|
Post by woodstove on Mar 21, 2010 18:38:58 GMT
AJ, you were specific enough the first time ("poles"). AGW doesn't predict warming at one pole and on a single peninsula jutting away from the South Pole. It predicts warming at the poles, period. Once again, increasing sea ice in Antarctica falsifies AGW all by itself. As for rising water and vicious storm tides, if this took place next year, you and your AGW teammates would surely attribute it to "climate change." Not one phenomenon of the last 50 years has not occurred at other points during the Holocene (and before that). Using mundane meteorological events to frighten the credulous is an easy game. Oh, and evil. Let's not forget that.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 21, 2010 20:56:13 GMT
Using mundane meteorological events to frighten the credulous is an easy game. Oh, and evil. Let's not forget that. Amen!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 21, 2010 23:39:41 GMT
AJ, you were specific enough the first time ("poles"). AGW doesn't predict warming at one pole and on a single peninsula jutting away from the South Pole. It predicts warming at the poles, period. Once again, increasing sea ice in Antarctica falsifies AGW all by itself. Surely not, how could an increase in sea ice in Antarctica prove that rising co2 doesn't have a warming effect?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 22, 2010 1:40:11 GMT
AJ Write a small paper on atmospheric Enthalpy and atmospheric temperature's relationship with atmospheric heat content and the wet adiabatic lapse rate. Then use your paper to justify the use of minor variances in geographically 'averaged' atmospheric temperature as a metric for Earth's heat content.
|
|
|
Post by frankthetank on Mar 26, 2010 1:55:33 GMT
Here was FEB TEMP ANOMALY vs the 2000-2008 period ...
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 26, 2010 2:14:37 GMT
Yes it's "global" warming.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 26, 2010 9:06:36 GMT
Yes it's "global" warming. This plot is misleading. It gives the impression that the red blob is the main reason for the higher anomalies. It's not. The main contribution comes from the tropics. The RSS anomaly map provides a better representation here (click the anomaly button ): www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?channel=tlt
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 26, 2010 16:55:28 GMT
Yes it's "global" warming. This plot is misleading. It gives the impression that the red blob is the main reason for the higher anomalies. It's not. The main contribution comes from the tropics. The RSS anomaly map provides a better representation here (click the anomaly button ): www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?channel=tlt No kidding? The tropics contain most of the heat? Wow, what a novel idea. John Finn apparently didn't understand what the Pielke "red blob" post was about. That's why nobody bothered responding to you him.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 26, 2010 20:25:25 GMT
No kidding? The tropics contain most of the heat? Wow, what a novel idea. John Finn apparently didn't understand what the Pielke "red blob" post was about. That's why nobody bothered responding to you him.
You apparently don't understand. The tropics were relatively warm, i.e. the anomaly for the tropics was high (~0.81). The tropics cover around 40% of the earth's surface. The blob covers a few percent. The blob might have offset some of the cold across siberia and europe but it was the higher than normal the temperatures in the huge tropical regions which provided the biggest contribution to UAH Feb anomaly.
Nobody bothered to respond because they couldn't. There is no argument.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Apr 5, 2010 18:58:23 GMT
March UAH temperature is out 0.65 This is back up to January levels!
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 5, 2010 23:57:01 GMT
March UAH temperature is out 0.65 This is back up to January levels! And we now have a positive trend since 1998 - not significant - but it's only a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 6, 2010 1:38:35 GMT
March UAH temperature is out 0.65 This is back up to January levels! And we now have a positive trend since 1998 - not significant - but it's only a matter of time. ahhh, climatology!
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Apr 6, 2010 6:29:17 GMT
GLC, In 1998 the El Nino was very much stronger The 1998 ENSO was above 2 from January through to May. The 2009/2010 El Nino in the South Pacific seems to be subsiding. This ENSO has just reached 1.5, but the SOI is currently strongly positive Will these high global temperatures continue into April and May? UHA 1998 2010 Jan. 0.58 0.63 Feb. 0.76 0.62 Mar. 0.53 0.65 Apr. 0.76 May 0.65 I notice Joe Bastardi has just commented on the declineing El Nino www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 6, 2010 8:46:03 GMT
GLC, In 1998 the El Nino was very much stronger The 1998 ENSO was above 2 from January through to May. The 2009/2010 El Nino in the South Pacific seems to be subsiding. This ENSO has just reached 1.5, but the SOI is currently strongly positive Will these high global temperatures continue into April and May? UHA 1998 2010 Jan. 0.58 0.63 Feb. 0.76 0.62 Mar. 0.53 0.65 Apr. 0.76 May 0.65 I notice Joe Bastardi has just commented on the declineing El Nino www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweatherJB is right about one thing. The El Nino will end and global temperatures will fall. The question is - how far will they fall. Will they settle at the background levels of the past ~10 years, fall to pre-1998 levels or settle at a ne w higher background level. If La Nina follows quickly after the El Nino ends there will be a very sharp drop as Bastardi says but this is likely to be short term (similar to 1998-2001). You are right that this El Nino is nowhere near as intense as the 1997-98 El Nino, but the 2010 Jan-Feb-Mar UAH anomalies are running ahead of the 1998 Jan-Feb-Mar anomalies. I'm not totally convinced how much effect the PDO is going to have. According to a number of researchers, the PDO has been in a cool phase for several years which suggests that global temperatures have been 'dampened' in the last decade - yet there has been no cooling.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 6, 2010 12:24:30 GMT
GLC, In 1998 the El Nino was very much stronger The 1998 ENSO was above 2 from January through to May. The 2009/2010 El Nino in the South Pacific seems to be subsiding. This ENSO has just reached 1.5, but the SOI is currently strongly positive Will these high global temperatures continue into April and May? UHA 1998 2010 Jan. 0.58 0.63 Feb. 0.76 0.62 Mar. 0.53 0.65 Apr. 0.76 May 0.65 I notice Joe Bastardi has just commented on the declineing El Nino www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweatherJB is right about one thing. The El Nino will end and global temperatures will fall. The question is - how far will they fall. Will they settle at the background levels of the past ~10 years, fall to pre-1998 levels or settle at a ne w higher background level. If La Nina follows quickly after the El Nino ends there will be a very sharp drop as Bastardi says but this is likely to be short term (similar to 1998-2001). You are right that this El Nino is nowhere near as intense as the 1997-98 El Nino, but the 2010 Jan-Feb-Mar UAH anomalies are running ahead of the 1998 Jan-Feb-Mar anomalies. I'm not totally convinced how much effect the PDO is going to have. According to a number of researchers, the PDO has been in a cool phase for several years which suggests that global temperatures have been 'dampened' in the last decade - yet there has been no cooling. Aside from the erroneous step change from 2002-2003, according to data available, in what direction was upper 700m OHC still trending after 1998? In what direction was upper 700m OHC trending during this El Nino? Where will OHC be in 12 months resulting from the current El Nino?
|
|