|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 11, 2014 23:23:22 GMT
Thanks. Will have to read the whole paper. My list is getting longer now.....LOL. Time wise, a bit short on time but will get it printed out so I can digest it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 12, 2014 2:42:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Feb 12, 2014 8:25:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 12, 2014 9:22:39 GMT
Flags up fisher! I think your not fully taking on board the findings of both the ocean overturning study ( 0.2) and the fact that the new temp reconstructions including the Arctic input show no real drop in the rate of warming?( for the folk who claim 'no warming' this must mean 0.2c too???)
This means ( to me) that any Super Nino event will bump temps higher than 98's hike?
Any normal 'Nino' will ,like the stunted one of 2010, will challenge the global high record temps by releasing the 'normal warming rate', the nino warmth and the input from the Arctic ( which was a full 13c above norm ,for the whole basin, on Feb 3rd).
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Feb 12, 2014 13:55:26 GMT
Flags up fisher! I think your not fully taking on board the findings of both the ocean overturning study ( 0.2) and the fact that the new temp reconstructions including the Arctic input show no real drop in the rate of warming?( for the folk who claim 'no warming' this must mean 0.2c too???) This means ( to me) that any Super Nino event will bump temps higher than 98's hike? Any normal 'Nino' will ,like the stunted one of 2010, will challenge the global high record temps by releasing the 'normal warming rate', the nino warmth and the input from the Arctic ( which was a full 13c above norm ,for the whole basin, on Feb 3rd). Aren't the Warmies so cute when they get their hopes up!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 12, 2014 15:59:18 GMT
Flags up fisher! I think your not fully taking on board the findings of both the ocean overturning study ( 0.2) and the fact that the new temp reconstructions including the Arctic input show no real drop in the rate of warming?( for the folk who claim 'no warming' this must mean 0.2c too???) This means ( to me) that any Super Nino event will bump temps higher than 98's hike? Any normal 'Nino' will ,like the stunted one of 2010, will challenge the global high record temps by releasing the 'normal warming rate', the nino warmth and the input from the Arctic ( which was a full 13c above norm ,for the whole basin, on Feb 3rd). Aren't the Warmies so cute when they get their hopes up! theory is great gray one. The proof is in the pudding. CAGW is on a 17 year jag of bad predictions, its now more years of bad predictions than good predictions. In 1979, the climate spoke warming and the global warming theory was born.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 12, 2014 18:05:34 GMT
Will the Hadcrut3 1998 temperature record be broken soon? The Hadcrut3 anomaly for 1998 was 0.548C. A least squares calculation shows the global warming trend for the 1977-2007 period was increasing by 0.017C per year, so in 2007 the trend temperature vs 1998 was 9 years times 0.017 per year or 0.153C higher. An identical super El Nino in 2007 would then give a 0.548 + 0.153 or 0.701C anomaly. And since I believe the global temperature trend is and will remain flat for 2007-2037, then the 0.701C would hold throughout the period for a 1998-like Super El Nino target.
During the ocean current cooling phase, Super El Ninos are unlikely. Also, the 1998 El Nino aligned almost perfectly with the calendar year resulting in a maximum temperature effect. So I believe it’s certainly possible, but still less than a 50-50 chance that the 1998 Hadcrut3 record will be broken in the next 20 years unless the Met Office “readjusts” their bases for calculating the anomaly as they are prone to do. If it’s close, they won’t want to miss the opportunity.
Graywolf predicts a warming of over 1C per decade. So with the passage of 15 years since the 1998 record, a similar El Nino should result in an anomaly of 1.5 + 0.548 or an anomaly in excess of 2C. On that basis even La Nina years should easily break the record. A Super El Nino like the one in 1998 which generates only a marginal new record (0.701C) would prove that the 2007-2037 pause is continuing.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 13, 2014 9:35:05 GMT
Had a good look through my post and I see no "1c per decade"?
98' no longer holds the crown for record global temp.
Seeing as the noughties were warmer than the 90's I'm not able to see any 'pause' in warming? I do see a slowdown in the record rates we were warming at ( but then only in the old 3 measures and not in the new measure including Arctic warmth?).
Personally ,should we lose the Arctic Sea ice then we will see extreme ,year on year, temp increases.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 13, 2014 10:58:13 GMT
Good point Duwayne! Quite simply the temperature record, despite hundreds of greened scientists mulling over the global temperature record for decades, diligently fitting it to modeled notions of how the world works, still have not been able to produce warming step changes during the cool phase of the ocean oscillations, which historically have lasted for 33 years or more. this dates back into the 19th century and the beginning of the global instrument record. Quite arguably the only time the cool phase did not accomplish a cancellation of warm phase warming was in the most recent cold phase from 1945 to 1979. Two factors are at work in reducing the cooling, 1) the adjustments made to the temperature record by the Pope's scientists, and 2) A solar grand maximum. These two forces in combination may explain entirely the late 20th century warming and if not entirely undoubtedly explain a good portion of it. History says it should have been warming since about 2008/2009. Its normal for the warming of the past several solar cycles to collapse to near zero during solar minimum but the sojourn there has been brief. This evidence of a solar impact is really next to undeniable. With the unimaginatively huge heat sink the ocean represents and the fact just the surface ocean, upper 150 meters roughly takes 7 to 12 years to adjust, the solar impact of 5 years of solar decline is almost certainly greatly muted by this much longer term surface ocean adjustment time. Its not possible to say to what degree the ocean controls surface temperatures. But clouds are attributed by science of offsetting the greenhouse effect by about 70 to 75% for their shading effect alone, though as far as I know nobody has estimated how much of the greenhouse effect is provided by clouds in the first place as nobody and I mean nobody is suggesting we regulate ocean evaporation.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 13, 2014 16:44:40 GMT
Had a good look through my post and I see no "1c per decade"? 98' no longer holds the crown for record global temp. Seeing as the noughties were warmer than the 90's I'm not able to see any 'pause' in warming? I do see a slowdown in the record rates we were warming at ( but then only in the old 3 measures and not in the new measure including Arctic warmth?). Personally ,should we lose the Arctic Sea ice then we will see extreme ,year on year, temp increases. Graywolf, your forecast on the Global Warming Predictions thread on Feb 9 was “2040 +3c on todays temps.” which I interpreted as more than 1C per decade. Tell me what you meant. The “new” global temperature series add in (exaggerated) warming in the Arctic and ignore the cooling in the Antarctic. But even then Hanssen, Trenberth and the Met Office agree there has been a 15 year pause. You expressed concern (on the Arctic ice thread) that the loss of Arctic ice will decrease global albedo since sea water absorbs more radiation than ice and cause temperatures to rise. You ignore the Antarctic ice is growing at a rate equal to the Arctic ice loss. And the edge of the Antarctic ice is much further from South pole than the Arctic ice is from the North Pole. Due to the declining angle of the sun’s rays as the distance from the poles increase, there is significantly more albedo gain from growing ice covering sea water in the Antarctic than there is loss from the Arctic.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 16, 2014 10:58:51 GMT
Antarctic sea ice is growing as fast as Arctic losses??? how can we even talk if you actually believe such tosh? The antarctic peninsula is warming faster that the accelerated warming we see across the north pole and yet you believe the Antarctic is cooling? As for a 3c temp hike. Have you looked at the papers looking a rapid climate change when exiting glacial periods? We frequently see 7 to 10c flips over a period of decades. Seeing as we halted our orbital descent into the next minor glaciation, and re started ourselves into an unprecedented interglacial, why would we not expect 'abrupt climate shift' once we start losing albedo/ The Arctic is first but we must remember that past interglacial periods that showed similat GHG forcings had west Antarctica 'ice free' and Greenland 2/3rds deglaciated so the albedo impacts doesn't end with the Arctic sea ice melt out? You need also remember that beneath the ice sheets is the 'hibernating' part of the carbon cycle that had atmospheric GHG's so high back then. melt the ice and you re animate that portion of the carbon cycle. this would stand at 120ppm for the last time we 'naturally' had CO2 at 400ppm. Then you need think of a world at 520ppm. Antarctica first put on ice when atmospheric CO2 dropped below 450ppm so a planet at 520ppm would seem to insist on an ice free Antarctica ( and a further 50ppm CO2 released). The upcoming nino will straddle 2014 and 15 so that is two years of warm forcing across the Arctic. This is just in time for the return of the 'perfect melt storm' synoptic in 2017 ( ten years since the last appearance). Such a sequence brings us to the end of perrenial ice cover of the Arctic and enters us into extensive 'weather weirding' across the planet. a 3c temp hike will be the least of your problems!
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 16, 2014 17:21:34 GMT
Graywolf, so you confirm that your prediction of global temperature growth is 1C per decade in the near term. Here’s the history of global sea ice area during the satellite era. There’s not much change and certainly not enough to offset the fact that the albedo change due to sea ice differences is greater in the Antarctic than in the Arctic. The 7 to 10 degree warming over a period of decades you report must have been due to natural causes. Do flat temperatures for 15 years while CO2 has climbed indicate that we are entering such a period? You obviously agree that ENSO is an important factor in global temperatures. Cool PDO periods like the current one have historically resulted in more La Nina’s than El Ninos. These cool PDOs tend to last about 30 years. Isn’t it logical that we’re not in for much warming over the next 20 years, but instead might experience flat global temperatures like those during the last cool PDO in 1947-1977 when CO2 growth was similar?
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Feb 16, 2014 18:23:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 16, 2014 18:58:59 GMT
Thanks Cutty. I was going to ask.......so I will ask.
Graywolf: Where did you get the idea that the overall temp of Antarctica has had a warming trend? I have not read one piece of literature since Steig that Antarctica is warming. And we all know Steig's paper was ......mmmmm........trying to be nice......questionable.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 16, 2014 19:00:14 GMT
And for the life of me.......I just can't see a large El Nino developing this year. I actually WANT it to develop....but it doesn't look like my want is going to be fulfilled.
But if it does, I will cheer it on.
|
|