|
Post by karlox on Mar 9, 2010 9:28:11 GMT
Eduardo has political beliefs similar to mine. He is independent and does not trust government in all forms. I do not know political parties in Spain or Argentina. If he were in US he would not be Democrat or Republican. It´s not that we shouldn´t have political beliefs but rather that we should be able to keep such thoughts -as being mostly prejudice thinking any case- away for the pursuing of knowledge. In that sense I like the word ´independence´ meaning people here in Spain or in USA or Argentina that are able to question reality and politicians talks and gestures regardless they might even be nominally close to our own positions. And now... Is global warming accelarating? (tricky tricky thread and topic, seems somehow a call for ´deniers´ only, don´t you think?)
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 9, 2010 13:10:29 GMT
I must confess before the AGW Inquisition Great Jury that I currently bear some positions close to the heretic gang blamed and named as ´Deniers´, opinions and doubts which were not present in my clear and pure AGW and fully Ecologist soul prior to the finding of these Forum and threads withing SolarCycle24.com I confess as well -this time before this heretic gang of yours which I´ve had humbly joined - that simplifying discussions in excess, mixing concepts such as climate and weather, continously introducing your own political ideas likes-dislikes hates and preferences with what we should above all try to keep as a logical and scientifically based discussion in order to prevail over some AGW´s manipulation, does not help your-mine ´cause´ as now me might be suscessfully reproducing what we are honestly critizicing: manipulation, alarmism and propaganda. To let you all know -my new ´deniers´friends- which were the key points that turned my mind from being a Warmist Freak into heretics: - If unable to explain what exactly induced recent climate oscillations within Mankind History, such as Medieval Optimum followed by Little Ice Age -ask Icelandics Vikings, someone wisely said here- If unable, furthermore, to predict next coming climate ´natural´oscillation... and admitting -as we now know- that such changes might sharply take place within only a few years or decades... How can we then make founded predictions on Global Temperature Trends for the next decades? -When it warms somewhere it cools somewhere nearby... that´s all my ´scientific´background and knowledge -I admit it´s not much- but... what do we all and AL mean by Global (mean) Temperature rise or decrease? It´s quite clear to me that for different opinions held in this Forum by different people, many of us do not really know and understand what and how is it really being measured as to get to a simple two digits figure that we take and swear in as a Global Temperature Reference which allows us -gods of knowledge- to predict a 1C, 2C or -2C temps increase or decrease in the next decades ... and that -we the people- really don´t even know what it would mean in case someone´s right, and for sure someone´s right!.. since we are covering all possible bets and got nearly all the Lottery tickets here, someone´s must be right... -AGW is not as much a Great Conspiracy but rather the coverup of the big geostrategic political game we are playing against ´uncontrolled´ emerging China and others. And worst of all: it won´t work . Simple ideas and scares such as Global Warming or ´Obama´s turning us into Socialism´ or ´being now on the verge of a new Ice-Age´ are suppossedly easier to ´sell´to the great public for its more convenient manipulation than explaining people a much more complex scenario which surely bears economic, political, scientific and social arguments and data for just trying to predict ´how we all will be and do within just a few years´ what -in my opinion- is really worrying and not due to temps supposed raises indeed. Best thing we can do is question everything, ask for answers, demand them, and above all think, think and think by ourselves and learn to discriminate solid-ground based opinions, unpolluted by politics, from manipulations from either side... (this is valid for xtreme ´deniers´as well for xtreme AGWs) I read this with some interest, and I think I understand what is troubling you ( and others ) in the debate over AGW in particular, and science generally. Science has never been as pure and fact based as many would like to think. It has always been unavoidably entwined with the psychology of human evolution and fundamental needs (see Maslow and others ). I would suggest some reading that may be of help in this exploration of the philosophy of science: David Hume, Karl Popper, and many other great minds have discussed this aspect of scientific enquiry for centuries, and there is much yet to learn. Many of these treatises should be available in your native tongue, but here's an extraction of one by David Hume; AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. on-line in English. www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/8echu10h.htm
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 9, 2010 23:12:27 GMT
To get back to the topic of the thread .... From Joe Bastardi of Accuweather's European Blog.... "Now, I know you don't get the pro site, but I showed the reason on a visual presentation as to why a big drop in the Earth's temp is coming over the next two years, so we get lower over a three-month running period by 2012 than we have been. What I did was hook temps up against the El Ninos since 1997-98 and showed what happens after the ninos when the pdo is cold. There was a major drop after 1997-98. The 2006-07 nino did not peak as high as 1997-98, but the drop behind it was a bit colder than the drop behind 1997-98. This nino peaked global temps but did not get warmer than 1997-98. I think showed the projected temps off modeling of the enso and sure enough most modeling is seeing THE IDEA THAT I HAVE HAD that thins are going to cool in a big way globally later this summer through next year! It will be interesting to see if the UKMET model, which still painting the Earth very warm, but now looking colder, in the coming shorter term, catches the upcoming cold on a global scale later. There are models seeing it already, and I become emboldened when an idea I have starts showing up."www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 10, 2010 4:04:46 GMT
To get back to the topic of the thread .... From Joe Bastardi of Accuweather's European Blog.... "Now, I know you don't get the pro site, but I showed the reason on a visual presentation as to why a big drop in the Earth's temp is coming over the next two years, so we get lower over a three-month running period by 2012 than we have been. What I did was hook temps up against the El Ninos since 1997-98 and showed what happens after the ninos when the pdo is cold. There was a major drop after 1997-98. The 2006-07 nino did not peak as high as 1997-98, but the drop behind it was a bit colder than the drop behind 1997-98. This nino peaked global temps but did not get warmer than 1997-98. I think showed the projected temps off modeling of the enso and sure enough most modeling is seeing THE IDEA THAT I HAVE HAD that thins are going to cool in a big way globally later this summer through next year! It will be interesting to see if the UKMET model, which still painting the Earth very warm, but now looking colder, in the coming shorter term, catches the upcoming cold on a global scale later. There are models seeing it already, and I become emboldened when an idea I have starts showing up."www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweatherYes yes. I came to my own WAG conclusion agreeing with Bastardi above based on patterns in LT data over oceans, then when looking at the SST data it is quite obvious this isn't an indication of things warming up, but a set up for a big drop. The higher and more persistent the LT spike, the harder it will fall; it is unavoidable. The ramp up in 97 leading to Jan thru April started much earlier than 2009. There is a huge difference between now and 1998: OHC in the upper 700m. It is dropping whereas in 1998 it was still moving upward during that period (yes I'm aware of the 2002-2003 ARGO transition step change). Since 2003 however, after several reanalyses it seems pretty clear it is in a downward path. Here are my original graphs from Oct: Compare to 1997-1998. Note the long ramp up and persistence. And since Bastardi mentioned it, 2007. Yes it did repeat in 09/10 in a big way! Note the departure month of May marked I'll post an updated chart thru Feb. I think a few may find it somewhat interesting once they see the pattern emerging into the rest of the year.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 10, 2010 11:52:38 GMT
Is it not true we've been told drier places will get drier and wetter places will get wetter? Yet, as is the case with each AGW pronouncement, the opposite is found, but there's always an explanation, an out. This winter is a good example. Warmers say lots of snow is evidence for AGW. Of course it is hogwash. In 2007 when it didn't snow much they said the same thing. So which is it? Less snow or more snow is "consistent with" global warming? Another example is Africa. Last year it was reported by Nat Geo the Sahara is greening. The very last line in that article is "Half the models follow a wetter trend, and half a drier trend." Would someone explain to me how the hell AGW, a supposed hypothesis, can ever be tested when no matter what happens it is always consistent with a model or some study? The reasoning that drier climates will become drier and wetter climates will become wetter in global warming has puzzled me (and many climate scientists) somewhat. There seems to be very little solid evidence for that. Your last quote CLEARLY states the problem with regional climate predictions, and especially with local precipitation, from which we can conclude that currently, REGIONAL climate models can produce many interesting possible effects, but have little forecasting value, nor should any results of these models be taken literally. With AGW there will be places where it is possible that it will become colder (beyond the "natural variability") due to changing weather patterns (circulation). So if you want to debunk AGW you would have to wait and see if the temperature significantly drops below the natural variability of the models (you need a few decades of at least slight cooling to make it likely that, from global temperatures only, there is likely something wrong with our current understanding of AGW). Then we would need to either adjust AGW (e.g. "is there something wrong with the climate sensitivity to LW radiation" or "is the natural variability somehow larger than previously thought") or if really dramatic, and in the absence of major natural cooling (primary volcanic eruptions, and maybe a prolonged period of extremely low solar activity, although the latter is probably not enough for our current understanding), "is the theory of GW somehow completely wrong". The "global warming is excelerating" studies are usually balanced by "global warming is slowing" studies, depending on what parameters they have looked into. I wouldn't take any of them too seriously at the moment, but that's just my personal opinion.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 10, 2010 12:12:07 GMT
Some vague cooling statements from Bastardi. Anyway, HOW cold is it going to get next winter until 2012. I don't see that specified, so then he's going to be correct that after this spike, there will be another drop, which is sure going to happen (La Nina...). He's talking about a colder 3 month average than we have been. SINCE WHEN? Since the 3 months before that? Since the drop after the 1998 El Nino? Since the satellite measurements? Since the LIA? Since the last ice age? Anyway, he believes that in 2030 we are back to the 1970s temps. That is testible . I hope he will be around long enough to see what happens (that would surely be enough cooling to falsify AGW in absence of any really DRAMATIC events). I wouldn't bet on it getting as "cold" as in the 1970 globally.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 10, 2010 13:29:43 GMT
With the sun turning back off, when it should be storming to a strong max according to the consensus of just a few months ago, makes me wonder if we will not feeling lucky if temps drop back into the 1970's pattern.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 10, 2010 17:29:30 GMT
More vague cooling statements from the Bastard . Anyway, HOW cold is it going to get next winter until 2012. I don't see that specified, so then he's going to be correct that after this spike, there will be another drop, which is sure going to happen (La Nina...). He's talking about a colder 3 month average than we have been. SINCE WHEN? Since the 3 months before that? Since the drop after the 1998 El Nino? Since the satellite measurements? Since the LIA? Since the last ice age? Anyway, he believes that in 2030 we are back to the 1970s temps. That is testible . I hope he will be around long enough to see what happens (that would surely be enough cooling to falsify AGW in absence of any really DRAMATIC events). I wouldn't bet on it. " I wouldn't bet on it" I certainly wouldn't bet against Joe Bastardi - he has been right a lot more than some forecasters I have worked with I always remember many years ago, one senior forecaster looking at a printed out synoptic chart and saying - " that is what the models and computer say is going to happen - but this" - pause to draw new fronts on chart - " is what is actually going to happen." And he was right. The problem is that now we have many forecasters who are not trained to forecast - they are trained to be computer operators serving the simulations and emulations - the models. The modelers are creating generic models and are mainly meteorological software engineers not forecasters. As soon as this chaotic climate moves out of the patterns around the attractors of the computer age (the last 40 years) everyone will be lost. Perhaps the UK Met Office continual failures in (and now abandonment of) long range forecasting is an indicator of problems to come.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 10, 2010 18:14:43 GMT
AJ writes: "More vague cooling statements from the Bastard."
You have outdone yourself in maladroit pidgin. Not to say that you won't beat your own record one of these days. When I lived and worked in France I never dared try a pun on a person's name that might be perceived as offensive. Jamais, jamais, jamais.
As you're generally advocating AGW dogma, it would be wise of me to let you bring your side down with your disrespectful demeanor. So, on second thought, carry on. ;D
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Mar 10, 2010 20:37:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 10, 2010 20:46:16 GMT
It would appear that he does not want an 'independent review' he wants a 'team' style 'peer review' After all he says: ""Let me be clear - the threat posed by climate change is real," said Mr Ban, speaking at UN headquarters in New York. "I have seen no credible evidence that challenges the main conclusions of [the IPCC's 2007] report.""So presumably the 'independent' review conclusions have been pre-written for them
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 10, 2010 21:45:06 GMT
It would appear that he does not want an 'independent review' he wants a 'team' style 'peer review' After all he says: ""Let me be clear - the threat posed by climate change is real," said Mr Ban, speaking at UN headquarters in New York. "I have seen no credible evidence that challenges the main conclusions of [the IPCC's 2007] report.""So presumably the 'independent' review conclusions have been pre-written for them I'd love to get look in his office. I bet he's got one of those 3 monkeys statues on his desk. He did say he hadn't seen any credible ( there's a subjective term if I ever heard one ) evidence.......
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 10, 2010 21:59:41 GMT
It would appear that he does not want an 'independent review' he wants a 'team' style 'peer review' After all he says: ""Let me be clear - the threat posed by climate change is real," said Mr Ban, speaking at UN headquarters in New York. "I have seen no credible evidence that challenges the main conclusions of [the IPCC's 2007] report.""So presumably the 'independent' review conclusions have been pre-written for them Well that will certainly save a lot of money, work, and thinking. Although it will have a high cost for the integrity of those shoving it through. Are they truly this clueless?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 10, 2010 22:52:47 GMT
It would appear that he does not want an 'independent review' he wants a 'team' style 'peer review' After all he says: ""Let me be clear - the threat posed by climate change is real," said Mr Ban, speaking at UN headquarters in New York. "I have seen no credible evidence that challenges the main conclusions of [the IPCC's 2007] report.""So presumably the 'independent' review conclusions have been pre-written for them Well that will certainly save a lot of money, work, and thinking. Although it will have a high cost for the integrity of those shoving it through. Are they truly this clueless? "Are they truly this clueless?" - they are politicians
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 10, 2010 23:16:21 GMT
Well that will certainly save a lot of money, work, and thinking. Although it will have a high cost for the integrity of those shoving it through. Are they truly this clueless? "Are they truly this clueless?" - they are politicians Maybe they will be able to verify that layer of CO2 that Chu referred to.
|
|