Dan: where is the source article for your "6C temperature spike"?

Read this too.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/antarctic-peninsula-was-1-3c-warmer-than-today-11000-years-ago/

“For this study we looked in detail at the last 15,000 years – from the time when the Earth emerged from the last ice age and entered into the current warm period. What we see in the ice core temperature record is that the Antarctic Peninsula warmed by about 6°C as it emerged from the last ice age. By 11,000 years ago the temperature had risen to about 1.3°C warmer than today’s average and other research indicates that the Antarctic Peninsula ice sheet was shrinking at this time and some of the surrounding ice shelves retreated. The local climate then cooled in two stages, reaching a minimum about 600 years ago. The ice shelves on the northern Antarctic Peninsula expanded during this cooling. Approximately 600 years ago the local temperature started to warm again, followed by a more rapid warming in the last 50-100 years that coincides with present-day disintegration of ice shelves and glacier retreat.”

"The centuries of ongoing warming have meant that marginal ice shelves on the northern Peninsula were poised for the succession of collapses that we have witnessed over the last two decades."

So, 600 years of non-human caused warming in the Antarctic Peninsula. Still 1.3C cooler than 11000 years ago. Got that Dan?

As Anthony Watts points out, the more recent 2C measured rise may have more to do with the temperature sensors being parked three strides from the heated accommodation than anything nature is responsible for. That and as I poited out earlier, you don't need much energy to cause a 2C rise if the temperature is -30C to start with. The "succession of collapses that we have witnessed over the last two decades" are likely nothing too far out of the ordinary for the Antarctic at the warm end of the natural oceanic cycle.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/23/2012 02:59:50 MDT.

Congratulation Rog, solo author papers are increasingly rare.

Thanks Cameron. It was actually a group effort, as those following the development of the solar-planetary theory on my website over the last three years know. But we're all happy that Nicola Scafetta got the papers into the literature - how many names or which names is not too important. Someone with Nicola's credentials and experience in the solar field is a great name to have at the top of the papers anyway.

But this is just the start. There is much to do to consolidate the bridge head into the literature with further papers and much more to discover in the fascinating field we've opened up within the area of solar system dynamics. As our model is refined, extended and improved, we hope to be able to make higher resolution predictions of the near term future so we can rapidly get stronger verification and so raise the profile of the work.

Rog said, " which allowed more sunlight to penetrate the top 100m and get mixed down by internal tides etc. Cloud cover change is AGW's cherry un-picked graph. " I'm glad to see you are allowing your upper layer of heat to mix with what is below now. Rog, ou always like to emphasize how sunlight just penetrates down only so far, depending on whether you are pushing a warming planet theme or a cooling planet theme. Go figure. Rog, I wonder if you could start your career of planetary science more effectively if you just quit your job of humiliating climate scientists. On the other hand, sometimes it's good for people to have a thorn in their sides.

Rog said, " but this doesn't mean more 'heat' is being 'stored'. 'Heat' is energy in transition from one form of 'stored' energy to another. Energy in transit. "

Heat being stored is a pretty normal way of putting it. Lynn is no so far off with that. Without the heat being stored there is no way your delayed heating of the Arctic could be happening at present time AND be accelerating when 'your' solar activity decreased in 2003. The rest of us understand it is the gargantuan amounts of CO2 that are helping to retain and build the heat and bridge that time gap.

As far as historic heating of Antartica goes, and Greenland for that matter, it is dangerous to say that just because it happened before, it follows that it is happening for the same reason this time. That is the skeptics argument ' natural climate variation ' and does not take into account the added CO2 that has not been at this level for hundreds of thousands of years. Your theories simply do not take into account the new conditions humans have caused in their terra-forming of the planet.

This is a fun little film and kind of sad too. UPDATE on KING CRAB war;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVNTfpDlPzE

Edited to change Denialists to Skeptics

Edited by wildlife on 08/23/2012 16:24:19 MDT.

Dan says:
I'm glad to see you are allowing your upper layer of heat to mix with what is below now.

Allow me to refer you to an article I posted sometime last year around May 2011
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/how-solar-energy-gets-mixed-into-the-deep-ocean-internal-tides/

Dan says
Denialists

OK, enough for me. Goodbye Dan.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/23/2012 15:41:36 MDT.

"Congratulation Rog, solo author papers are increasingly rare."

Indeed. Especially rare that a significantly contributing author should ask to be excluded from the paper so he can get on with his work.

My confusion is increasing rapidly. You deny the assertion that the southern ocean has warmed by posting a graph of surface ocean temps in the southern ocean, then you admit that the oceans (including the southern) have absorbed excess heat in recent decades, and are now slowly releasing it back into the system above to moderate surface temps.

You refuse to clearly explain how volcanic activity and greening of volcanic soils can warm the climate via gases released, yet deny that human released gases have any significant impact on climate. I fully understand you stance that increase insolance has added heat to the climate, but I am not a black or white kind of person. I cannot see how you can dismiss the "strong" (my interpretation) possibility that human produced gases have not also added to this warming, as have volcanic sources (which you will admit to). Basically, I think your explanation is a part of the equation, but by no means all of it, and to ignore the possibility of our ever increasing human input into the climate system is a pretty undefensible stance to take when so much is at stake. But as I said before, I really, really hope you are right, and that continued human input into the system will slow your predicted cooling scenario, coz for us humans, overall, warmer is better than colder...to an extent. The best outcome is no net change in global temps, as 7 billion people are have based their livelihoods the current climate. But there are many things in the natural world that are out of our control here. We can only control what we do, as individuals and nations. Let's hope we do the beat we an with such limited data!

Hi Lynn.

It was a simple thing really. Despite being encouraged by Nicola to publish for myself, I judged that I was carrying to much additional baggage to get on that flight. Nicola has a clean record and plenty of prior publication history. Hasn't had the climate cops knocking at the door either.

I run a blog which carries lots of other stuff too. It takes up a lot of my time, and I'm not that bothered about publishing in journals which hide everything behind a paywall to discourage ordinary people from learning about and reading science anyway.

The post I put up last year contains all the essential elements of the paper Nicola published 7 months later. I have the 'prior art' and no need to prove anything.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/

Note the dates in the addresses.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/nicola-scafetta-major-new-paper-on-solar-planetary-theory/

There is a link to the full paper on that later thread if you want to read the formal version of the groundbreaking science we have done.

Lynn says:
You refuse to clearly explain how volcanic activity and greening of volcanic soils can warm the climate via gases released, yet deny that human released gases have any significant impact on climate.

1) A large but undetermined proportion of volcanic sources of co2 have the same isotopic signature as fossil fuel.

2) Volcanic sources have recently been empirically determined to be of the order of 9Gt/yr from central Italy alone. Science moves on.

3) The IPCC uses a 'preferred' theoretical figure of 0.138Gt/yr for the entire planet. They won't revise this in the face of empirical science results. This is dogmatism.

4) These facts plus the knowledge that co2 changes lag behind the matching temperature changes at all timescales tell you all you need to know about the relative scale of the human contribution to the increase in the airborne fraction and the causal chain.

5) Radiative effects of co2 in the troposphere are tiny compared to the convective processes which are perfectly capable of shifting heat up through and above the co2 layer. Co2 is 0.039% of the troposphere.

6) When co2 increases, there is plenty of extra redundancy in the convective processes to entirely overcome it's effect.

7) That's exactly what the planet will do because it simply increases the convective activity to ensure maximum entropy in the loss of heat to space.

8) We'll hardly notice any change n the weather as a result because water vapour is nearly all of the atmospheric greenhouse effect anyway.

9) The only way the modelers can get co2 to do anything exciting is to assume a positive water vapour feedback and a positive feedback from cloud.

10) Neither of the above have been empirically observed in the real atmosphere. Just the opposite. The IPCC are the ones in denial, not us.

I think your explanation is a part of the equation, but by no means all of it, and to ignore the possibility of our ever increasing human input into the climate system is a pretty undefensible stance to take when so much is at stake.

Thank you for your positive judgement regarding our theory.

Since global surface temperature hasn't increased over the last decade or so, it doesn't seem to me to be an urgent problem, and we have plenty of time to check out how right or wrong the IPCC are about solar forcing and co2 as nature performs the crucial experiment for us over the next decade. All we have to do is wait and watch, and ready ourselves for climate change. Whichever direction it changes in.

My $1000 dollar bet with Dean is that they are wrong and the proof will be lower surface temperatures in 2020 compared with 2005 despite the increase in airborne co2 in the interim.

Time will tell.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/23/2012 16:47:09 MDT.

OK Rog, I forgot about your rule so I edited to skeptic. You are pretty thin skinned for a guy that distributed the Hacked East Anglia emails for misquotation. Oh, and I came up with a name just now that combines Skeptics with their think tanks......how do you like the ring of Skeptic Tank?

Rog said,

"6) When co2 increases, there is plenty of extra redundancy in the convective processes to entirely overcome it's effect.

7) That's exactly what the planet will do because it simply increases the convective activity to ensure maximum entropy in the loss of heat to space.

8) We'll hardly notice any change n the weather as a result because water vapour is nearly all of the atmospheric greenhouse effect anyway. "

Dan says, Just nevermind the destruction to human infrastructure and agriculture in the process!

Rog you are hilarious. What skeptic tank did you dig that list from? You are so funny. There's no lack of entertainment here! #8 is especially funny of course - ultimate denial! (Don't get mad at me there - it's the name of a local cheeseburger). I don't know how you can say this crap without turning completely inside out. Item #8 can be nothing but a hypnotic suggestion.

By the way, I think what Trenberth missed in the missing heat calculations is the heat lost in mega-destruction of human infrastructure as the heat makes its way back to space. We don't want to forget about the 'friendly' weather events that quicken the extra heat's desire to get back home were it came from. That reminds me, it seems a little strange that the Republicans would put their convention right smack in Hurricane alley during Hurricane season during like the hottest decade on record. Did you help them with that? I would have to say that yes, you inadvertently did - you helped them lower their guard. If an adviser told the Democratic convention - 'You know, there could be a storm coming in at the wrong time....and with climate change.....

Well, I bet the democrats might listen.

I kind of think that the Republicans are not so much in Denial of the Science. It feels more to me like a Defiance of Science. Senator Inhoffe for example; He is not in denial of anything - he is defiant - he knows. At this point in time a person cannot honestly deny the science but they can defy it. Thanks for getting me to this point Rog.

Note: when I use the word skeptic I mean mis-informer. There are science skeptics like Judith Curry that have a hard time getting to any kind of conclusion like you do Rog. This is what she says in her summary of the BEST study;

" No one that I listen to questions that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm the earth’s surface, all other things being equal. The issue is whether anthropogenic activities or natural variability is dominating the climate variability. "

Maybe when you see her you can try and straighten her out like you do with those of us here. I'm not so hung up on her 'issue' since it sounds like adding CO2 does enough forcing to confuse the 'issue' for her. If she can't tell the difference then the effect is strong enough to be concerned about. If it is strong enough to mimic natural variability her question is answered - but she does not seem to see the importance of that.

Edited by wildlife on 08/23/2012 22:35:28 MDT.

" No one that I listen to questions that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm the earth’s surface, all other things being equal. The issue is whether anthropogenic activities or natural variability is dominating the climate variability. "

That statement is wholly consistent with every skeptic I have read. The last sentence is where the disagreement arises. Skeptics are looking at natural variability to see if those factors are possibly responsible for warming and cooling. Warmists look at anthropogenic activities and try to find evidence that human induced factors are warming the climate.

"Maybe when you see her you can try and straighten her out like you do with those of us here. I'm not so hung up on her 'issue' since it sounds like adding CO2 does enough forcing to confuse the 'issue' for her. If she can't tell the difference then the effect is strong enough to be concerned about. If it is strong enough to mimic natural variability her question is answered - but she does not seem to see the importance of that."

no worries, Rog is an ultralight backpacker... obviously a few more walls of text and some purdy graphs/charts snaked from fox news drones will bring defiance science to the forefront of thought to, like, 30 people!!!

So Sean, then there is no disagreement with the first sentence? You agree that there is at least some warming from CO2?

Craig - this is an international blog.

:>)

Here's a Judith Curry story with a reference to Fox News!

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/antarctic-ice-future/

The really big story today of course is Lance Armstrong losing his medals and titles. Whew!

Edited by wildlife on 08/24/2012 13:02:48 MDT.

Something i find weird.
Here in the UK, the anti lobby is seen as being 'left wing'. In the US the anti lobby seems to be a right wing thing?

I think that's the way it is in Australia too.

Here's a piece I found while wondering if Judith Curry's Antarctica work I posted above is Post Climategate - apparently it is;

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/08/judith-curry-on-antarctic-sea-ice-climategate-and-skeptics/

So you're a left wing socialist, Dan?

"Craig - this is an international blog."

I guess ya gotta go with 50 then.

"Rog Tallbloke, bringing global-warming defiance-science to two-digits worth of fringe ultralight backpackers since 2010."

Hmmm... not very catchy.

You forgot Lynn - that makes 51

Mike, I don't know how to answer that without going to extremes. I guess I am left wing socialist. I like the Post Office and think Social Security has been good for the country. The right wing wants to get rid of those and eliminate abortion even in the case of rape. Those are just the beginning examples.

"So Sean, then there is no disagreement with the first sentence? You agree that there is at least some warming from CO2? "

Dan, that is correct, and I don't think you will find anyone in either camp who disagrees. The big difference is how much is believed to be attributable to anthropogenic C02. Skeptics believe it is a small player and warmists think it is the big player. :)

Maybe times are changing and the skeptics are believing in some CO2 warming as opposed to no warming from CO2. Would it be safe to call the people that say C02 does not add to warming denialists? Should we call them coldists? How bout Super-Skeptics? Right-wing extremists? Even oil-industry people are saying there is AGW. You say CO2 plays a small part in warming. How does that compare to 'tiny' in Roger Tattersall's (Rog) Manefesto below. Tiny is used in #5 below. Is tiny similar to eencey weency? Reading #5 more closely, though, he says 'tiny' compared to convective processes...... Well, that's different - it's no longer tiny. That Rog is tricky! Before I forget, I would like to point out that convective processes can get rid of heat but they don't get rid of CO2 - process does not get rid of CO2 and CO2 enhances process.

Looking at #5 again and at the .039% of CO2 in the atmosphere - this is common knowledge;

" Carbon dioxide, although present in much lower concentrations than water, absorbs more infrared radiation than water on a per-molecule basis and contributes about 84% of the total non-water greenhouse gas equivalents [4], or about 4.2-8.4% of the total greenhouse gas effect. " from;

http://www.randombio.com/co2.html


Roger Tattersall's Manefesto

1) A large but undetermined proportion of volcanic sources of co2 have the same isotopic signature as fossil fuel.

2) Volcanic sources have recently been empirically determined to be of the order of 9Gt/yr from central Italy alone. Science moves on.

3) The IPCC uses a 'preferred' theoretical figure of 0.138Gt/yr for the entire planet. They won't revise this in the face of empirical science results. This is dogmatism.

4) These facts plus the knowledge that co2 changes lag behind the matching temperature changes at all timescales tell you all you need to know about the relative scale of the human contribution to the increase in the airborne fraction and the causal chain.

5) Radiative effects of co2 in the troposphere are tiny compared to the convective processes which are perfectly capable of shifting heat up through and above the co2 layer. Co2 is 0.039% of the troposphere.

6) When co2 increases, there is plenty of extra redundancy in the convective processes to entirely overcome it's effect.

7) That's exactly what the planet will do because it simply increases the convective activity to ensure maximum entropy in the loss of heat to space.

8) We'll hardly notice any change n the weather as a result because water vapour is nearly all of the atmospheric greenhouse effect anyway.

9) The only way the modelers can get co2 to do anything exciting is to assume a positive water vapour feedback and a positive feedback from cloud.

10) Neither of the above have been empirically observed in the real atmosphere. Just the opposite. The IPCC are the ones in denial, not us.

Edited by wildlife on 08/24/2012 18:27:22 MDT.

"You forgot Lynn - that makes 51"

Oi Dan, that is not true and not fair. I believe the human created green house gases are the main contributor to increase in temperatures seen, with increased TSI contributing a minimal but non-negligible amount. Obviously there are many other variables, volcanic, albedo, deforestation (which contributes to increases in CO2 indirectly via decreased sequestering and erosion), mass production of methane breathing livestock, and, umm, burning of fossil fuels. I also question how much, if any, extra water vapour us humans have contributed via large-scale irrigation and damming. I just don't know, and the truth is Rog doesn't either. It's all speculation based on incomplete datasets that are inevitably interpreted by statisticians ( on both sides of the debate) who are renowned for their ability to massage data any which-way you want it to point. Because of this, rather than say I know the truth, I suggest we take sensible but urgent measures to find alternative ways to live on this planet which are less damaging to our environment, more sustainable and in the long term more stabilising to society as well. I would think people on either side of the debate could at least agree on this (unless you make your fortune selling fossil fuels of course).

Rog's 'co-author' Scaffeta even admits the contribution of increased solar radiation is minimal (he estimates 10-30% of the temp increases seen can be attributed to this cause), and he also thinks that, even though we are entering a quieter time in solar output that he expects we will still see an increase in warming over the next 30-40 years. So clearly Rog and Scaffeta don't see entirely eye-to-eye either.

"Because of this, rather than say I know the truth, I suggest we take sensible but urgent measures to find alternative ways to live on this planet which are less damaging to our environment, more sustainable and in the long term more stabilising to society as well."

Well said, Lynn