What Is Causing The Warming ?

[Iceberg]

Just lost my post damn the stupid laptop having automatic back buttons for ie.

Sorry SC I will keep it short, yes I want to further investigate the radiator theory, but my view on it is well known I think.

Right, it's not often I quote something from watts, but this is a little gem from Spencer, who I really do have growing respect for atm.

Essentially he's looking at more detailed land sat global temperature measurments against land use, (something which might well be virtually impossible to do accurately, but he has given it what he considers to be a good stab.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/20/spencer-developing-a-new-satellite-based-surface-temperature-set/#more-16577

What he's noticed so far though is not what he thought and he fully admits this to his credit. His work pretty much backs up Jones (and HADCRU), he also has as yet found no evidence of UHI contamination, nor the reduce stations having a negative effect on the GISS/NCDC datasets(unlike alot of skeptics).

For a skeptical scientist to admit this is very good for everybody, but adds enourmous weight to skeptics and how they view the current global datasets that we use.

Now generally since they have a greater than .90 correlation anyway (the major recordsets) this shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

Still nice to hear that UHI and station usage is not the cause of warming recently and we come back to probably climate science.

"Ill have to admit I was a little astounded at the agreement between Jones and my analyses, especially since I chose a rather ad-hoc method of data screening that was not optimized in any way. Note that the linear temperature trends are essentially identical; the correlation between the monthly anomalies is 0.91.

One significant difference is that my temperature anomalies are, on average, magnified by 1.36 compared to Jones. My first suspicion is that Jones has relatively more tropical than high-latitude area in his averages, which would mute the signal. I did not have time to verify this.

Of course, an increasing urban heat island effect could still be contaminating both datasets, resulting in a spurious warming trend. Also, when I include years before 1986 in the analysis, the warming trends might start to diverge. But at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset at least not since 1986"

Edited February 21, 2010 by Iceberg

[Solar Cycles]

Just lost my post damn the stupid laptop having automatic back buttons for ie.

Sorry SC I will keep it short, yes I want to further investigate the radiator theory, but my view on it is well known I think.

Right, it's not often I quote something from watts, but this is a little gem from Spencer, who I really do have growing respect for atm.

Essentially he's looking at more detailed land sat global temperature measurments against land use, (something which might well be virtually impossible to do accurately, but he has given it what he considers to be a good stab.

http://wattsupwithth...set/#more-16577

What he's noticed so far though is not what he thought and he fully admits this to his credit. His work pretty much backs up Jones (and HADCRU), he also has as yet found no evidence of UHI contamination, nor the reduce stations having a negative effect on the GISS/NCDC datasets(unlike alot of skeptics).

For a skeptical scientist to admit this is very good for everybody, but adds enourmous weight to skeptics and how they view the current global datasets that we use.

Now generally since they have a greater than .90 correlation anyway (the major recordsets) this shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

Still nice to hear that UHI and station usage is not the cause of warming recently and we come back to probably climate science.

"I’ll have to admit I was a little astounded at the agreement between Jones’ and my analyses, especially since I chose a rather ad-hoc method of data screening that was not optimized in any way. Note that the linear temperature trends are essentially identical; the correlation between the monthly anomalies is 0.91.

One significant difference is that my temperature anomalies are, on average, magnified by 1.36 compared to Jones. My first suspicion is that Jones has relatively more tropical than high-latitude area in his averages, which would mute the signal. I did not have time to verify this.

Of course, an increasing urban heat island effect could still be contaminating both datasets, resulting in a spurious warming trend. Also, when I include years before 1986 in the analysis, the warming trends might start to diverge. But at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset — at least not since 1986"

Thanks for the reply Iceberg, couldn't agree more. Spencer one of the few sceptical scientist scientist out there, without an hidden agenda!

[pottyprof]

Thanks for the reply Iceberg, couldn't agree more. Spencer one of the few sceptical scientist scientist out there, without an hidden agenda!

That would make him a true scientist then...

Yes, it's a super idea and this shows why there should be more data being shared with an aim to bring people together. Education is a good thing.

[Iceberg]

A quick update according to the Sat datasets, RSS and Christie Feb was the 2nd warmest on record, this was supported by NASA, HAD and NCDC had it at 7th and 6th warmest respectively.

March is just dribbling in and again its a hot one, with RSS and UAH(Christie) showing March 2010 as the warmest on record(beating 98) the others yet to reply.

According to the Sat record this has been the warmest Jan/Feb/Mar(first qtr of the year) globally ever recorded.

[Devonian]

A quick update according to the Sat datasets, RSS and Christie Feb was the 2nd warmest on record, this was supported by NASA, HAD and NCDC had it at 7th and 6th warmest respectively.

March is just dribbling in and again its a hot one, with RSS and UAH(Christie) showing March 2010 as the warmest on record(beating 98) the others yet to reply.

According to the Sat record this has been the warmest Jan/Feb/Mar(first qtr of the year) globally ever recorded.

March GISS +.84C (second third warmest month in that record).

Edited April 13, 2010 by Devonian

[MR EXTREMES]

intresting stuff although is it true:whistling:

no only joking must be incredible really.

[Gray-Wolf]

With Nino still moderate and a lot more land surfaces to heat in the northern hemisphere (warm up fast as opposed to ocean bodies) how will they do over our summer I wonder. With Canada and Eastern U.S. having a little April heatwave last week is this a sign of things to come.

bb tells me the sun is still dormant so we can't lay the blame there eh?

[Iceberg]

March GISS +.84C (second third warmest month in that record).

H Dev,

It is the second warmest according to GISS isn't it ?.

GISS has the Jan/Feb/Mar period as the joint warmest start to a year globally as well.

Which ever one you want to use this is looking like a warm year, the fly will be possible development of a La Nina towards the back end of the year and given that ENSO has now gone below 1.0C it will be interesting to see hoe the datasets respond. HAD should respond soonest and the Sats maybe 2 or 3 months behind.

There is certiantly no inverse relationship that I have ever seen GW between solar cycles and global temps.

[ANYWEATHER]

A quick update according to the Sat datasets, RSS and Christie Feb was the 2nd warmest on record, this was supported by NASA, HAD and NCDC had it at 7th and 6th warmest respectively.

March is just dribbling in and again its a hot one, with RSS and UAH(Christie) showing March 2010 as the warmest on record(beating 98) the others yet to reply.

According to the Sat record this has been the warmest Jan/Feb/Mar(first qtr of the year) globally ever recorded.

How long has "SAT" records been around and really how accurate are they?? :lol: :o

[Gray-Wolf]

I think if we are to have true 'global temps' then we need polar data (north/south) and the coverage that Sat's gives us plugs the gap better than the scant 'station' data. The troubles with Antarctic and it's apparent 'cooling' come from one station alone (the rest show warming) so the sat data (which shows warming) irons out the 'Vostok' issues.

Seeing as the goggle map shows our swimming pool in the garden I can see the accuracy of sat data. As with anything 'computer' the programme is the key (Dr B.'s discovery of rotten ice, that wasn't distinguished from real perennial by the programme's parameters, is just such an issue).

We are now into the generation of Sat's that are custom made for the job ,instead of being 'altered' from their mission spec's to do the job at hand, so have no fears about the Sat's.

[Iceberg]

How long has "SAT" records been around and really how accurate are they?? :unsure:

Sat records, 30 years, but they have a very close correlation with other global datasets such as HAD, NASA etc, which go back a 100-200 years or so.

[ANYWEATHER]

Sat records, 30 years, but they have a very close correlation with other global datasets such as HAD, NASA etc, which go back a 100-200 years or so.

Well Sat records going back just 30 years is useless in the terms of time and accuracy! Its just to little time to make comparisons , and what do you mean by a "very close correlation with other global datasets such as HAD, NASA"...ETC?

[Iceberg]

Well Sat records going back just 30 years is useless in the terms of time and accuracy! Its just to little time to make comparisons , and what do you mean by a "very close correlation with other global datasets such as HAD, NASA"...ETC?

Err no, not useless. the very close correlation is there with ALL the global datasets, occasionally one will under represent or have a monthly bias but if they match over the last 30 years why would they not match back further than this ?.

[Iceberg]

Quick update now that all the global sets are out for March and we have.

RSS, UAH, NCDC all having it as the warmest March on record.

GISS and HADCRU as the 2nd warmest March on record.

[Admiral_Bobski]

H Dev,

It is the second warmest according to GISS isn't it ?.

GISS has the Jan/Feb/Mar period as the joint warmest start to a year globally as well.

Which ever one you want to use this is looking like a warm year, the fly will be possible development of a La Nina towards the back end of the year and given that ENSO has now gone below 1.0C it will be interesting to see hoe the datasets respond. HAD should respond soonest and the Sats maybe 2 or 3 months behind.

There is certiantly no inverse relationship that I have ever seen GW between solar cycles and global temps.

Posted by myself on another thread, but applicable to all:

I really do give up - henceforth I shall be doing any further work on the LI with VP by e-mail and telephone...I've had enough of this smug point-scoring (and it's not even legitimate point-scoring because you still haven't got the...well, er... point).

Adieu.

CB

[Solar Cycles]

Posted by myself on another thread, but applicable to all:

I really do give up - henceforth I shall be doing any further work on the LI with VP by e-mail and telephone...I've had enough of this smug point-scoring (and it's not even legitimate point-scoring because you still haven't got the...well, er... point).

Adieu.

CB

Don't blame you CB, some just refuse to accept that solar output as a lag effect. Still give it a few more years, and maybe then the penny will drop!

[Gray-Wolf]

Don't blame you CB, some just refuse to accept that solar output as a lag effect. Still give it a few more years, and maybe then the penny will drop!

If we weren't so impacted by the warming already I'd say you were right but you can't just 'undo' all that has already happened. The minimal impact would have been enough in the past to 'snowball' into noticeable effects but we have warmed too much (the impacts of that warming esp. in the oceans , will over-ride any 'loss' of solar).

I think some folk don't get the fact that 'temps' rising are the tip of any warming iceberg. The other areas where heat has already been 'utilised' will take an awful lot of undoing (tipping points?).

I think that the prospect of another 'warmest year on record' will put a few folk off posting about a 'cool down' as they will have nothing to support their arguments and plenty of 'evidence' to the contrary.

We must bare in mind that all the lead modellers have us 'in' a flat zone of 'weather' augmented temp 'stall'.

Seeing as that isn't what we are seeing what of the 'resumption of warming' in 2015????

I also worry that the 'missing heat' (up to 50% of what we've 'accrued')has had long enough buried within the system to now make itself know again via the oceans. Plonk that on top of our accelerating warming (well if you take a line from 2006 to today....lol) and we have a problem.

[Iceberg]

Don't blame you CB, some just refuse to accept that solar output as a lag effect. Still give it a few more years, and maybe then the penny will drop!

And if I had a penny for how many times I heard the "give it a few more years" over the last 1 and a half solar cycles I would be a rich man indeed.!

I know that CB/VP are working on a lag theory, I also know the theories about the various lags, but as I've said many times the theory of a lag that produces record temps in a solar min trough has very little evidence so far.

[Gray-Wolf]

And if I had a penny for how many times I heard the "give it a few more years" over the last 1 and a half solar cycles I would be a rich man indeed.!

I know that CB/VP are working on a lag theory, I also know the theories about the various lags, but as I've said many times the theory of a lag that produces record temps in a solar min trough has very little evidence so far.

I'm also taken by "all or nothing" approach.

If we call AGW "50" responsible , and any other theory equaly so, then the global temp rises we have seen over the past 100yrs may have had a 'much truer flavour' to them.

As it is the 'AGW' camp seem to be the only folk saying 'take other natural cycles nto account' when you look at our evolving planet.

Whenever we look with 'natural varieations' alone we need AGW to make up the numbers ( and not just see 'regional' variability).

I do await V.P. and C-Bobs findings yet I can't help wonder if their findings will 'exclude' the realities 'AGW' resides with......

Edited April 18, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

I see that GW and Iceberg have still yet to understand the premise of the LI.

Oh Well.

CB

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

We will see a big drop in global temps over the next few years. The scene has been set, the El Nino is subsiding and pretty fast now too. The global pattern is locking into a cold phase now and it will be visually evident by back end of this year. Indeed it is evident now but 'wait and see' is what must happen.

We are not in a deep minimum yet...we are heading towards a deep minimum and the continued citing of the earth still being warm in a deep minimum is at best misleading.

BFTP

[laserguy]

We will see a big drop in global temps over the next few years. The scene has been set, the El Nino is subsiding and pretty fast now too. The global pattern is locking into a cold phase now and it will be visually evident by back end of this year. Indeed it is evident now but 'wait and see' is what must happen.

We are not in a deep minimum yet...we are heading towards a deep minimum and the continued citing of the earth still being warm in a deep minimum is at best misleading.

BFTP

That's right. And while "the numbers" will say one thing,Arctic ice and folk wondering why it's gotten so cold will say another. Warmers: you've been diddled or you've diddled youselves.

[MR EXTREMES]

That's right. And while "the numbers" will say one thing,Arctic ice and folk wondering why it's gotten so cold will say another. Warmers: you've been diddled or you've diddled youselves.

solar lag absolutely.

its funny we just getting through a nino which clearly has effected global temps we are also heading as bftp has explained into a minimum this is just the tip of the iceberg excuse the pun none intented.

but its true already where seeing the effects of a minimum which i might add is also the lowest in 100years,

but during other minimums of less intensity things then also showed changes,we must also add the volcanic activity which i know alot wont agree with,

but this also could add yet more feedback thats without the fresh water melting around iceland through volcanic activity.

there is so much that is due to take effect that has not influenced our climate yet that could in a big way,

but if thease feature in our climate where to continue upwards then ofcoarse it could be a bad thing aswell.

but there is enough evidence coming on both sides to enforce warming but still we dont have 100% poof its man made and if it is natural cycle then where due a cool down.

which i feel is the most likely.

[VillagePlank]

I do await V.P. and C-Bobs findings yet I can't help wonder if their findings will 'exclude' the realities 'AGW' resides with......

Sit back and cogitate, if I may suggest, for a wee-while ...

Let's form a hypothesis about recent manic warming of the Earth. It has been observed. It is real. Let's further postulate that this warming is, in the majority, entirely natural (solar) in prime basis. Let us also consider the first-class work that scientists have done forecasting the effects of such warming.

This creates a problem for some people (apart from the hypothesis itself) If it is in the majority natural, and if catastrophic consequences are even in the vaguest sense possible, then what does this mean?

It doesn't mean some crazy Copenhagen conference. It doesn't mean any consensus. It means the cesssation of all human generated GhG with immediate effect - since that is all we'd be able to do to mitigate the future - apart from turning out the big light in the sky.

The LI is not some cozy "let's carry on as normal" postulate. The consequences are, potentially, much worse.

(OK that's the nth degree conclusion that might well be drawn from it - but, I hope, you get the picture)

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks V.P.

With a growing world population any move away from a 'settled' climate will prove disastrous for some as food production must be impacted in the least.