 1998 why are we so warm now when we don't have a great big record breaking EL Nino happening.!

Tamara,

Sorry you put some thought into your post and I am not dismissing it. However I am not talking about long term climatic trends.

The question is very clear. Why given a system such as the globe are we experiencing such high temperatures when the natural cycles (to our current understanding) indicate that it should be quite a bit cooler than it is currently. We should NOT be in a near record breaking phase of warming.

This thread does not need to go round in circles, and as long as people don't put in silly quotes about how cold the 48 states have been, we might be able to go somewhere with it.

Warmth doesn't magically enter the atmosphere it needs to be driven there from somewhere. Something has caused the warmest day we have ever recorded for our planet.

Are the negative climate drivers not functioning as they should, or as we believe they should ?.

[Iceberg]

Right More facts and figures.

This is taken from MSU satelite records, UAH was actually higher but isn't out yet as a breakdown.

year mon -70.0/ -20.0/ 20.0/ -70.0/ 60.0/ -70.0/

82.5 20.0 82.5 -20.0 82.5 -60.0

--------------------------------------------------------------

2009 7 0.469 0.664 0.110 0.490 0.317 0.819

or

-70/82.5 = 0.469 Global Ocean temps

-20/20 = 0.664 Equator/tropics ocean temps.

20/82.5 = 0.110 Northern hemi ocean temps.

-70/-20 = 0.490 Southern hemi ocean temps.

60/82.5 = 0.317 Arctic Ocean temps

-70/-60 = 0.819 Antarctic Ocean temps

Second warmest oceans in July ever recorded.

Warmest southern hemisphere oceans ever recorded in July.

Editted as the data wasn't well presented.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Iceberg

[MR EXTREMES]

so how do you know its not been this warm before in earths history?

to be honest some take science to serious to be honest i think your so wrong iceberg.

nobody is saying it did not warm and you are right about solar maximums but there have been burst of activity which in my opion helped to rase temps global.

http://www.nasca.org...olar/solar.html

Some scientists are now saying that global warming is principally attributable to increased solar activity rather than emissions from fossil fuels. This may well be so but it would be the height of folly to ignore our resonsibilities in this dilemma. Solar forces are certainly beyond our control but if the sun has suddenly become more violent then it was never more important to maintain our atmosphere in as heathy a state as possible. Quite simply the Earth’s atmosphere is our sole defence against harmful solar energy and we need it to survive!

but ofcoarse this is not happening right now because where deep in a minimum.

iceberg its not cooling is it are you sure.

http://epw.senate.go...fe-9e32747616f9

or are you on about the recent warming because of el nino or over decades because im not desputing warming has happened,

well im sorry theres a arguement on both sides of the fence,

i wont be bent over the global warming barrel other than the causes are mostly natural and now things are changing again.

Edited August 6, 2009 by badboy657

[Iceberg]

It has been alot warmer than this in earths history, but that's irrelavent.

It's to do with what's happening now, considering the natural cycles that are playing now, and considering the temperature profiles of the last 20 years etc.

I honestly don't mind questions, I am happy to try and answer them.

[MR EXTREMES]

http://www.stopgloba...now.com/?cat=61

i dont think its irrelavent at all because what happened in the past is most likely happening now and will again in the future aswell.

and you also have to remember its very relavent about the past because science uses history for there data if they did not then they would not have a starting point.

if they do not use past events then they clearly will end up with egg on there face which in some cases is happening anyway.

Edited August 6, 2009 by badboy657

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

What I find quite amazing reading the number of threads on AGW, climate change etc, is why we havent come to an agreement that no-one has yet been able to conclude that AGW is solely linked to CO2 etc. In fact, that it is solely linked to anything.

Surely the most common of senses would suggest that there is a correlation between green house gas increases and AGW, but there are also other factors. No one scientist has yet to explore every potential contribution in one report, and so until they do so, we will just continue arguements on a sole source basis. Unfortunately, I dont see a conclusion coming from that.g

[Iceberg]

I am not sure which bit you are pointing to, the bit that says that the flip of the PDO during the 70's caused instant warming is interesting that would indicate the lack of a lag.

"Now that the Pacific Decadal Oscilation has flipped back to a cold phase (just 2 or 3 years ago) and the Sun is very quiet, expect colder years ahead. No wonder this may be the coldest Summer on record in parts of the Midwest this year"

Ah so expect cold years, but somehow it's not it's actually alot warmer globally, hence my point, why considering everything natural is in a cooling phase is it exceptionally hot lately.?