|
Post by magellan on May 6, 2010 16:49:17 GMT
Excuse me?I said there has been no cooling in response to the PDO "shift". When the PDO shifted to a warmer phase in ~1976, places like Alaska warmed immediately and very noticeably. Atmospheric temperature should respond to a shift in ocean circulation. It hasn't happened. You keep showing the top 700m ocean temperatures which appears to show a slight but probably NOT significant cooling. I know how keen you are on statistical significance. However there is good evidence to suggest that warming has continued at greater depths (2000m). This is supported by the fact that sea levels have continued to rise - albeit more slowly than previously. Whatever, if the oceans are cooling this will be reflected in the air temperatures and it shouldn't take long. I'd give the ARGO readings a bit longer before relying on them too much. There's an awful lot being interpreted from just 6 years of data. I said there has been no cooling in response to the PDO "shift". When the PDO shifted to a warmer phase in ~1976, places like Alaska warmed immediately and very noticeably. Atmospheric temperature should respond to a shift in ocean circulation. It hasn't happened.
According to who, you? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You keep showing the top 700m ocean temperatures That was the "proof", the "smoking gun" for AGW. Blame Hansen, IPCC and the consensus science for getting the physics wrong if you disagree with it ---------------------------------------------------------------- I know how keen you are on statistical significance. If you can't see the significance of this, then you have no clue. Note the percentages. ------------------------------------------------------------------ However there is good evidence to suggest that warming has continued at greater depths (2000m). Really? How does that happen? The oceans are warming from below completely undetected? Is that a newly discovered physical phenomenon, Stealth AGW shall we call it? ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is supported by the fact that sea levels have continued to rise
Sure, whatever you say.... ----------------------------------------------------------------- Whatever, if the oceans are cooling this will be reflected in the air temperatures and it shouldn't take long.
Why shouldn't it take long? Nonetheless, it didn't.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 6, 2010 17:53:46 GMT
Why shouldn't it take long? Nonetheless, it didn't.
You seem to have truncated the data. Any particular reason why?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 6, 2010 18:55:50 GMT
Why shouldn't it take long? Nonetheless, it didn't. You seem to have truncated the data. Any particular reason why? Hey genius, OHC is not given in monthly increments. Also, the transition from XBT to ARGO (2002-2003) is not reliable per Josh Willis et al., which means including OHC records previous to 2003 is completely meaningless. Of course, Hansen thought it perfectly legitimate as he claimed his data "precise". Are you saying IPCC allowed another erroneous "peer reviewed" paper to influence their conclusions? How about we look at the numbers in January 2011? What are the odds 2010 will exceed 1998? I know, do you? Put it this way, wanna bet?
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 8, 2010 10:43:36 GMT
Why shouldn't it take long? Nonetheless, it didn't. You seem to have truncated the data. Any particular reason why? Hey genius, OHC is not given in monthly increments. Also, the transition from XBT to ARGO (2002-2003) is not reliable per Josh Willis et al., which means including OHC records previous to 2003 is completely meaningless. Of course, Hansen thought it perfectly legitimate as he claimed his data "precise". Are you saying IPCC allowed another erroneous "peer reviewed" paper to influence their conclusions? How about we look at the numbers in January 2011? What are the odds 2010 will exceed 1998? I know, do you? Put it this way, wanna bet? You showed an apparent relationship between OHC and UAH. We know that UAH has risen quite considerably since 2009. Does this mean OHC has also risen? I've always said (look back over the posts as far back as 2008) that 2010 will end up as the second warmest year in the UAH record. 1998 really was a one-off due to a particularly intense El Nino and it might be a few years before it is surpassed but eventually it will be - and eventually 1998 temperatures will become the norm.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 8, 2010 12:33:04 GMT
"Also, the transition from XBT to ARGO (2002-2003) is not reliable per Josh Willis et al"
The Argo data 2003- is not reliable per the Argo network website. "The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 6-year globally-averaged time series."
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 8, 2010 14:04:32 GMT
Hey genius, OHC is not given in monthly increments. Also, the transition from XBT to ARGO (2002-2003) is not reliable per Josh Willis et al., which means including OHC records previous to 2003 is completely meaningless. Of course, Hansen thought it perfectly legitimate as he claimed his data "precise". Are you saying IPCC allowed another erroneous "peer reviewed" paper to influence their conclusions? How about we look at the numbers in January 2011? What are the odds 2010 will exceed 1998? I know, do you? Put it this way, wanna bet? You showed an apparent relationship between OHC and UAH. We know that UAH has risen quite considerably since 2009. Does this mean OHC has also risen? I've always said (look back over the posts as far back as 2008) that 2010 will end up as the second warmest year in the UAH record. 1998 really was a one-off due to a particularly intense El Nino and it might be a few years before it is surpassed but eventually it will be - and eventually 1998 temperatures will become the norm. Thats unremarkable. With 2010 riding an El Nino for at least 2/3rds of the years (considering the delay in effects we see). And considering this El Nino rivals 1998 in its amplitude from base (3.2 degrees), 2010 might be more of an El Nino effected year than 2009 and equally impacted to 1998. The difference is this El Nino started from a lower point on the temperature scale (both atmospheric and Nino 3.4 scales) than did 1998. So it should be the 2nd warmest year and that would be consistent with a cooling phase as no other El Ninos of this magnitude have been seen since 1998. Only if the NOAA and Met predictions comes true of being the warmest year would it be more consistent with a warming trend.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 8, 2010 14:28:57 GMT
I sure hope those 1998 temps become the norm soon.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 8, 2010 15:05:42 GMT
I sure hope those 1998 temps become the norm soon. They should. At the .6degC/century warming estimated by Spencer recently. They should be the norm by about 2050-60. Probably have to get through the 2000-2030 cold spell first though and avoid a Dalton level event in the process. If not the Roman optimum might be out of reach. CO2 may be the only hope and the world is not happy with how successfully we have adapted to the present climate so the real question is do we let the French tell us what to do (they can't stand looking 2nd rate) Hope thats not too bad of news. The nation these days seems to be awfully full of folks that think it is good to be led by aristocracy and pine for the European model. Probably does beat looking up to Paris and Britney Spears and maybe the people that do realize that.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 8, 2010 15:38:06 GMT
Yes, the .6C projected rise. I will give you an example of projections:
I have a projected farm plan. On the 15th of April it looked very solid. It is now the 8th of May and it is not looking nearly as solid.
Projections are just what they are......Projections. Ever notice on a commodity site that past performance is not indicative of future performance?
I hope the projections are correct as the increased temperature will be a boon for mankind. We NEED the increased temps to support the ever growing population with food etc. That is a fact. IF we are to retreat to the 1700's type temp swings, there is going to be mass starvation and we all know what that leads to.
In my life's experiences it seems a shoe drops about the time you think you have it figured out. I think there are signs that a shoe is going to drop pretty soon as far as climate. I don't like that idea, and hope it doesn't become reality.
My perspective on climate comes from being a farmer and exposed to it on a daily basis and depending on it for production. As I have said before, I don't understand the hysteria about warmth at all. All the research I have done indicates warmth is man's friend and cold is his enemy.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 8, 2010 15:40:00 GMT
In looking at US ag production, it is very easy to see that warmth brings in good crops, and cold results in crop failures. I will go for the warmth every time. I have better crops when it is warm and dry than I do when it is cold and wet. You just can't make up for root rot.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 8, 2010 15:57:44 GMT
In looking at US ag production, it is very easy to see that warmth brings in good crops, and cold results in crop failures. I will go for the warmth every time. I have better crops when it is warm and dry than I do when it is cold and wet. You just can't make up for root rot. What do you grow? Wheat? Soy?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 8, 2010 16:11:05 GMT
In looking at US ag production, it is very easy to see that warmth brings in good crops, and cold results in crop failures. I will go for the warmth every time. I have better crops when it is warm and dry than I do when it is cold and wet. You just can't make up for root rot. What do you grow? Wheat? Soy? I grow spuds, wheat, pinto beans, sunflowers, soybeans and till 2 years ago corn. When the effects of the shifting pdo hit here, the growing season has shortened enough that corn is not a good option. Yes, we have cooled dramatically in North Dakota.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 8, 2010 16:24:38 GMT
Icefisher says
Probably have to get through the 2000-2030 cold spell first though and avoid a Dalton level event in the process. If not the Roman optimum might be out of reach.
The "2000-2030 cold spell"?? Are you smoking something funny? Last time I looked the last 10 years have been far and away the warmest on record (that's every record). When is the cold spell coming?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 8, 2010 16:38:17 GMT
I somehow missed that in the past few months the trend for UAH since 1998 and since 2003 has gone positive. I notice a recent lack of UAH vs co2 graphs coming out of icecap.us
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 8, 2010 16:48:28 GMT
I've always said (look back over the posts as far back as 2008) that 2010 will end up as the second warmest year in the UAH record. 1998 really was a one-off due to a particularly intense El Nino and it might be a few years before it is surpassed but eventually it will be - and eventually 1998 temperatures will become the norm. GLC, you are surely going to be right in forecasting that 2010 will not be a record temperature year. For several years now, I have been saying that the 1998 record will likely not be broken until after 2030. ENSO dominates global temperature changes in the short term. There is a long-term (100 years +) global warming trend of about 0.7C per century. But there also is clearly a 60-year natural cycle which doubles the long-term temperature growth during its up leg and offsets the growth during its down leg. The UAH anomaly upslope of 1.4C per century for the 1979 to 2007 period coincides with the up leg of the natural cycle. The 2007 to 2037 global temperature trend will likely be flat punctuated by ENSO oscillations. The 1998 El Nino was an extreme event aided by the natural up-cycle. The El Ninos typical of natural down cycles will likely not cause record high annual UAH temperature anomalies during the current natural down leg.
|
|