|
Post by karlox on May 11, 2010 6:47:17 GMT
What 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 « Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:49pm by magellan » Link to Post - Back to Top Logged Magellan, thanks for the link, it´s really worth reading and induces further thinking on AGW CO2 theory... Probably is a well known Analysis for most of you, but as I am just a "beginner" learning basics then I highly and specially appreciate scientific-types approaches and enjoy its ´wording´ (versus political working) for defending either AGW or Skeptical points of view as in this case. Something else I regard as very very interesting is the highly Pro-Nature, Pro-ecological profile of Craig Loehle, and that is against what most AGW proponents feel and believe about Skepticals, me included, I admit... though still learning and thus being rather an ´agnostic´ than either a true believer or the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on May 11, 2010 9:27:09 GMT
I am no fan of the Met.Office warmist views, but they predicted that 2009 would be the FIFTH warmest year it turned out to be the SIXTH warmest.
They have predicted that 2010 will be the warmest year ever. The El Nino in the South Pacific is coming to an end but I don't expext the sort of cooling we saw in 1998 2010 is heading for +0.5. If it hits this level it will be the SECOND warmest year ever. This will no doubt result in correspondingly alarmist headlines.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 11, 2010 10:18:56 GMT
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.
It's probably less than 0.1 deg per decade since, say, 1940 (peak to peak) but I expect a slight acceleration over the coming century though may be not immediately (natural factors and all that)
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.
That's what I reckon. In fact I think they fall down rather badly under close scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 11, 2010 10:44:56 GMT
What 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 « Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:49pm by magellan » Link to Post - Back to Top Logged Magellan, thanks for the link, it´s really worth reading and induces further thinking on AGW CO2 theory... Probably is a well known Analysis for most of you, but as I am just a "beginner" learning basics then I highly and specially appreciate scientific-types approaches and enjoy its ´wording´ (versus political working) for defending either AGW or Skeptical points of view as in this case. Something else I regard as very very interesting is the highly Pro-Nature, Pro-ecological profile of Craig Loehle, and that is against what most AGW proponents feel and believe about Skepticals, me included, I admit... though still learning and thus being rather an ´agnostic´ than either a true believer or the opposite. I'd be a bit careful about relying too much on Craig Loehle's findings. His main conclusion, i.e. Analysis of the satellite data shows a statistically significant cooling trend for the past 12 to 13 years,is now no longer correct. The negative trend was, as I've always maintained, due to the magnitude and, more importantly, the timing of the 2007/08 La Nina and the near La Nina conditions which followed in 2009. You may note that the data used by Craig only extends up until June 2009, i.e. the most recent low point. Since then we have had several months with record high anomalies. If I have time to-day I will produce an up-to-date analysis using Craig's methods.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 11, 2010 11:10:20 GMT
It's probably less than 0.1 deg per decade since, say, 1940 (peak to peak) but I expect a slight acceleration over the coming century though may be not immediately (natural factors and all that) That would be a nifty trick...seeing as the only significant lag is caused by the oceans . Warming oceans carry a warming penalty in the form of latent heat increases as large as (or larger than) all other suggested positive forcings and feedbacks combined.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 11, 2010 13:45:34 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. The SSW refers the the STRATOSPHERE. It had no effect on the TROPOSPHERE temperature. That is unabashedly idiotic and proof you are completely 100% clueless. 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. Strange. You said I was wrong about dropping temperatures after the SSW, yet even after I posted the charts, you are still trying to get a refund on the dead parrot.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 11, 2010 14:39:40 GMT
What 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 « Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:49pm by magellan » Link to Post - Back to Top Logged Magellan, thanks for the link, it´s really worth reading and induces further thinking on AGW CO2 theory... Probably is a well known Analysis for most of you, but as I am just a "beginner" learning basics then I highly and specially appreciate scientific-types approaches and enjoy its ´wording´ (versus political working) for defending either AGW or Skeptical points of view as in this case. Something else I regard as very very interesting is the highly Pro-Nature, Pro-ecological profile of Craig Loehle, and that is against what most AGW proponents feel and believe about Skepticals, me included, I admit... though still learning and thus being rather an ´agnostic´ than either a true believer or the opposite. I'd be a bit careful about relying too much on Craig Loehle's findings. His main conclusion, i.e. Analysis of the satellite data shows a statistically significant cooling trend for the past 12 to 13 years,is now no longer correct. The negative trend was, as I've always maintained, due to the magnitude and, more importantly, the timing of the 2007/08 La Nina and the near La Nina conditions which followed in 2009. You may note that the data used by Craig only extends up until June 2009, i.e. the most recent low point. Since then we have had several months with record high anomalies. If I have time to-day I will produce an up-to-date analysis using Craig's methods. To take a page from your argument history. What you mean is there is perhaps only a 5% chance there is no cooling trend and that the current chance there is no cooling trend is due to the decadal El Nino of 2009 which is currently deflating like a punctured party balloon. Am I close?
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 11, 2010 18:20:25 GMT
To take a page from your argument history. What you mean is there is perhaps only a 5% chance there is no cooling trend and that the current chance there is no cooling trend is due to the decadal El Nino of 2009 which is currently deflating like a punctured party balloon.
Am I close?
No - I mean there is no cooling trend. Any trend longer than ~8 years is positive.
What's a "decadal El Nino", by the way?
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 11, 2010 18:24:04 GMT
The SSW refers the the STRATOSPHERE. It had no effect on the TROPOSPHERE temperature.
That is unabashedly idiotic and proof you are completely 100% clueless.
Ok - let's start from the beginning.
Which region of the earth did the SSW occur?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 11, 2010 20:09:59 GMT
To take a page from your argument history. What you mean is there is perhaps only a 5% chance there is no cooling trend and that the current chance there is no cooling trend is due to the decadal El Nino of 2009 which is currently deflating like a punctured party balloon.
Am I close?No - I mean there is no cooling trend. Any trend longer than ~8 years is positive. What's a "decadal El Nino", by the way? A decadal El Nino would be that super El Nino that happens about every 10 years Hansen and GISS predicted for 2009 and Socold has embedded in his charts but grouped a bit tighter together than normal. And perchance that lack of any cooling trend greater than 8 years would that be due to the decadal El Nino of 2009 which is currently deflating like a punctured party balloon?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 11, 2010 20:49:39 GMT
It's probably less than 0.1 deg per decade since, say, 1940 (peak to peak) but I expect a slight acceleration over the coming century though may be not immediately (natural factors and all that) Peak to peak anaylsis is a very poor analysis if you do not consider both dimensions of a peak (averaged over time). If you do peak analysis you should give consideration to both the amplitude and how long it lasts. In other words a peak robustness analysis. The 1998 peak was very tall and very short lived. The 1940 peak was sustained for at least 8 years. If you then take a similar peak in 1998 (say 1998-2006) you end up with about .068/decade, a third lower than your analysis and consistent with the general underlying warming trend between the two peaks as opposed to the .05/decade between the two previous peaks. Then if you are skeptical of Hadcrut value added adjustments you probably need to raise the 1940 peak maybe .1 as this group has shown a propensity to not take the middle figure when uncertainty margins have been in the range of + or - .1 or more. That drops you back to .05/decade. Or alternatively you could maybe surmise something happened to the cool ocean oscillation of the 1950's that netted .1 degree, something that didn't then happen on the warm side (slopes on the warm side being equal despite a lot more CO2 on the warm side of the 1950's.) The early disruption in temperatures literally screaming it is not due to the huge amounts of CO2 emissions post 1950's. Or you could spread it around those areas, or not choose any of those theories and still be more than 30% below your analysis, an analysis I don't think you can defend.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 11, 2010 21:05:44 GMT
It's probably less than 0.1 deg per decade since, say, 1940 (peak to peak) but I expect a slight acceleration over the coming century though may be not immediately (natural factors and all that) Peak to peak anaylsis is a very poor analysis if you do not consider both dimensions of a peak (averaged over time). If you do peak analysis you should give consideration to both the amplitude and how long it lasts. In other words a peak robustness analysis. The 1998 peak was very tall and very short lived. The 1940 peak was sustained for at least 8 years. If you then take a similar peak in 1998 (say 1998-2006) you end up with about .068/decade, a third lower than your analysis and consistent with the general underlying warming trend between the two peaks as opposed to the .05/decade between the two previous peaks. Then if you are skeptical of Hadcrut value added adjustments you probably need to raise the 1940 peak maybe .1 as this group has shown a propensity to not take the middle figure when uncertainty margins have been in the range of + or - .1 or more. That drops you back to .05/decade. Or alternatively you could maybe surmise something happened to the cool ocean oscillation of the 1950's that netted .1 degree, something that didn't then happen on the warm side (slopes on the warm side being equal despite a lot more CO2 on the warm side of the 1950's.) The early disruption in temperatures literally screaming it is not due to the huge amounts of CO2 emissions post 1950's. Or you could spread it around those areas, or not choose any of those theories and still be more than 30% below your analysis, an analysis I don't think you can defend. What are you blathering on about? I wasn't doing any analysis - just making an off-the-cuff remark about the possible magnitude of any underlying (i.e. non-cyclical) warming.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 12, 2010 0:18:51 GMT
Peak to peak anaylsis is a very poor analysis if you do not consider both dimensions of a peak (averaged over time). If you do peak analysis you should give consideration to both the amplitude and how long it lasts. In other words a peak robustness analysis. The 1998 peak was very tall and very short lived. The 1940 peak was sustained for at least 8 years. If you then take a similar peak in 1998 (say 1998-2006) you end up with about .068/decade, a third lower than your analysis and consistent with the general underlying warming trend between the two peaks as opposed to the .05/decade between the two previous peaks. Then if you are skeptical of Hadcrut value added adjustments you probably need to raise the 1940 peak maybe .1 as this group has shown a propensity to not take the middle figure when uncertainty margins have been in the range of + or - .1 or more. That drops you back to .05/decade. Or alternatively you could maybe surmise something happened to the cool ocean oscillation of the 1950's that netted .1 degree, something that didn't then happen on the warm side (slopes on the warm side being equal despite a lot more CO2 on the warm side of the 1950's.) The early disruption in temperatures literally screaming it is not due to the huge amounts of CO2 emissions post 1950's. Or you could spread it around those areas, or not choose any of those theories and still be more than 30% below your analysis, an analysis I don't think you can defend. What are you blathering on about? I wasn't doing any analysis - just making an off-the-cuff remark about the possible magnitude of any underlying (i.e. non-cyclical) warming. Good response GLC!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 12, 2010 1:30:55 GMT
The SSW refers the the STRATOSPHERE. It had no effect on the TROPOSPHERE temperature.That is unabashedly idiotic and proof you are completely 100% clueless.Ok - let's start from the beginning. Which region of the earth did the SSW occur? Nope, been there, done that.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 12, 2010 7:18:41 GMT
The SSW refers the the STRATOSPHERE. It had no effect on the TROPOSPHERE temperature.That is unabashedly idiotic and proof you are completely 100% clueless.Ok - let's start from the beginning. Which region of the earth did the SSW occur? Nope, been there, done that. Nope, been there, done that.No you haven't. At no point did you explain why the SSW should increase troposphere anomalies. I vaguely remember Ed Berry expressing an opinion on the issue at the time. The relevant post is here. weatherclimatelink.blogspot.com/2009/02/deep-in-strange-brew-of-la-nina-and-ssw.htmlNow I must confess I know very little about Ed Berry but he seems to be held in high regard by posters on this blog. This is from an exchange with another poster: Harold Ambler said... Hi Ed. I have read that the principal effect on weather from an SSW is a displacement of the polar jet. The explanation went that said displacement then led to cold weather in the American Northeast and other locations (among them Europe). That makes sense to me, and it looks like you take the same view.
On the other hand, and it's a big other hand, there has been a very impressive spike of lower troposphere temperatures in the last 5 weeks almost exactly contemporaneous with the SSW. Logic says that the tropospheric spike could not have been induced by the SSW, and yet they happen to be happening at the same time...
Have you reflected on this? Do you have any thoughts to share? Ed Berry responds as follows: For the SSW, cooling of the polar troposphere is completely consistent. If anything, the SSW should result in COOLING of the polar troposphere - though, on a global scale, this is not likely to amount to much. Your logic and understanding is flawed. The SSW was not responsible for the rise in tropospheric anomalies in 2009. It was, though, probably responsible for cold conditions across Europe and N. America in early 2009.
|
|