|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 23, 2011 15:03:54 GMT
I posted this prediction in March 2008 while all the excitement about the big drop in temperatures in January and February, that glc refers to, was going on: OK I was a little bit high for 2010, but 2010 certainly disproved the "coolers" position then. I expect the same of today, as temperatures next year and the year after will be generally higher than the average of the 2001-2010 period. Good dig of data Steve. I will also predict temps: 1. 2011 will come in average anomoly....HadCrut....0.1C below the 2000-2010 average. 2. 2012 will come in average anomoly....HacCrut..0.24C below 3. 2013 will come in average anomoly....HadCrut....0.31 Below 2000-2010 average. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 23, 2011 15:40:44 GMT
CO2 'controls' climate over much longer timescales. The effect of an increase of a few ppm over a 10 year period, say, may well get 'lost' due to natural climate fluctuations. In there is the thread that disassembles CAGW. The claim of 10 years ago by the experts, the team, was CAGW had overpowered natural change and that short of a major volcanic eruption warming would be continuous and accelerating. We continue to see the team and their sycophants parrot this claim even in the face of CO2 induced climate effects being overwhelmed by natural variation. Your admission of the effect of getting "lost due to natural climate fluctuations" proves beyond a doubt that the attribution of warming to CO2 via physical calculation was fatally flawed. A travesty in fact. Now of course negative proof does not prove CO2 has no effect it merely proves that the experts and their claims have been falsified as to attribution of modern warming to CO2 as opposed to natural change. For some strange reason you and the team continue to cling to the notion that all warming is CO2 induced and all "getting lost" is natural. An absurd parsing of climate effects!!!In fact, the work of experts who did not buy into the claim that the science was settled and before Mother Nature proved the team did not in fact understand Mother Nature, led to the non-scientific construction of hockey sticks in a failed attempt to reconstruct climate history. This was done to artificially construct a history consistent with the notion that natural change was incapable of overwhelming CO2 induced effects and by corollary incapable of explaining modern warming. It was therefore claimed by the so-called experts that it would be impossible for CO2 induced climate change to "get lost" in natural climate variation as natural change was too weak to account for modern warming. That has been falsified GLC and it is falsified without the necessity of cooling. Getting lost is a sufficient condition for that.
Cooling may happen but I see no evidence of it at the moment. Physically and mathematically in the presence of in excess of 300 years of warming from 1680/90 to 1995/2005 the arguments you use of long term warming trends it will likely take in excess of 300 years for you see a cooling trend you like. If you reverse plot modern warming into a future cooling trend of the same strength around about the year 2350 the trend should finally go negative. But even that isn't likely. Ice core charts suggest there is a natural resistance to cooling not seen on the warming leg, thus it might take 680 years to cool down what took 320 years to warm (assuming a skewed warming cooling cycle as seen in ice cores and a 1000 year climate cycle). Of course it may also be the case that warming is not done and all we are currently experiencing is a little bump in the road of continuing natural warming since the current solar cycle (assuming solar cycles are good harbinger of natural warming and cooling) isn't yet of a magnitude of the Maunder Minimum but instead is mimicking the low solar activity that occurred just prior to WWI. But there is no way for us to know that because as I pointed out in the first part, the experts do not understand natural variation. Their claims it was too weak to overwhelm CO2 induced warming was falsified by global warming "getting lost" in natural variation. A real travesty indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 23, 2011 16:52:49 GMT
Icefisher,
You know that that is complete and utter nonsense, yet you keep parroting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 23, 2011 18:38:21 GMT
Icefisher,
In there is the thread that disassembles CAGW. The claim of 10 years ago by the experts, the team, was CAGW had overpowered natural change and that short of a major volcanic eruption warming would be continuous and accelerating.
[/color] You know that that is complete and utter nonsense, yet you keep parroting it.[/size][/quote] The team dreams up stuff with no calculations like how heat goes to the bottom of the ocean and assumes heat coming up from the bottom of the ocean had no role in the modern history of warming. They claimed natural variation cannot be the explanation for modern warming as they parade out TSI calculations in support of the supposition. Lets face it Steve the case for CAGW has folded up like the over priced cheap suit it was. Akasofu is right in placing "LIA recovery?" on the underlying slope of warming over the past 150 years. Until that is ruled out there is no compelling science case for CAGW, models not withstanding. Cooling is not a necessary condition either. Simply the ability of natural variation to eliminate warming is more than sufficient to demonstrate that the modern warming can and is to some unknown extent responsible for the climate change we have seen. Santer's attribution work is kindergarten stuff, a guy with obvious mathematical abilities but completely lacking in common sense. That is not smart as we can build robots that do work like that. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 23, 2011 18:52:50 GMT
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 238
|
Post by jtom on Jan 23, 2011 19:53:19 GMT
GLC:
The degree of above average global temps dipped a few years back. As far as I can determine (you can research it as well as I), there has not been a month where the global temps were below the 30-year average going back to Nov '92. A January below average has not been seen since 1976.
CO2 may raise global temps, but other natural forces can lower, and are lowering, the global temps to below average. That can not be denied. All I am saying is that unless someone can model the behavior of those other forces, no one predict future climate.
If those forces are short in duration, then we should see global warming resume as predicted, assuming CO2 is a significant force. If they are long lasting forces, then all bets of a warmer future are off, regardless of any warming contribution of CO2. That should be clear to all but religious adherents of GW.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 23, 2011 21:34:12 GMT
GLC:
The degree of above average global temps dipped a few years back. As far as I can determine (you can research it as well as I), there has not been a month where the global temps were below the 30-year average going back to Nov '92. A January below average has not been seen since 1976.
I'm not sure which data you are referring to so it's not possible for me to comment. Wht makes you think January will be below average - and, more to the point - which average?
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 23, 2011 21:40:03 GMT
Physically and mathematically in the presence of in excess of 300 years of warming from 1680/90 to 1995/2005 the arguments you use of long term warming trends it will likely take in excess of 300 years for you see a cooling trend you like.
1. You have no evidence whatsoever that there was an uninterrupted warming trend between "1680/90" and "1995/2005". In fact, there clearly wasn't since much of the the 1700s were warmer than the 1800s.
2. Show me a cooling trend of 15 to 20 years which is statisitically significant and I'll agree it's cooling.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 24, 2011 1:39:40 GMT
Icefisher, You know that that is complete and utter nonsense, yet you keep parroting it. You know that that is complete and utter nonsense, yet you keep parroting it.
It took 30 seconds to find this. We're told most of the warming the last 30 years is due to AGW and you say it is complete and utter nonsense for someone to quote that? Global warming surpassed natural cycles in fueling 2005 hurricane seasonScienceDaily (June 22, 2006) — Global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor, according to a new analysis by Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study will appear in the June 27 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union.
What do the facts bear out? Trenberth is a typical AGW alarmist and "peer review" is a joke as it is largely controlled by pro-IPCC/AGW zealots. www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ What's next steve, AGW climate scientists didn't predict disappearing/decreasing snow extent and cold in Europe and the U.S.? |
|
|
|
Post by william on Jan 24, 2011 1:47:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2011 2:26:51 GMT
2. Show me a cooling trend of 15 to 20 years which is statisitically significant and I'll agree it's cooling. How many tenths of a degree is necessary in your mind to show statistical significance? |
|
|
|
Post by richdo on Jan 24, 2011 2:35:57 GMT
I expect the same of today, as temperatures next year and the year after will be generally higher than the average of the 2001-2010 period. Steve, just so I'm clear on this, are you talking about 2012&13 or 2011&12? I would assume the former, but "next year" is a bit ambiguous. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 24, 2011 3:32:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Jan 24, 2011 4:40:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 24, 2011 4:52:46 GMT
I noticed that as well. Frm what I can figure out, both are correct. Joe is using a recent anomoly for the temp metric, and with current temps, he is totally correct. To show the warming as more.....ahem......noticeable over Greenland, I think NCAR used a temp anomoly that is an older one. If you look at the current 30year temp anomoly, Greenland/Actic is not as hot as it looks on that link. With that said tho......both the NE Arctic and Greenland have had above seasonal averages this winter. Greenland is very similiar to the warmth of the 1940's period, so all in all not unusual. |
|
