|
Post by magellan on Aug 27, 2010 2:31:25 GMT
No it doesn't make a difference. Both charts are from NOAA. You aren't sure NOAA used the same baseline for the two comparisons? Please glc, don't humor us. Read what it says in the top RH corner of each chart. Read what it says in the top RH corner of each chart. I understand what it means. Do you? Before you dig a hole you'll never get out of, think real hard before replying again. Much embarrassment can be avoided that way. Otherwise this may be the nail in the coffin that assures me you haven't a clue what anomalies are, in the mathematical sense. If you were being sincere in asking the question, my apologies, however you have said in the past I don't understand anomalies and appear to be moving in that direction. This will settle it once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 27, 2010 7:31:59 GMT
I understand what it means. Do you?
Not entirely - no. That's why I asked the question. I was actually asking Walterdnes who normally has a fair idea on these things. The problam is we only have the charts and one or two captions so it's not totally clear what the charts represent. Do they represent anomalies with respect to a set baseline period. If so -what is it? It doesn't say. [Since you understand what it means you can probably enlighten us] However ...
The top RH corner of each plot states a period for the "initial conditions", let's call it the IC period. What is the purpose of the IC period? It suggests the possibility that the anomalies in the charts are relative to the IC period. If so, then a comparison of the 2 charts will probably not be valid because they will be representing anomalies relative to 2 different baseline periods.
If August 2007 (IC period for 2007/08) is much cooler (or warmer) than August 2010 (IC period for 2010/11) then any comparison would be totally meaningless. Obviously if August 2007 and August 2010 were similar (regionally as well as globally) then a comparison of the forecasted months might be more meaningful.
I'll ignore the rest of your post. Suffice to say - I know exactly what anomalies, how they are calculated and how to convert anomalies from one base period to another.
Before you dig a hole you'll never get out of, think real hard before replying again. Much embarrassment can be avoided that way.
Otherwise this may be the nail in the coffin that assures me you haven't a clue what anomalies are, in the mathematical sense. If you were being sincere in asking the question, my apologies, however you have said in the past I don't understand anomalies and appear to be moving in that direction. This will settle it once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 27, 2010 12:01:38 GMT
I understand what it means. Do you?Not entirely - no. That's why I asked the question. I was actually asking Walterdnes who normally has a fair idea on these things. The problam is we only have the charts and one or two captions so it's not totally clear what the charts represent. Do they represent anomalies with respect to a set baseline period. If so -what is it? It doesn't say. [Since you understand what it means you can probably enlighten us] However ... The top RH corner of each plot states a period for the "initial conditions", let's call it the IC period. What is the purpose of the IC period? It suggests the possibility that the anomalies in the charts are relative to the IC period. If so, then a comparison of the 2 charts will probably not be valid because they will be representing anomalies relative to 2 different baseline periods. If August 2007 (IC period for 2007/08) is much cooler (or warmer) than August 2010 (IC period for 2010/11) then any comparison would be totally meaningless. Obviously if August 2007 and August 2010 were similar (regionally as well as globally) then a comparison of the forecasted months might be more meaningful. I'll ignore the rest of your post. Suffice to say - I know exactly what anomalies, how they are calculated and how to convert anomalies from one base period to another. Before you dig a hole you'll never get out of, think real hard before replying again. Much embarrassment can be avoided that way.
Otherwise this may be the nail in the coffin that assures me you haven't a clue what anomalies are, in the mathematical sense. If you were being sincere in asking the question, my apologies, however you have said in the past I don't understand anomalies and appear to be moving in that direction. This will settle it once and for all. The IC is what the models use to make forecasts. As conditions change (evolve if you will), so does the forecast. If you look back and compare earlier forecasts, with each passing month 2011 gets colder. The base period does not change. It would be impossible to set the baseline using just 10 days in August to compute anomalies for any other period except......the same 10 days in August in another year, but even that wouldn't make much sense. More than likely NOAA uses 1961-1990, 1981-2010 or something similar for their model baseline period. Bottom line: a temperature crash is coming with the net result being no rise in the revered "long term" trend. In fact when this is ENSO phase is all said and done, I'll wager a net cooling and hopefully the end of having to endure the AGW nonsense. Let's just sit back and watch the show.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 27, 2010 15:18:05 GMT
Not entirely - no. That's why I asked the question. I was actually asking Walterdnes who normally has a fair idea on these things. The problam is we only have the charts and one or two captions so it's not totally clear what the charts represent. Do they represent anomalies with respect to a set baseline period. If so -what is it? It doesn't say. [Since you understand what it means you can probably enlighten us] However ...
The top RH corner of each plot states a period for the "initial conditions", let's call it the IC period. What is the purpose of the IC period? It suggests the possibility that the anomalies in the charts are relative to the IC period. If so, then a comparison of the 2 charts will probably not be valid because they will be representing anomalies relative to 2 different baseline periods. It would be pretty silly for them to do it that way and they don't. Baseline period of anomalies is 1971 to 2000. IC only indicates a 10 day period for initial conditions as a starting point for the models. "Forecasts are from initial conditions of the last 30 days, with 4 runs from each day. Three ensembles of 40 forecast members are produced. The 1st ensebmle (E1) is from the earliest 10 days, the 2nd ensemble (E2) from the second earliest 10 days, and 3rd ensemble (E3) from the latest 10 days. For SST indicies, the ensemble of all 120 forecast members (Eall) is also produced. E3 has been used as the forecast from the CFS, as it is from the most recent initial conditions and is expected to be the most accurate statistically. The additional ensembles (E1, E2, and Eall) can be used to check the forecast consistency. Anomalies are with respect to 1981-2006 hindcast climatology, except for Nino SSTs for which a bias correction with 1981-2006 average is first applied and then observed climatlogy of 1971-2000 is used to define anomalies."Do you need an explanation of what initial conditions are? If August 2007 (IC period for 2007/08) is much cooler (or warmer) than August 2010 (IC period for 2010/11) then any comparison would be totally meaningless. Obviously if August 2007 and August 2010 were similar (regionally as well as globally) then a comparison of the forecasted months might be more meaningful. Huh? All forecasts are only meaningful to the extent that skill has been demonstrated. Other than that I would think they are comparable so its not clear what you are yammering about here.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 27, 2010 17:08:55 GMT
Baseline period of anomalies is 1971 to 2000. IC only indicates a 10 day period for initial conditions as a starting point for the models.
Ok - so it's 1971-2000.
Do you need an explanation of what initial conditions are?
It's alright, thanks. I know what initial conditions are.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 27, 2010 17:11:29 GMT
Bottom line: a temperature crash is coming with the net result being no rise in the revered "long term" trend. In fact when this is ENSO phase is all said and done, I'll wager a net cooling and hopefully the end of having to endure the AGW nonsense
There will be a decline in temperatures for about 12 to 18 months. Following which temperatures will recover just as they did after 2008.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 27, 2010 17:16:09 GMT
Bottom line: a temperature crash is coming with the net result being no rise in the revered "long term" trend. In fact when this is ENSO phase is all said and done, I'll wager a net cooling and hopefully the end of having to endure the AGW nonsenseThere will be a decline in temperatures for about 12 to 18 months. Following which temperatures will recover just as they did after 2008. Time will tell. From observations tho, I don't think temps will recover to 2010 levels, nor exceed 1998 levels.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 27, 2010 19:22:10 GMT
Bottom line: a temperature crash is coming with the net result being no rise in the revered "long term" trend. In fact when this is ENSO phase is all said and done, I'll wager a net cooling and hopefully the end of having to endure the AGW nonsenseThere will be a decline in temperatures for about 12 to 18 months. Following which temperatures will recover just as they did after 2008. There will be a decline in temperatures for about 12 to 18 months. If it does that, we're in big trouble! And as you didn't define what "recovery" means, then any increase from the bottom next year could be a validation. Well, reasonable people understand temperatures do not move in one direction for long periods of time neither daily, monthly or yearly, especially after a deep drop or rise. Nonetheless, maybe in another 12 years we'll be able to say "it's almost as warm as 2010". There's going to be some catching up to do. Recall“The Climate Prediction Center recently released its equatorial upper ocean heat content for April 2010. One of the primary areas that they focus on is the equatorial heat content averaged over the area from 180-100W. The decrease in upper ocean heat content from March to April was 1C, which is the largest decrease in equatorial upper ocean heat content in this area since the CPC began keeping records of this in 1979. The upwelling phase of a Kelvin wave was likely somewhat responsible for this significant cooling. It seems like just about every statistical and dynamical model is calling for ENSO to dissipate over the next month or two as well, so it’s probable that we will see a transition to neutral conditions shortly. I have attached a spreadsheet showing upper ocean heat content data from CPC since 1979. In case you’re interested, the correlation between April upper ocean heat content from 180-100W and August-October Nino 3.4 is an impressive 0.75 over the years from 1979-2009. That's a large amount of heat loss. How does CO2 warm the oceans again?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 27, 2010 21:26:43 GMT
Basically as glc said, the La Nina will only have a temporary cooling effect over the longterm warming trend. Once the La Nina is gone it's cooling effect is gone. Total solar irradiance is no longer falling so I expect we are already in the presence of a step change upward in global temperature similar to the step upward that is now apparent in the early 2000s. Of course we'll only be able to notice this a few years after the event when we have enough data to spot a step change has occurred above ENSO variation. I have a super la nina built into this graph, but I doubt the actual La Nina will be that deep or long lasting:
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 27, 2010 21:41:26 GMT
Its VALIDATION time
A nice set of forecasts - now we wait and see whose plays out.
I note that we are already in the 'even if it gets colder it will get warmer' level of forecast.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 27, 2010 23:33:01 GMT
Time will tell. From observations tho, I don't think temps will recover to 2010 levels, nor exceed 1998 levels. These guys think natural variation only goes downward. I agree we probably won't see 2010 soon again. Maybe not for a decade maybe multiple decades. 2010 was forecasted as the super El Nino and measuring by its rise from 2008 it was prodigious, we will soon see what its backside looks like in the next couple of years. If the AGW alarmists had been right it should have blown the 1998 record off the map by .2 of a degree or more. The AGW folks are learning about natural variation but so far they are only acknowledging it always goes downward like with Socold's graphic. The second half of the lesson will be the hard part considering the bad habits they have engrained. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 27, 2010 23:42:00 GMT
Its VALIDATION time
A nice set of forecasts - now we wait and see whose plays out.
I note that we are already in the 'even if it gets colder it will get warmer' level of forecast.Check the UAH temperature plot. The ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) fluctuations are plainly evident but the underlying trend is still up. Why do you think this time might be different. This is from a World Climate Report post (Pat Michaels & Chip Knappenburger) in December 1998: That 1998’s extremely warm temperatures were largely confined to one calendar year makes the annual record high temperature 1998 has established quite a difficult one to break.
If we were of a betting sort (and there are some nasty rumors going around that we are), we would be willing to wager that the 10-year period beginning in January 1998 and extending through December 2007 will show a statistically significant downward trend in the monthly satellite record of global temperatures.
Surely such a wager should sound interesting to those who think the planetary temperature will increase several tenths of a degree during that period.
No reasonable offers refused... They would hav lost their bet. Be warned!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 28, 2010 0:08:26 GMT
"If the AGW alarmists had been right it should have blown the 1998 record off the map by .2 of a degree or more." The 2010 el nino was only about half the power of the 1998 one. A better comparison would be with the 2003 el nino. www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 28, 2010 0:16:51 GMT
Its VALIDATION time
A nice set of forecasts - now we wait and see whose plays out.
I note that we are already in the 'even if it gets colder it will get warmer' level of forecast.Check the UAH temperature plot. The ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) fluctuations are plainly evident but the underlying trend is still up. Why do you think this time might be different. This is from a World Climate Report post (Pat Michaels & Chip Knappenburger) in December 1998: That 1998’s extremely warm temperatures were largely confined to one calendar year makes the annual record high temperature 1998 has established quite a difficult one to break.
If we were of a betting sort (and there are some nasty rumors going around that we are), we would be willing to wager that the 10-year period beginning in January 1998 and extending through December 2007 will show a statistically significant downward trend in the monthly satellite record of global temperatures.
Surely such a wager should sound interesting to those who think the planetary temperature will increase several tenths of a degree during that period.
No reasonable offers refused... They would hav lost their bet. Be warned! If you can't cite your source, don't post it! If anyone had wagered using IPCC climate models, would they have won? How about finding quotes from the other side what they predicted would happen after 1998. With you being a skeptic and all it is probably from the same source you cut and pasted. I really tried to be nice glc, but frankly for you do even conjure up something as daffy as thinking "initial conditions" meant a baseline period was being established by using 10 days in August 2010 to compare with January 2011 was....to be nice again....enlightening.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 28, 2010 0:32:46 GMT
Its VALIDATION time
A nice set of forecasts - now we wait and see whose plays out.
I note that we are already in the 'even if it gets colder it will get warmer' level of forecast.Check the UAH temperature plot. The ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) fluctuations are plainly evident but the underlying trend is still up. Why do you think this time might be different. This is from a World Climate Report post (Pat Michaels & Chip Knappenburger) in December 1998: That 1998’s extremely warm temperatures were largely confined to one calendar year makes the annual record high temperature 1998 has established quite a difficult one to break.
If we were of a betting sort (and there are some nasty rumors going around that we are), we would be willing to wager that the 10-year period beginning in January 1998 and extending through December 2007 will show a statistically significant downward trend in the monthly satellite record of global temperatures.
Surely such a wager should sound interesting to those who think the planetary temperature will increase several tenths of a degree during that period.
No reasonable offers refused... They would hav lost their bet. Be warned! "Why do you think this time might be different. "I have not said that it will be different - I spend my time validating and testing what people claim. Your current position is that regardless of what occurs naturally there will be an 'underlying warming trend'. SoCold puts it slightly differently expecting an immediate rebound to a hockey stick exponential rise. We have others like Joe Bastardi and NOAA appearing to favor a really steep drop with Bastardi talking of return to 1980 or even 1970 temperatures. That will make your claim of an underlying temperature rise difficult to live with - but I have no doubt you will. It would appear we have negative Pacific and Atlantic oscillations which we were told would be overwhelmed by the radiative forcing of CO 2 which has apparently continued to rise above the worst hellfire Hansen predictions. So one side says brutal winter and cold summer - the other side says continuing to warm regardless of 'natural forcings'. So great - we have a year or so of validation - It is unfortunate that on the AGW side whatever happens there is a model for it. But lets see whose forecast appears more correct by December and then by July 2011. True scientists don't have 'sides' they look for the truth of how and why the system behaves as it does.
|
|