|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 4, 2010 0:17:49 GMT
It does mean that the pressure differential is moving into high values. 1998 appears to have been considered an interesting year
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Sept 4, 2010 5:02:50 GMT
At the moment, central and eastern Australia is enjoying the most exraordinary rainfall.
Alice springs has had 67 cms of rain this year, mostly recently. It is green , not desert, in most of Australia now. The locust swarms are just starting up!
I would say that this strongly supports the notion that La Ninyas are good for our rainfall, especially when supported by a sputtering solar cycle.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 4, 2010 8:58:20 GMT
Not so long ago on this blog, regular monthly threads would be started which would discuss the recent month's global anomalies. About a year ago this stopped (I can't think why). However, as someone who accepts the existence of climate cycles, I believe they may make a return shortly. My prediction is that the next monthly temperature thread will make an appearance in Jan/Feb 2011. Unlike others who would never use El Nino to establish a positive trend when previously did not exist. Nah, you'd never do that..... Unlike others who would never use El Nino to establish a positive trend when previously did not exist. Nah, you'd never do that.....1. I used ALL the data to show that there was a positive trend - unlike a number of bloggers who only use data up to the end of 2008. 2. I wouldn't normally use a trend of less that ~20 years but did so in this case to illustrate the fact that the dip in 2008 was not due to the 'weak' solar minimum as a lot of people were suggesting at the time. 3. I've never started a thread discussion relating to a monthly anomaly. It will be around 2020 before we can draw any conclusions about the post-1998 trend. Even then a flat trend wouldn't necessarily indicate anything because we might have entered a cool ocean cycle which has negated the warming - but not reversed it.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 4, 2010 12:55:06 GMT
"Even then a flat trend wouldn't necessarily indicate anything because we might have entered a cool ocean cycle which has negated the warming - but not reversed it."
So out of interest what would you say about a cooling trend?
Joe Bastardi appears to have the opinion that things could return to the 1980's levels.
You also really have to say where you are measuring the 'trend' from. Personally I would like the 'Holocene average' but that is open to question. So perhaps you should identify what you feel is a good start date - just so we have something testable.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 4, 2010 18:06:58 GMT
So out of interest what would you say about a cooling trend?
Depends on the magnitude of the trend.
Joe Bastardi appears to have the opinion that things could return to the 1980's levels.
Lots of things "could" happen.
You also really have to say where you are measuring the 'trend' from. Personally I would like the 'Holocene average' but that is open to question.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I suppose I was referring to the 1998-2020 trend. What has the "holocene average" got to do with anything.
So perhaps you should identify what you feel is a good start date - just so we have something testable.
What are we supposed to be testing?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 4, 2010 23:42:21 GMT
So out of interest what would you say about a cooling trend? Depends on the magnitude of the trend. Joe Bastardi appears to have the opinion that things could return to the 1980's levels.Lots of things "could" happen. You also really have to say where you are measuring the 'trend' from. Personally I would like the 'Holocene average' but that is open to question. I'm not sure what you mean by this. I suppose I was referring to the 1998-2020 trend. What has the "holocene average" got to do with anything. So perhaps you should identify what you feel is a good start date - just so we have something testable.What are we supposed to be testing? " You also really have to say where you are measuring the 'trend' from. Personally I would like the 'Holocene average' but that is open to question.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I suppose I was referring to the 1998-2020 trend. What has the "holocene average" got to do with anything. "
It would appear that you, along with many other people, seem to think that 'normal climate' is the climate that you have experienced in your lifetime or that of the 'satellite age' - which is probably not a lot different in your case I would think. Yet the current climate is not what would have been considered normal in the 1700's. But apparently that cold climate is what AGW proponents consider 'ideal' unsullied by AGW. Most people would consider it extremely cold. The Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warm Periods were warmer possibly similar if not higher than the levels of today that are making the AGW proponents panic. But these were seen to be extremely beneficial to the people living then. Even those Roman and Medieval temperatures are lower than the 'Holocene Optimum' and only just reached the Holocene average temperature. So if you are panicking about temperatures 'being higher than normal' you really must define what ' normal' is and why you think that climate temperature is 'normal'. Currently we appear to be well below the Holocene average temperatures. The Holocene average is of course well above the average temperature of the Earth if the preceding ice ages are taken into account. So - what do YOU consider 'normal climate temperatures' glc? Its a simple question - but you need to justify why you think you have chosen correctly.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Sept 5, 2010 6:24:06 GMT
Latest up date on current La Nina shows it to be one of the strongest on record. See last item on the page below:- www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/"Given the continued drop in the MEI into strong territory, La Niña conditions are now guaranteed into 2011. In fact, the empirical odds are better than 50/50 that it will remain strong (in the lowest 10%-tile) through the next six months. Based on four out of six strong La Niña cases that continued right into the following winter, one can argue similar odds for at least weak La Niña conditions into the 2011-12 winter. "
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 5, 2010 9:10:28 GMT
Nautonnier
You appear to have done an 'icefisher' post.
It would appear that you, along with many other people, seem to think that 'normal climate' is the climate that you have experienced in your lifetime or that of the 'satellite age' - which is probably not a lot different in your case I would think.
It would appear that you have either completely misunderstood what I was saying or you don't actually understand what, for example, the term "1998-2020 trend" refers to.
If I speculate about the 1998-2020 trend being flat or falling or rising I mean that the temperatures over that period will remain the same or drop or rise over the 1998-2020 period. The anomaly baseline period is irrelevant.
Yet the current climate is not what would have been considered normal in the 1700's. But apparently that cold climate is what AGW proponents consider 'ideal' unsullied by AGW. Most people would consider it extremely cold.
All completely irrelevant.
The Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warm Periods were warmer possibly similar if not higher than the levels of today that are making the AGW proponents panic. But these were seen to be extremely beneficial to the people living then. Even those Roman and Medieval temperatures are lower than the 'Holocene Optimum' and only just reached the Holocene average temperature.
I don't like to be repetitive but this again is totally and utterly irrelevant to the point as to whether temperatures over the 1998-2020 period (or any other period) will rise or fall.
So if you are panicking about temperatures 'being higher than normal' you really must define what 'normal' is and why you think that climate temperature is 'normal'.
In the context of the earlier discussion I do not need to define what 'normal' is because I was speculating about what conclusions could be made if the temperature trend over the 1998-2020 period was flat.
Currently we appear to be well below the Holocene average temperatures. The Holocene average is of course well above the average temperature of the Earth if the preceding ice ages are taken into account.
So - what do YOU consider 'normal climate temperatures' glc?
Its a simple question - but you need to justify why you think you have chosen correctly.
Can I now assume you've completely changed the point of the earlier discussion. If not, then I'm left wondering what on earth any of this has got to do with the 1998-2020 (or the 2000-2030 if you prefer) trend.
I will make just one comment, though. The current climate is not the concern. It is what might happen. Even another 2 deg rise is 'acceptable' to most scientists. The 1998-2020 trend just might be a small piece of the jigsaw which helps us to assess the possible extent of future climate change. In particular, it might help us to better understand the magnitude of various forcings - not just GHGs - but solar and PDO as well. It's probably wrong to refer to the PDO as a forcing but you get the idea.
For what it's worth, I'm not "panicking about temperatures" at all.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 5, 2010 13:23:28 GMT
There are times glc when we are having two different conversations. You always want to draw people into detailed hypothetical arguments about such things as trend rates (I will avoid the cherry picked dates trigger ) etc.
But I try to return to first principles so my first position is WHY are we here discussing this at all?
It is because there are people who claim to earnestly believe that a 'climate catastrophe' (® Hansen/Gore) is going to happen if the world returns to temperatures that are lower than have previously existed with CO2 levels that are not as high as have previously existed in the current intergalcial.
So before we get into your preferred level of hypothetical argument the first thing to settle is whether there will be a climate catastrophe or not caused by the current rate of global emissions of CO2.
Your position seems to be from your response that there will not be a catastrophe. OK - I believe that is the opinion of everyone except those panicked by people trying to scare them to gain power or money.
So even if your ideas are correct of "an underlying slow rise in temperatures" this will not cause catastrophe as the world has been at these temperatures before with the same or higher CO2 levels in this interglacial. In many cases the increase in temperatures and rain may actually be a benefit.
So why should anyone expend time discussing the temperature 'trend' between two dates of your choosing?
The only reason I can see to be here at all is to validate or falsify the claims of the people who are trying to scare the world into giving them money and power. But as they do not make any testable statements and any falsification is claimed to actually be proof of their catastrophic claims this tends to be difficult.
Against this background of increasing taxation based on these untestable claims we see that the world energy content by some measures such as ocean heat content appears to be reducing in a way that previously would have been taken as a falsification of the warming hypotheses. I will be interested to see what the next 6 months brings.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 5, 2010 14:57:28 GMT
There are times glc when we are having two different conversations. You always want to draw people into detailed hypothetical arguments about such things as trend rates (I will avoid the cherry picked dates trigger ) etc. But I try to return to first principles so my first position is WHY are we here discussing this at all? It is because there are people who claim to earnestly believe that a 'climate catastrophe' (® Hansen/Gore) is going to happen if the world returns to temperatures that are lower than have previously existed with CO 2 levels that are not as high as have previously existed in the current intergalcial. So before we get into your preferred level of hypothetical argument the first thing to settle is whether there will be a climate catastrophe or not caused by the current rate of global emissions of CO 2. Your position seems to be from your response that there will not be a catastrophe. OK - I believe that is the opinion of everyone except those panicked by people trying to scare them to gain power or money. So even if your ideas are correct of "an underlying slow rise in temperatures" this will not cause catastrophe as the world has been at these temperatures before with the same or higher CO 2 levels in this interglacial. In many cases the increase in temperatures and rain may actually be a benefit. So why should anyone expend time discussing the temperature 'trend' between two dates of your choosing? The only reason I can see to be here at all is to validate or falsify the claims of the people who are trying to scare the world into giving them money and power. But as they do not make any testable statements and any falsification is claimed to actually be proof of their catastrophic claims this tends to be difficult. Against this background of increasing taxation based on these untestable claims we see that the world energy content by some measures such as ocean heat content appears to be reducing in a way that previously would have been taken as a falsification of the warming hypotheses. I will be interested to see what the next 6 months brings. Nautonnier If I could summarise to your post it seems to be this: Why should we bother looking at short term (e.g. 20-30 year) trends if we don't think catastrophic climate change is going to happen. There are at least 2 reasons for why I think we should. 1. I can't be sure that catastrophic climate change won't happen and further data during a time of apparent change (i.e. solar, PDO) may help to reinforce (or not) my initial thinking. 2. There are a number of competing hypotheses and, again, the next 20 or 30 years may help to identify which of these is the most correct - and which forcing is the most dominant.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 5, 2010 19:37:03 GMT
Why should we bother looking at short term (e.g. 20-30 year) trends if we don't think catastrophic climate change is going to happen. There are at least 2 reasons for why I think we should. 1. I can't be sure that catastrophic climate change won't happen and further data during a time of apparent change (i.e. solar, PDO) may help to reinforce (or not) my initial thinking. 2. There are a number of competing hypotheses and, again, the next 20 or 30 years may help to identify which of these is the most correct - and which forcing is the most dominant. I kind of agree. If indeed it remains flat for 30 years we will have learned that the IPCC is full of it and they will have not gotten their .2degC+/decade increases they are currently predicting. But we will not have learned which forcing is more dominant because we will not have necessarily learned what caused the level 30 years. Saying we have .2degC/decade counterbalanced by a negative .2degC/decade negative forcing remains speculative until we learn more a lot more about both forcings. And that is why I think we are spending too much on modeling (wiggle matching) and not enough on hard observation and experimentation with the most important variables.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Sept 5, 2010 20:05:58 GMT
And that is why I think we are spending too much on modeling (wiggle matching) and not enough on hard observation and experimentation with the most important variables. That depends on what your goal is really. Their goal is to push a political agenda. The "science" is just their "proof" it is necessary.
|
|
|
Post by yohoho on Sept 6, 2010 19:47:01 GMT
From Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) webpage (as of 9/3/2010): "The most recent (July-August) MEI value shows a continued drop from earlier this year, reaching -1.81, or 0.64 sigma below last month's value, and 2.35 standard deviations below April-May, both record-fast drops for this time of year. In fact, the three-month drop set a new all-time record for any time of year, beating a 2.33 sigma drop in 1998. The most recent MEI rank (2nd lowest) is clearly below the 10%-tile threshold for strong La Niña MEI rankings for this season. One has to go back to 1955 to find stronger La Niña conditions for this time of year in the MEI record, and back to September-October 1975 for lower MEI values at any time of year."
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 7, 2010 9:42:26 GMT
From Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) webpage (as of 9/3/2010):
So do you expect temperatures to drop below those in 1964 or even 1988, for example?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 7, 2010 11:54:16 GMT
Assuming that it's possible to get La Ninas as strong as the 1998 El Nino then 1988 may just be reachable. 1964 would require something about double the size though.
|
|