Contrails, "Chemtrails," and Global Warming

[ChrLzs]

BFB, I apologise humbly for confusing you - in that original post I was directly quoting an article that referred to Hong's other study where he questioned the Travis results and that article used the phrase "Hong and his colleagues' (to be precise it was Hong, Yang, Minnis, Hu & North - Do contrails significantly reduce daily temperature range? (2008).

This related research by Yang, Dessler and Hong was followed up by that more specific study, and yes you are correct that Hong is not the lead author of the article you linked to. Sorry about that, I had the two articles conflated/confused in my head..

*edited to swap my earliers and laters.. - it's way too late for me and I'm going to bed!!*

Edited July 1, 2014 by ChrLzs

[DONTEATUS]

If you done believe in Climate change Go try to Boat on Lake Mead !

[Merc14]

If you done believe in Climate change Go try to Boat on Lake Mead !

Lake Mead is man-made so what does climate change have to do with its level? The climate has been warming since the last glacial period with or without man's intervention and it will continue to change until the sun gobbles us up

[Guest]

Lake Mead is man-made so what does climate change have to do with its level? The climate has been warming since the last glacial period with or without man's intervention and it will continue to change until the sun gobbles us up

Check your facts Merc. The climate was cooling for over 8 thousand years until about 200 hundred years ago. It was on a steady downward trend towards the next ice age in about 8-20K years time. Not any longer.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

Lake Mead is man-made so what does climate change have to do with its level?

Presumably, Lake Mead's level is reduced as a result of drought in the western US. The water levels are down, but have not been down long enough to be sure that drought/global warming is the cause. But: drought in the western US is consistent with global warming.

Change analysis of things like tree-ring thicknesses, stream flows and so on is starting to show a permanent shift in the late 70s. Something is different.

Doug

[Merc14]

Presumably, Lake Mead's level is reduced as a result of drought in the western US. The water levels are down, but have not been down long enough to be sure that drought/global warming is the cause. But: drought in the western US is consistent with global warming.

Change analysis of things like tree-ring thicknesses, stream flows and so on is starting to show a permanent shift in the late 70s. Something is different.

Doug

So there has never ben a drought in the western US in the past?

[Guest]

So there has never ben a drought in the western US in the past?

Patterns Merc, it conforms to the general global pattern of change we would expect under climate change. In isolation it could be a regional cycle - but in combination with everything else it becomes increasingly unlikely to be simply a local shift.

Br Cornelius

[Merc14]

Patterns Merc, it conforms to the general global pattern of change we would expect under climate change. In isolation it could be a regional cycle - but in combination with everything else it becomes increasingly unlikely to be simply a local shift.

Br Cornelius

This wasn't supposed to happen!!

http://www.usatoday....olumn/10257787/

Of course neither was 17 years of no warming but that pattern doesn't count I guess. Fix your models and then get back to me.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Merc14

[Guest]

This wasn't supposed to happen!!

http://www.usatoday....olumn/10257787/

Of course neither was 17 years of no warming but that pattern doesn't count I guess. Fix your models and then get back to me.

Note the quote from the article by Pielke (the go to skeptic for those seeking a modicum of credibility in their arguments):

Even so, I'd caution against putting too much significance on these numbers, as North Atlantic hurricane seasons are highly variable.

But the reality is even less convenient as a reduction in pole to tropics temperature differential, as caused by AGW, reduces the mechanism which generates hurricanes in the first place. It was always a likely outcome that hurricanes would reduce in the North Atlantic whilst other forms of extreme weather such as droughts, floods and twisters increased.

Are you referring to the pause that never was.

[Merc14]

Note the quote from the article by Pielke (the go to skeptic for those seeking a modicum of credibility in their arguments):

But the reality is even less convenient as a reduction in pole to tropics temperature differential, as caused by AGW, reduces the mechanism which generates hurricanes in the first place. It was always a likely outcome that hurricanes would reduce in the North Atlantic whilst other forms of extreme weather such as droughts, floods and twisters increased.

Are you referring to the pause that never was.

Better let AlGore know, he is preaching monster hurricanes. Why no warming the last 17 years and why didn't your models predict this? This "trend" is to continue as well yet the models keep missing it. Strange that. BTW, there is no proof that AGW exists, only predictions from badly flawed models.

[Guest]

Better let AlGore know, he is preaching monster hurricanes. Why no warming the last 17 years and why didn't your models predict this? This "trend" is to continue as well yet the models keep missing it. Strange that. BTW, there is no proof that AGW exists, only predictions from badly flawed models.

There has been no pause in accumulation of heat energy over the last 17years, there has neither been a pause in the upward trend in global temperatures. This year will undoubtedly tie or beat the global record for max temperature in the recorded temperature record.

Only a fool could continually confuse Al Gore with a scientist, but you seem to be that fool.

You just keep lying to yourself Merc if it helps you sleep at night, wouldn't want you upsetting yourself.

Br Cornelius

[Merc14]

There has been no pause in accumulation of heat energy over the last 17years, there has neither been a pause in the upward trend in global temperatures. This year will undoubtedly tie or beat the global record for max temperature in the recorded temperature record.

Only a fool could continually confuse Al Gore with a scientist, but you seem to be that fool.

You just keep lying to yourself Merc if it helps you sleep at night, wouldn't want you upsetting yourself.

Br Cornelius

Name calling BR? I must be getting to you. Please explain why your models didn't capture no warming for 17 years as admitted by teh scoundrels at the UN. Please show me your proof of AGW.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Merc14

[Guest]

Please explain what a model is intended to show Merc.

I will help you - it is intended to show a long term trend - not the actual temperature record. They do very well at this.

The trend line extends back through the anomalous peak of 1998 and shows that warming has been within predictions throughout that period and the average yearly increase over the last 30years (a period considered to be the minimum for a significant climate trend to be observed) been in line with the models.

You should really try to learn a bit of basic statistical principles before you attempt to criticize models.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Models are run hundreds of thousands of times and the thousands of results are then averaged to show a probable range of temperatures, these appear on a graph as a band of temperatures bounded by standard deviations from the group mean of all the model runs. The real climate is a run of one time and just so long as it falls within the probable band of temperatures shown by the model, it can be said that the model has predicted the real situation. Within the thousands of runs many different individual temperature records comparable to the real temperature record will exist.

The real climate has fallen within the probable band and so the models are predictively useful of the climate.

To say that the models have failed to predict the relatively slow rise of temperature of the global mean over the last 15years is just plain ignorant on many levels.

And Merc if you fail to comprehend the terms and tools used to explain reality in science you can pick a single "fact" and use it to prove anything you like, as you did with your reference to the last 17years, but you have really only grasped onto wilful ignorance by not attempting to understand the real function of the science you criticize in your ignorance of it.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 5, 2014 by Guest

[Merc14]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

[Guest]

http://www.telegraph...were-wrong.html

The Telegraph a reliable source of information on climate change. Your to funny Merc, to funny.

Have you considered a career in the circus - I hear there's a shortage of clowns.

Lets look at what they got "wrong";

The “summary for policymakers” of the report, seen by the Mail on Sunday, states that the world is warming at a rate of 0.12C per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of 0.13C per decade in their last assessment published in 2007.

A difference of 0.01C

Br Cornelius

Edited August 5, 2014 by Guest

[Merc14]

The Telegraph a reliable source of information on climate change. Your to funny Merc, to funny.

Have you considered a career in the circus - I hear there's a shortage of clowns.

Lets look at what they got "wrong";

A difference of 0.01C

Br Cornelius

Attack the source, the refuge of the supercillious. Yes, they are off by .01c while carbon levels have risen by 10% That is a rather large error and indicates that carbon is not having the effect the models suggest it is having, just as the IPCC admits. If carbon isn't having the influence they thought then the case for AGW is greatly weakened. The climate is continually changing and will continue to do so till the end of this planet and apparently mankind has little to do with it. Get your models in order and then come preaching. In 30-40 years, most likely, we will be moving off of carbion anyways so why blow up the economy that is paying to research differet power sources?

[Guest]

Attack the source, the refuge of the supercillious. Yes, they are off by .01c while carbon levels have risen by 10% That is a rather large error and indicates that carbon is not having the effect the models suggest it is having, just as the IPCC admits. If carbon isn't having the influence they thought then the case for AGW is greatly weakened. The climate is continually changing and will continue to do so till the end of this planet and apparently mankind has little to do with it. Get your models in order and then come preaching. In 30-40 years, most likely, we will be moving off of carbion anyways so why blow up the economy that is paying to research differet power sources?

It means nothing of the sort, it actually is a very small adjustment to the inferred forcing effect of CO2 - it does nothing to remove CO2 as the main driver. The reality is that when the new wave of El-Nino's starts to be felt on the global system over the next few years the adjustment down of 0.01C will disappear as the trend returns to its original value. The data has to be taken for what it is and small adjustments will always take place - both up and down.

You really haven't demonstrated anything other than your ignorance of the tools of science.

Br Cornelius

[Merc14]

It means nothing of the sort, it actually is a very small adjustment to the inferred forcing effect of CO2 - it does nothing to remove CO2 as the main driver. The reality is that when the new wave of El-Nino's starts to be felt on the global system over the next few years the adjustment down of 0.01C will disappear as the trend returns to its original value. The data has to be taken for what it is and small adjustments will always take place - both up and down.

You really haven't demonstrated anything other than your ignorance of the tools of science.

Br Cornelius

Wow, Nasa admitted today that they have no explanation for the recent almost two decade long halt to warming, argue with them and El Nino is certainly NOT going to change anything as there have been several El Nino's and La Nina's over this period http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/elnino/history.html Talk about ignorance! That site has everything you want to know about El Nino and I suggest you review it before saying El Nino will fix this 17 year halt.

The IPCC admits they have a problem so if you have the solution maybe you should write to them,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/

I am not a scientist but I do have commonsense and when someone tells me one thing will happen and just the opposite occurs I call them on it. They do NOT have an explanation for this now long term halt, with no end in sight and that is by their statements. El Nino is NOT going to fix this for you son, it just isn't and sayin ggt that it will change everything that has been happening for the last

[Guest]

There have been vertically no strong El-Nino's since 1998 - that is your explanation for the slow down. In the absence of El-Nino's the majority of the trapped energy is sequestered in the deep oceans - which have seen a steady rise in temperature over the "pause" period - that means that the warming is just not been felt in surface temperatures, but it is still there. This year will be a major El-Nino event and there are record temperatures been recorded across the globe as a consequence.

And please stop referencing sources which have a long history of printing skeptical/denial op-eds as proof of anything. Forbes is a business focused magazine which has denied global warming since it was discussed - it is not credible.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 5, 2014 by Guest

[Merc14]

There have been vertically no strong El-Nino's since 1998 - that is your explanation for the slow down. In the absence of El-Nino's the majority of the trapped energy is sequestered in the deep oceans - which have seen a steady rise in temperature over the "pause" period - that means that the warming is just not been felt in surface temperatures, but it is still there. This year will be a major El-Nino event and there are record temperatures been recorded across the globe as a consequence.

And please stop referencing sources which have a long history of printing skeptical/denial op-eds as proof of anything. Forbes is a business focused magazine which has denied global warming since it was discussed - it is not credible.

Br Cornelius

Please stop referencing sources that are virulently AGW.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/elnino/history.html reports there were El Nino and La Ninas. Neither Nasa or the IPCC have mentioned small El Ninos as the cause of this slow down so you need to report your results to them rather than waste your time here hijacking threads. Why haven't you done so?

[Guest]

Please stop referencing sources that are virulently AGW.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography http://meteora.ucsd....y.html reports there were El Nino and La Ninas. Neither Nasa or the IPCC have mentioned small El Ninos as the cause of this slow down so you need to report your results to them rather than waste your time here hijacking threads. Why haven't you done so?

Different types of El Nino Pacific Ocean warming events have different effects on global temperature, according to a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL).

The El Nino–Southern Oscillation is known to influence global surface temperatures, with El Nino conditions leading to warmer temperatures and La Nina conditions leading to colder temperatures. However, a new study in Geophysical Research Letters shows that some types of El Nino do not have this effect, a finding that could explain recent decade-scale slowdowns in global warming.

The impacts of an El Nino vary depending on whether the warming is concentrated in the East Pacific, the central Pacific or more widespread. East Pacific El Nino's deliver more rain to California and act to drive up average global surface temperatures by more than central Pacific events.

The authors of the GRL paper examine three historical temperature data sets and classify past El Nino events as traditional (East Pacific) or central Pacific. They find that global surface temperatures were anomalously warm during traditional El Nino events but not during the central Pacific El Nino events. They note that in the past few decades, the frequencies of the two types of El Nino events have changed, with the central Pacific type occurring more often than it had in the past, and suggest that this could explain recent decade-scale slowdowns in global warming – the so called global warming pause that has lasted since the late 1990s.

This research is relevant in the context of the El Nino event that is currently developing in the Pacific and expected to manifest later this year (2014). Some scientists predict that a strong East Pacific event could be sufficient to end the pause.

Abstract

The El Nino–Southern Oscillation is known to influence surface temperatures worldwide. El Nino conditions are thought to lead to anomalously warm global average surface temperature, absent other forcings. Recent research has identified distinct possible types of El Nino events based on the location of peak sea surface temperature anomalies. Here we analyze the relationship between the type of El Nino event and the global surface average temperature anomaly, using three historical temperature data sets. Separating El Nino events into types reveals that the global average surface temperatures are anomalously warm during and after traditional eastern Pacific El Nino events, but not central Pacific or mixed events. Historical analysis indicated that slowdowns in the rate of global surface warming since the late 1800s may be related to decadal variability in the frequency of different types of El Niño events.

Citation

The influence of different El Nino types on global average temperature, by Sandra Banholzer, Simon Donner, published in Geophysical Research Letters, DOI:10.1002/2014GL059520, 2014

Read the abstract and get the paper here.

Source

Press release issued by GRL here.

Article preview View full access options

Nature | Letter

• Email
  
• 日本語要約
  
  • 
    

  Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling

  • Yu Kosaka
    
  • & Shang-Ping Xie
    
  • Affiliations
    
  • Contributions
    
  • Corresponding author
    

  Nature 501, 403–407 (19 September 2013) doi:10.1038/nature12534 Received 18 June 2013 Accepted 08 August 2013 Published online 28 August 2013

  Article tools

  • Citation
    
  • Reprints
    
  • Rights & permissions
    
  • Article metrics
    

  Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century^{1, 2}, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming^{3, 4, 5, 6}, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations. We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model. Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming). Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA. Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

http://www.nature.co...ature12534.html

I can provide multiple real scientific source to support what I have said Merc.

I believe you will find that the relationship between global tempertures and the ENSO (El Nino - La Nina oscillation) have been discussed at length in the IPCC reports Merc - so you are wrong again.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 5, 2014 by Guest

[Merc14]

http://www.nature.co...ature12534.html

I can provide multiple real scientific source to support what I have said Merc.

I believe you will find that the relationship between global tempertures and the ENSO (El Nino - La Nina oscillation) have been discussed at length in the IPCC reports Merc - so you are wrong again.

Br Cornelius

You are misquoting me, I said no one has blamed the recent halt on El Nino. If you can link it then you should publish. If not then you should stop relating the halt to El Nino. Get it? Now, please show your proof of AGW. I have asked you several times but you seem to be ignoring me. I want an answer to that question.

[Guest]

You are misquoting me, I said no one has blamed the recent halt on El Nino. If you can link it then you should publish. If not then you should stop relating the halt to El Nino. Get it? Now, please show your proof of AGW. I have asked you several times but you seem to be ignoring me. I want an answer to that question.

i just gave you two scientific papers which did exactly that Merc.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

i just gave you two scientific papers which did exactly that Merc.

Br Cornelius

CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas and we have put billions of extra tonnes of it into the atmosphere in little over 100years. Thats is all the proof necessary.

We have released millions of years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere upsetting the carbon cycle and trapping heat energy in the planetary system.

There is a clear causal relation from basic physics to manifest changes within the planetary system.

Please prove to me that CO2 has had no effect on the climate. You will struggle since the basic physics cannot be ignored or negated.

Br Cornelius