|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 13, 2011 1:39:47 GMT
It's 1C if clouds and water vapor and ice cover do not change. We know water vapor will increase in a warmer world and ice will recede so that actually puts the starting point most likely to be above 1C. We don't know what clouds will do, but the uncertainty cuts both ways. The mid point of uncertainty is above 1C, widening the uncertainty makes higher temperatures just as likely as lower ones. The fact we start anywhere near a value as significant as 1C (more warming than happened over the entire 20th century) is precisely why CO2 is very likely going to dominate global temperature this century. Socold: Are you certain that the ice cores are definitive enough to provide the information you are claiming? When you go back to paleo data, what is the error bar of even one sigma? How many years when doing ice core data from ohhhh....100,000 YBP? I don't know the answer and thought that maybe you do. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 13, 2011 3:35:53 GMT
It's 1C if clouds and water vapor and ice cover do not change. We know water vapor will increase in a warmer world and ice will recede so that actually puts the starting point most likely to be above 1C. We don't know what clouds will do, but the uncertainty cuts both ways. The mid point of uncertainty is above 1C, widening the uncertainty makes higher temperatures just as likely as lower ones. The fact we start anywhere near a value as significant as 1C (more warming than happened over the entire 20th century) is precisely why CO2 is very likely going to dominate global temperature this century. Socold: Are you certain that the ice cores are definitive enough to provide the information you are claiming? When you go back to paleo data, what is the error bar of even one sigma? How many years when doing ice core data from ohhhh....100,000 YBP? I don't know the answer and thought that maybe you do. We're told climate models embody all the physics as we understand them. I asked socold to compile a list of GCM's that correctly simulate climate. It is doubtful he will oblige. A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed dataObservations are the bane of every Warmologist. I'm wondering though if clouds don't reflect sunlight like Dessler must believe? Saying talk is cheap is not just a slogan  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 13, 2011 3:57:01 GMT
Magellan:
Interesting paper. Did a quick read, will have to check the methodology this weekend.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 13, 2011 5:54:54 GMT
Magellan: Interesting paper. Did a quick read, will have to check the methodology this weekend. Thank you. You'll like this one too. Dreary state of precipitation in global modelsKeep in mind while reading the physics are well understood which explains why no two models are the same. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 13, 2011 7:45:44 GMT
It's 1C if clouds and water vapor and ice cover do not change. We know water vapor will increase in a warmer world and ice will recede so that actually puts the starting point most likely to be above 1C.
Those are ALL guesses expressed from modeled hypotheses that have failed to materialize in the big experiment so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 1, 2012 3:16:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 24, 2012 14:45:12 GMT
Interesting  "Sea surface temperature anomalies for the NINO3.4 region of the eastern equatorial Pacific are a commonly used index for the strength, frequency and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. In recent weeks, they have cooled to well below the threshold of El Niño conditions. For the evolution of an El Niño that starts from La Niña conditions, that dip is unusual during the satellite era (since November 1981). See Figure 1. Actually, it’s unusual for any El Niño event over the past 30 years." wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/24/tisdale-asks-hey-whered-the-el-nino-go/#more-71444 |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2012 19:40:15 GMT
 Interesting here is the graph of El Nino developments starting from La Ninas. Note this has not happened before and the closest to it happening was the 2009/10 El Nino. The WUWT post points out this is not the end of El Nino. Such a dip must last long enough to influence a 3 month average. The 2009/10 El Nino got going again after a flat period. However, the La Nina influence appears to be growing still from this point of view. This may be the last hurrah for AGW. Solar max is here its time to put up or shut up. After the max we are into the flat portion of the usual decadal step (2010 being the peak for cycle 24 and 1998 for cycle 23). Since decadal steps are the latest lack of warming theory of the warmists it may be back to the drawing board yet again. Do we now see .005degC/year cooling now for the next 300 years? Or does this mean the .015degC/year warming we have seen during the satellite era become .005degC/year warming, or did an El Nino favored phase of the ENSO oscillation account for the remainder and we get a .015degC/year decline for the coming decade? Inquiring minds want to know. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 2, 2012 1:03:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 2, 2012 3:28:30 GMT
Note the North Pacific, namely the Bering Sea and Strait setting up for another hard cold winter. Mark Serreze called it a fluke in 2010, just "freaky Arctic weather"; not a word about 2012. He also said the Bering Sea is "where the action is", whatever that means. Of course, it isn't "freaky Arctic weather" when a storm breaks up the ice in the eastern part of the Arctic; it's called global warming. The cold PDO prevents El Nino from forming or keeps it a minor event; that is the nature of the beast. If one of our resident AGW experts would explain how the entire Arctic is going to melt ad infinitum if the AMO/NAO cold phase switches on, it would much appreciated. One who aspires to man causing the Arctic to melt must man up and believe the oceans do not affect the Arctic and even if the North Atlantic turns cold as the North Pacific has done in recent years. A reminder: we've been told on multiple occasions in this very forum the PDO theory was bullocks and had nothing to do with whether the Arctic region cooled. We were also told it doesn't affect global temperatures. See, it was not possible because government scientists said AGW has overrun natural variability rendering the PDO neutered. One must assume the North Atlantic will forever remain warm. This needs explaining because the North Pacific did not. This parallels the notion Alaska was on a permanent warming trend with no end in sight (references available). Well guess what, Alaska [the "canary in the coal mine] is going cold again; that mythical Great Pacific Climate Shift is throwing a wrench in the works. In another 5 years we won't hear a peep about the Arctic until the next generation of alarmists.   |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Oct 2, 2012 4:48:25 GMT
Actually that SST anomaly map looks a little like we are in hard decline.
In the last decade we have all talked a little sceptically about CAGW but that map looks like temps are a crumbling.
Should we be very concerned?
|
|
ant42
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 65
|
Post by ant42 on Oct 11, 2012 9:22:35 GMT
David Jones, head of the National climate centre at the BOM in Melbourne, has been sprouting all year about a definite El Nino, and record temps globally. He also always suggests models are superb, and getting better. Ummmm, yeah, ok.  What these AGW morons dont understand is that its ok to try to fool everyone, but you cannot hide history. Go back and see the effects of a cold PDO, when the Bering sea is cold in the NH summer, it feeds down the North Equatorial current and into the basin, and wipes out any Kelvin Waves present. Like these ones.  JMA and CFS saw this and went crazy and predicted a big jump in Nino 3.4...and because climate models are fed full of false assumptions about AGW, they didnt pick the cold PDO signal which killed it off before it got anywhere near the surface or South America. And the point of my post, once the AMO goes cold this will all be something everyone will look back on and laugh about how fruitless the AGW crowd were. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 11, 2012 22:16:03 GMT
The CPC/IRI models are still biased by Hansen. Here is the current plume. Note that the NASA GMAO and the COLA CCSM3 are the two outlier dynamic models in the plume. Both are run by NASA GISS. The statistical UCLA model remains high also. Not certain why but this plume is now about a month out of date and is due to be updated in the coming week. Perhaps the UCLA model uses more older data and less current data than the rest of the statistical models.  Here is NOAAs NWS/NCEP/CPC CFS version 2 model.  It is much lower but it is run several times a week rather than once a month as are the academic models. One would suspect a large reduction in the CPC/IRI models next week an we will have to see how GISS biases the results. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 7, 2013 4:06:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Mar 17, 2013 10:09:37 GMT
I wonder what anyhow represents less than 0.60ºC fluctuation between highest data and lowest data in chart. To what extend that mean figure of NH and SH reflects something at all? Is it 0.50ºC important? I ask this for I don´t know the answers... perhaps could help me. Thanks |
|
