|
Post by scpg02 on May 8, 2010 17:23:29 GMT
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. I used to be an Ag lobbyist of sorts. I was the Legislative Director for the California State Grange.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 8, 2010 18:11:05 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? I don't know. I am not predicting anything. But when I say "cold spell" I am talking about "relative" to the normal trend we have seen for the past 300 years. I would recommend patience since we are in an El Nino that is the biggest in the record in more than one respect since the El Nino of 1957/8. If it gets absolutely cold or not remains to be seen as it is too early to say. . . .technically if the ocean cycle is 30-34 years 1976/80 to 2008/10/12 instead of about 18-22 1976/80 to 1998, assuming for the sake of argument there is a cycle, the La Nina of 1999 was probably only an unusual anomaly likewise the El Nino of 1998. It is becoming increasingly popular to speculate that 2008 was the actual PDO change (and visually that or later is supported by the curve of diminishing El Nino dominance). For that to continue this big El Nino probably should stand pretty much alone and end this year as is estimated by the models. One could speculate this El Nino simply started lower and thus did not reach the level of the 98 El Nino. But if you look at the El Nino record about every 10 years or every 3rd or 4th El Nino you get a big one. So getting a relatively warm year would not be unusual. Fact is the last significant cooling cycle was 1880-1910 and was accompanied by 3 weak solar cycles. The cool phase of 1945-1975 didn't get weak cycles registering a combined 463 for the 3 cycles. The 3 cycles during the warm phase registered virtually the same at 444 providing a possible explanation for why the last ocean cool cycle generated minimal cooling. What becomes a bit more difficult to explain is why there was so much warming 1913-1944 with 3 solar cycles that totaled 303. But you get back to a good explanation for the 3 cycles that accompanied the 1878-1911 cooling with cycles that totaled only 227. I don't think that poses a big problem for the solar theory but instead a bit bigger one for the CO2 theory. What you see in the natural world i you can have a major shortage in one ingredient and a smaller shortage in another. So when you supplement the most short ingredient you get a response and then the response is limited by the other short ingredient. . . .like maybe cosmic rays come in short supply but when supplemented the particles that get ionized by the rays become the limiting factor. A very common problem such that it is pretty much the rule rather than the exception in natural sciences. But CO2 has to explain that and overcome the increase in CO2 emissions as well. Thats why we need to better understand natural variation before we can understand CO2 effects. So in my view if indeed were are now entering into a series of low solar cycles, we finally have an experiment, something that has been lacking for at least a 100 years. And until it plays out I would not be jumping to any conclusions about the lack of cooling as we may only be a year and half in and completely swamped in ENSO noise.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 8, 2010 22:52:20 GMT
icefisher, I tend to agree. There are multiple drivers to our climate, multiple cycles of varying length. The conjunctions of these cycles determine how warm or cold we get.
The idea behind controlling CO2 has nothing to do with climate. They use climate as the reason for the control but, as with everything else in the world, the true driving factor is money. Keeping energy market tight drives up prices and profits.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 9, 2010 0:12:49 GMT
icefisher, I tend to agree. There are multiple drivers to our climate, multiple cycles of varying length. The conjunctions of these cycles determine how warm or cold we get. The idea behind controlling CO2 has nothing to do with climate. They use climate as the reason for the control but, as with everything else in the world, the true driving factor is money. Keeping energy market tight drives up prices and profits. And the little known fact of funding of AGW reserach by the major oil companies works to keep driving those profits higher and higher.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 9, 2010 0:51:38 GMT
icefisher, I tend to agree. There are multiple drivers to our climate, multiple cycles of varying length. The conjunctions of these cycles determine how warm or cold we get. The idea behind controlling CO2 has nothing to do with climate. They use climate as the reason for the control but, as with everything else in the world, the true driving factor is money. Keeping energy market tight drives up prices and profits. All the earmarks of a made to order crisis. Oil speculators, nutcase enviros, crooked politicians. . . .heck they put Pachauri in charge because he has the cleanest hands. All he is is a gigolo who loves his work. . . .literally. There is so much money in this both parties are corrupt. I am going Tea Party. By the time all this shakes out Hollywood is going to be knee deep in story lines for decades.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 9, 2010 4:29:07 GMT
icefisher, I tend to agree. There are multiple drivers to our climate, multiple cycles of varying length. The conjunctions of these cycles determine how warm or cold we get. The idea behind controlling CO2 has nothing to do with climate. They use climate as the reason for the control but, as with everything else in the world, the true driving factor is money. Keeping energy market tight drives up prices and profits. And the little known fact of funding of AGW reserach by the major oil companies works to keep driving those profits higher and higher. Amen!
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 9, 2010 4:30:15 GMT
There is so much money in this both parties are corrupt. I am going Tea Party. By the time all this shakes out Hollywood is going to be knee deep in story lines for decades. Went to an Oath Keepers meeting tonight.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 9, 2010 5:14:55 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. Are you sure that's what you said? solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=682&page=5#22436You know that's not what I said. I said 2009 would be warmer than 2008 and that 2010 or 2011 would come within 0.1 deg of the 1998 record. On the other hand, I seem to recall you making some ridiculous cooling claims a few months back - none of which materialised. You seem to have gone a bit quiet on the "dramatic cooling" predictions recently. I can't think why. We're still in a solar minimum and a negative PDO - what's the problem?
Must be all those badly sited surface weather stations that are contaminating the satellite readings 14000 ft above them.
You've had several versions of what 2010 will be. Looking hard enough would reveal you also said it wouldn't take much to bump 2010 over 1998. I don't fault anyone for being wrong making honest predictions, its when they get amnesia of what they actually predicted. On the other hand, I seem to recall you making some ridiculous cooling claims a few months back - none of which materialised. You seem to have gone a bit quiet on the "dramatic cooling" predictions recently. I can't think why. We're still in a solar minimum and a negative PDO - what's the problem? I could not find where I responded to that, but it was per the SSW event you said would not affect global temps. Go ahead, backtrack and see what I said. You should have checked before opening mouth and inserting foot. Well look, the SH actually went up during the same period
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 9, 2010 5:56:06 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. 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? If anyone ever wonders why I have a short fuse with glc, it is because of dumb-ass statements like that. I've been telling you for well over a year El Nino is releasing heat whilst the oceans are losing heat. You complained recently I "truncated" data, but it was because I don't have access to monthly OHC data. As someone has recently noted, 180-100W OHC has dropped more during the last month than at any time in the 29 years of keeping those records. Say what? Recall this thread glc? solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=1128&post=43423I said: What is the significance of that? Surely you understand the TLT is warmed from below, that being oceans? Are you suggesting this is CO2 at work? Surely you jest.
Seriously, it really is puzzling how some folks still have no clue what's going on with the TLT temperatures with respect to ENSO. Geez, just look at all the temperature and heat metrics. The globe is not warming, it is releasing heat for gosh sakes! 2+2=
I for one have insisted this El Nino would not pass 97/98 as the energy just isn't working in that direction, and lo and behold, it just can't seem to get over the hump. Don't despair. In another decade or so maybe then it will almost reach 2010. Your response was just as incoherent as ever. Did you ever get your money back for the dead parrot? solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=1128&post=43454Go back glc and see what I've said about this El Nino. Post it for all to see. I said this El Nino would not be the Big One and said it would fade away early. ONI is now in neutral territory, SOI is firmly in the positive and not to beat a dead horse, but what did the April OHC say again? Now what do you suppose is going on here? That is interesting considering you said this: More heat is being retained in the oceans than can be explained by any variation in solar activity. An increase in atmospheric ghgs will slow the rate of cooling from the oceans. More heat IS being retained in oceans? What planet would that be occurring on? Atmospheric ghggs WILL slow the rate of cooling from the oceans? Are there Oompa Loompas preventing that from happening NOW? What caused the LT to build up so high so quickly? Answer that and you get a weekend pass. Gee, it couldn't have anything to do with all that SNOW around the globe this past winter now could it? Educate us glc, inquiring minds want to know. If it's CO2, roll out the numbers and calculations for us.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 9, 2010 6:10:34 GMT
If anyone ever wonders why I have a short fuse with glc, it is because of dumb-ass statements like that. LOL I don't think anyone was wondering.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 9, 2010 10:23:50 GMT
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? If anyone ever wonders why I have a short fuse with glc, it is because of dumb-ass statements like that.
I've been telling you for well over a year El Nino is releasing heat whilst the oceans are losing heat. You complained recently I "truncated" data, but it was because I don't have access to monthly OHC data.Magellan In 2008 you were harping on about continued plummeting temperatures. At that time you seemed to think the sun was responsible. I was the only one on this blog who said the dip in temperatures was due to the La Nina and that temperatures would recover in 2009 and that we could get close to a record year in 2010 (or 2011). I was spot on with every prediction. You eventually realised that continued cooling was not going to happen and finally cottoned on to ENSO fluctuations. Now you claim some sort of expertise on El Nino. Magellan, you've simply read upon every opinion that suits you position. Some of those opinions are valid; some complete nonsense. Right! El Nino does release heat in to the atmophere. We know this. I knew this long before you did. In 1998 huge amounts of heat were released - hence the record warm year. El Nino will fade and the atmosphere will cool down - just as it did in 1998. We may get a La Nina which will result in more cooling - just as it did in 1998. After 1998 a lot of sceptics were convinced that the warming was over. They saw the 1997/98 El Nino as a huge turning point. They were wrong. After 1998, the oceans became "re-charged" (despite only average solar activity) and temperatures began to rise again. So, while there may be some short-term cooling following this El Nino it may only be "short-term". The upper OHC that you refer to is highly variable. It was much cooler during 2008. As far as 2010 v 1998 is concerned. The timing of the El Nino is the key. Had it started slightly later and ran for a bit longer this year, I'm convinced 2010 would have surpassed 1998. that's what I meant by the comment "it wouldn't take much to bump 2010 over 1998". We could still get the warmest 12 month period on record - if not the warmest calendar year. Of course we shouldn't foget that there were some significant adjustments (again) in the UAH record which reduced Jan, Feb and Mar anomalies by up to 0.1 deg. I wonder what the response would be if Hansen adjusted the GISS anomalies by such an amount. One final comment. The strength of this El Nino is irrelevant. The fact that it's weaker than 1998 is neither here nor there. I'm not sure why you think it is.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 9, 2010 10:35:09 GMT
Magellan pickes me up on this statement 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. and asks this question while linking to a previous post.... Are you sure that's what you said?
solarcycle24com.proboards.com/ind....82&page=5#22436which says You know that's not what I said. I said 2009 would be warmer than 2008 and that 2010 or 2011 would come within 0.1 deg of the 1998 record In what possible way are my 2 comments inconsistent. One says 2010 will be second warmest. The other says 2010 will come within 0.1 of the 1998 record.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 9, 2010 12:01:58 GMT
Accusations of fraud, snidely worded blog posts about him, media articles by political authors smearing him, calls for criminal investigations, etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 9, 2010 12:42:29 GMT
Accusations of fraud, snidely worded blog posts about him, media articles by political authors smearing him, calls for criminal investigations, etc etc. Just for the record. I think the UAH adjustments were probably justified, but you're right about the likely response if Hansen had done something similar.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 9, 2010 12:49:02 GMT
I could not find where I responded to that, but it was per the SSW event you said would not affect global temps. Go ahead, backtrack and see what I said. You should have checked before opening mouth and inserting foot.
The SSW refers the the STRATOSPHERE. It had no effect on the TROPOSPHERE temperature. In fact, the SSW was restricted to the North Polar regions and had very little effect on the overall stratosphere temperatures.
I provided you with the relevant UAH datasets and invited you to show how the LT was affected. I assume you were unable to do so. The reason for the slight cooling over the first half of 2009 was that SSTs had dropped. If you remember there was speculation about a 'new' La Nina at the time.
|
|