|
Post by duwayne on May 9, 2010 17:18:26 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?
.... 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.....
Really.... I think many people on the board realized that the dip was due to the La Nina. You should check some of the quotes from 2008. You're statement jogged my memory on this forecast from Steve. Re: Global warming temperature predictions « Reply #1 on Sept 17, 2008, 6:03am » ________________________________________ "On 03/27/2008 : 23:14:33 only5teve (my old name) made the following prediction: Quote: Based on HadCRUT3 my warmers prediction is: 0.3C this year (a bit warmer than 2000) 0.4C next year 0.6C (warmer than 1998) in 2010 I'm assuming that the La Nina will weaken by the end of the year and we'll head towards average or El Nino conditions over the following 2 years." I wonder how this prediction will work out. Also, GLC I seem to recall that you forecast a couple of years ago that the next El Nino will take temperatures above the 1998 record. I responded that I didn't think they would go that high and gave my reasoning. You then later changed to your current stance. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 9, 2010 23:56:46 GMT
Also, GLC I seem to recall that you forecast a couple of years ago that the next El Nino will take temperatures above the 1998 record. I responded that I didn't think they would go that high and gave my reasoning. You then later changed to your current stance. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly.
You're not remembering correctly. In 2008 I said that 2009 would be warmer than 2008 and that 2010 (or 2011) would be within 0.1 deg of the 1998 record. I was, of course, using the UAH record. For some reason you (and recently Icefisher) seem to prefer the Hadley record. Why is this? Every sceptic I 've ever been in contact with has criticised both Hadley and GISS and told me that the UAH satellite record is the only reliable record.
Which dataset should we be using? UPDATE: I've re-read your post and realised it's not as unreasonable as I first thought. You're right that there may have been others, including yourself, who predicted a "recovery" in temperatures. However the overwhelming view (on here) was that a sharp decline was on it's way. The Global Cooling thread (now abandoned) had a poll in which 80% voted that cooling was "on it's way". I was villified by certain posters for saying that I was unconvinced by the influence of solar activity and that we probably weren't on the verge of a significant cooling.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on May 10, 2010 0:43:00 GMT
Take about ten years of tincture of time, GLC, and then revisit your prediction. Mine from 1989 came one half solar cycle sooner than I predicted, but other than advancing the timing by 11 years, they have so far been spot on. Let's see how yours fare.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 10, 2010 2:21:35 GMT
From my perspective I still say global cooling is advanceing. It is not warming, so with that said it is cooling. Yes, I live where it has been cold for 3 years running now, but that doesn't change my perspective about the global temps.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 10, 2010 7:47:24 GMT
Take about ten years of tincture of time, GLC, and then revisit your prediction. Mine from 1989 came one half solar cycle sooner than I predicted, but other than advancing the timing by 11 years, they have so far been spot on. Let's see how yours fare. Stranger So which particular solar parameter is it that you think drives the climate.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 10, 2010 7:49:10 GMT
From my perspective I still say global cooling is advanceing. It is not warming, so with that said it is cooling. Yes, I live where it has been cold for 3 years running now, but that doesn't change my perspective about the global temps. The fact that the data says the opposite doesn't bother you too much, then?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 10, 2010 12:12:57 GMT
From my perspective I still say global cooling is advanceing. It is not warming, so with that said it is cooling. Yes, I live where it has been cold for 3 years running now, but that doesn't change my perspective about the global temps. The fact that the data says the opposite doesn't bother you too much, then? I have not seen data that is statistically valid to show that it is warming. If anything, it appears that we are static which is not warming.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 10, 2010 17:52:59 GMT
The fact that the data says the opposite doesn't bother you too much, then? I have not seen data that is statistically valid to show that it is warming. If anything, it appears that we are static which is not warming. The UAH trend sicne 1979 is statistically significant - if that's what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 10, 2010 19:38:55 GMT
I have not seen data that is statistically valid to show that it is warming. If anything, it appears that we are static which is not warming. The UAH trend sicne 1979 is statistically significant - if that's what you mean. The UAH trend is channel 5 if memory serves me correctly. 14,000 ft above sea level. I am talking about surface temps. Even Mr. Jones agrees with me on this one.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 10, 2010 20:06:10 GMT
Also, GLC I seem to recall that you forecast a couple of years ago that the next El Nino will take temperatures above the 1998 record. I responded that I didn't think they would go that high and gave my reasoning. You then later changed to your current stance. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly.You're not remembering correctly. In 2008 I said that 2009 would be warmer than 2008 and that 2010 (or 2011) would be within 0.1 deg of the 1998 record. I was, of course, using the UAH record. For some reason you (and recently Icefisher) seem to prefer the Hadley record. Why is this? Every sceptic I 've ever been in contact with has criticised both Hadley and GISS and told me that the UAH satellite record is the only reliable record. Which dataset should we be using? UPDATE: I've re-read your post and realised it's not as unreasonable as I first thought. You're right that there may have been others, including yourself, who predicted a "recovery" in temperatures. However the overwhelming view (on here) was that a sharp decline was on it's way. The Global Cooling thread (now abandoned) had a poll in which 80% voted that cooling was "on it's way". I was villified by certain posters for saying that I was unconvinced by the influence of solar activity and that we probably weren't on the verge of a significant cooling. I also prefer the UAH data as far as it goes. The problem is that the data only go back to 1979. Therefore, they do not traverse the full 60-year natural cycle which shows up in the 150 plus years of Hadcrut data. Looking at only the up leg portion of the cycle (1977 to 2007) - which by coincidence is most of the UAH record - in my opinion leads to an incorrect assessment (overstatement) of the underlying temperature growth trend. I posted Steve's prediction of the Hadcrut anomaly of 0.6C for 2010 to show that he, among others, recognized La Nina was depressing temperatures in 2008, and to remind people of Steve's prediction so as 2010 plays out we can judge how accurate the forecasts of rapid warming by Steve and others are.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 10, 2010 23:13:35 GMT
The UAH trend is channel 5 if memory serves me correctly. 14,000 ft above sea level. I am talking about surface temps. Even Mr. Jones agrees with me on this one.
I'm not sure Mr. Jones would agree with you on this. There is a trend of ~0.12 deg per decade since 1995. That trend, though, is not statistically significant which means we can't completely rule out the possiblility that the trend is zero. However, neither can we rule out the possibility that the trend since 1995 is continuing at the longer term trend of ~0.17 deg per decade.
You need to be careful how you interpret the statistics. Non-significance may only mean that there is a small probability (e.g. 5%) that something is not happening.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 10, 2010 23:23:22 GMT
The UAH trend is channel 5 if memory serves me correctly. 14,000 ft above sea level. I am talking about surface temps. Even Mr. Jones agrees with me on this one. I'm not sure Mr. Jones would agree with you on this. There is a trend of ~0.12 deg per decade since 1995. That trend, though, is not statistically significant which means we can't completely rule out the possiblility that the trend is zero. However, neither can we rule out the possibility that the trend since 1995 is continuing at the longer term trend of ~0.17 deg per decade. You need to be careful how you interpret the statistics. Non-significance may only mean that there is a small probability (e.g. 5%) that something is not happening. You just explained it well. Statistically, there is not a discernable trend. I do try to look at things without blinders on. As someone once said....."Just the facts mamm".
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 10, 2010 23:24:17 GMT
Also, GLC I seem to recall that you forecast a couple of years ago that the next El Nino will take temperatures above the 1998 record. I responded that I didn't think they would go that high and gave my reasoning. You then later changed to your current stance. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly.You're not remembering correctly. In 2008 I said that 2009 would be warmer than 2008 and that 2010 (or 2011) would be within 0.1 deg of the 1998 record. I was, of course, using the UAH record. For some reason you (and recently Icefisher) seem to prefer the Hadley record. Why is this? Every sceptic I 've ever been in contact with has criticised both Hadley and GISS and told me that the UAH satellite record is the only reliable record. Which dataset should we be using? UPDATE: I've re-read your post and realised it's not as unreasonable as I first thought. You're right that there may have been others, including yourself, who predicted a "recovery" in temperatures. However the overwhelming view (on here) was that a sharp decline was on it's way. The Global Cooling thread (now abandoned) had a poll in which 80% voted that cooling was "on it's way". I was villified by certain posters for saying that I was unconvinced by the influence of solar activity and that we probably weren't on the verge of a significant cooling. I also prefer the UAH data as far as it goes. The problem is that the data only go back to 1979. Therefore, they do not traverse the full 60-year natural cycle which shows up in the 150 plus years of Hadcrut data. Looking at only the up leg portion of the cycle (1977 to 2007) - which by coincidence is most of the UAH record - in my opinion leads to an incorrect assessment (overstatement) of the underlying temperature growth trend. I posted Steve's prediction of the Hadcrut anomaly of 0.6C for 2010 to show that he, among others, recognized La Nina was depressing temperatures in 2008, and to remind people of Steve's prediction so as 2010 plays out we can judge how accurate the forecasts of rapid warming by Steve and others are. I have acknowledged the cyclical pattern of 20th century (at least) global temperatures, so I am aware of the risks in 'over-interpreting' the most recent 30 years of data. There does, though, appear to be an underlying warming trend which seems to support the view that doubling CO2 will result in a modest (not catastrophic) rise of ~1 deg C. It may be that there is an alternative explanation for the (non-cyclical) warming which leads to the main argument I have with many on this blog, i.e. I'm sceptical that the sun is responsible. Where do you stand on the solar influence?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 11, 2010 3:41:32 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. I was spot on with every prediction. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=180&page=32#9572Magellan said: How about this: I bet the following will not be true. This of course will be confirmed by satellite data, RSS or UAH; your choice. www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.html
Quote: 2009 is expected to be one of the top-five warmest years on record, despite continued cooling of huge areas of the tropical Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Niña.
As Met O is one of the premiere scientific bodies, and since surface station data and satellite data are so close to each other (remember?), surely you can place your unwaivering faith in their forecast for 2009. After all, they made this prediction in January 2007: www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html
Temperature data will be based on the following: www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt
Below are three charts with the red line being the goal. If averaged global temperatures for the year 2009 are not in the top five warmest in the chart, the loser agrees to never post again in this forum. As someone pointed out and rightly so, the last sentence was a bit extreme. Nonetheless: glc said I would prefer - "Admit on this forum that they were wrong"
I'm happy to agree to that.
and Ok. 2009 will be warmer than 2008 and will end up 5th overall just ahead of 2004.
2009 HadCRUT results? www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txtWhat method did you use? I posted mine and knew it would be close, but no cigar for you. Below is a real trend analysis. Yours is a bull-in-the-china-shop cherry picking extravaganza. TREND ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DATA
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 11, 2010 4:03:09 GMT
I also prefer the UAH data as far as it goes. The problem is that the data only go back to 1979. Therefore, they do not traverse the full 60-year natural cycle which shows up in the 150 plus years of Hadcrut data. Looking at only the up leg portion of the cycle (1977 to 2007) - which by coincidence is most of the UAH record - in my opinion leads to an incorrect assessment (overstatement) of the underlying temperature growth trend. I posted Steve's prediction of the Hadcrut anomaly of 0.6C for 2010 to show that he, among others, recognized La Nina was depressing temperatures in 2008, and to remind people of Steve's prediction so as 2010 plays out we can judge how accurate the forecasts of rapid warming by Steve and others are. I have acknowledged the cyclical pattern of 20th century (at least) global temperatures, so I am aware of the risks in 'over-interpreting' the most recent 30 years of data. There does, though, appear to be an underlying warming trend which seems to support the view that doubling CO2 will result in a modest (not catastrophic) rise of ~1 deg C. It may be that there is an alternative explanation for the (non-cyclical) warming which leads to the main argument I have with many on this blog, i.e. I'm sceptical that the sun is responsible. Where do you stand on the solar influence? When you subtract the warming uptrend (presumably from natural causes) that existed before CO2 concentrations accelerated in the last century from the modest uptrend that we currently are seeing, there is not a lot of warming which can be attributed to CO2. I think the warming effect of CO2 is somewhat less than you indicate above. The major Global temperature oscillations and trends do not seem to correlate that well with observed changes in the sun. So as of now I'm just an interested observer with respect to the solar influence issue.
|
|