|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2010 17:48:44 GMT
I also think that during the next 200 years we are going to approach the temps of the Holocene Optimum and that will be a boon for mankind. This would follow other periods where the interglacial has exceeded 12K years.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2010 19:45:42 GMT
The only problem is he could explain any temperature record as "natural variation". If temperature had fallen since 1950 Akasofu could claim it is explained by natural variation. If it went flat, again he could claim natural variation. It's a non-explaination. By explaining everything it explains nothing. But nothing can be accurately explained without accurately understanding natural variation because it is always there and if you don't have a clue what it is and what it is doing you can't argue that it is because of something that never happened before. I think it already has over the past few decades. If not for co2 and other greenhouse gases rising I would have expected the Earth's temperature to have gone flat or even fallen since the 60s. That's what I think the impact of natural variation would have done. In which case the sunspots would have kept correlating with global temperature.
See the explanation I gave to GLC in the Solar Climate Influence thread at #35. There is no reason to expect it to be going down when an apparent solar grand maximum is just winding down. One should expect change though if low solar activity predictions pan out for more than a cycle. The funny thing is that skeptics can't make their minds up. One day they will argue that the "team" have bumped up the warming in the data sparse early 20th century to make it look like more warming has happened. But another day they argue the "team" have suppressed early 20th century warming to exagerate warming in the late 20th century and make the graph more curve like. It's heads the team lose, tails they can't win.
Actually I haven't ever heard that. I have heard suggestions of suppressing the EARLY 20th century warming and pumping up late 20th century warming. We see potential the late 20th century exaggerations in the differences between satellite data and surface data. And we have seen the negative value added adjustments over the past few decades made by what are now known as being all members of the TEAM. For such suppositions to have any credibility you need to show opportunity. Otherwise all you can do is doubt stuff when it methods and data are withheld and that applies equally to skeptics and warmists. By your own figures the rate of warming has doubled from the past 60 years to the past 30. UAH also shows closer to 0.14C/decade, not 0.13C you've rounded the wrong way. More importantly RSS shows 0.16C/decade. Seems like you've coincidentally gone for the lowest value possible.
.13, .14, .16 in comparison to the projected .30 that is needed to get to the IPCC projections are mere hair splitting as they are all bouncing around less than half the needed rate. In addition, the last 30 would be expected to be more than the previous 30 because of ocean oscillations thus the real rate is likely less than the .14/.16 as the cool phase of oscillation begins to take hold. As I pointed out it is likely somewhere currently between .05 and .06 for the entire century depending upon how much fudging the TEAM did. One would expect more currently and so do you so you have constructed this silly model to use an alleged decreasing solar effect over the past 30 years. PDO has trended negative in the past 30 years. Ie the "warm PDO" has been reducing. That implies the PDO has had a cooling influence in the past 30 years. That is assuming the PDO has much influence on global temperature at all and isn't just primarily a change in the distribution of temperatures per region.
Heck it might take 30 years for a decreasing solar effect to start to show up fully. The two major dips at the beginning of the previous two centuries BOTH came at the end of 3 below average cycles. We have yet to have a below average cycle in this go around.
On the otherhand if the so-far cooling trend PDO stops declining and even then starts increasing, we'd expect a faster rate of warming. Even by your own argument about PDO dominance (which I do not buy) you should be predicting warming trends to increase in coming decades, not decrease because PDO cannot keep declining forever.
We could be 15 years away before the PDO starts trending upwards if history is to believed. And that would put us maybe 30 years away before it actually registers positive on the anomaly scale.
We are only just through a deep solar minimum and ENSO trend has been declining since 2002. So we are just through a cool biased period. So every reason I expect a step change in upwards in global temperature through to 2015.
And if not that results in falsification of your theory. We are now 15 years into statistically insignificant climate change. 2015 would make it 20 years. So I guess that must be your minimum definition of climate. Thats fine by me and seems a fair measure. The La Nina thats coming should complete by the end of 2011 and then you have 4 years in which to build a new step.
|
|