|
Post by glc on Nov 13, 2009 18:21:31 GMT
You've made many conflicting statements, but that one sticks out.
What sticks out? Where is the conflicting statement. It's true that there is ~0.5 deg didfference between La Nina and El Nino. How does that conflict with anything I wrote earlier.
Current satellite data indicates both the NH and SH ocean temps are less than 2006 with the tropics similar
do you have a link to this satellite data?
Just so there can be no obfuscation/misinterpretation, let's make it clear now that amplitude (one month anomaly) is not equivalent to a mean average, so please no self adulation if in January global temps eclipse 2007 levels. It means little.
Fine. I'm not sure what 2007 has to do with anything. I don't remember mentioning 2007.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 13, 2009 21:01:36 GMT
You've made many conflicting statements, but that one sticks out. What sticks out? Where is the conflicting statement. It's true that there is ~0.5 deg didfference between La Nina and El Nino. How does that conflict with anything I wrote earlier. Current satellite data indicates both the NH and SH ocean temps are less than 2006 with the tropics similardo you have a link to this satellite data? Just so there can be no obfuscation/misinterpretation, let's make it clear now that amplitude (one month anomaly) is not equivalent to a mean average, so please no self adulation if in January global temps eclipse 2007 levels. It means little. Fine. I'm not sure what 2007 has to do with anything. I don't remember mentioning 2007. You've jumped from 2010/2011 exceeding 1998 to being within .1 of 1998 to "record temperature year", which I'd assume is the same as exceeding 1998. Nowhere will you find where I made specific predictions other than the months following the SSW last December, which turned turned out correctly. Satellite data: vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.ltFine. I'm not sure what 2007 has to do with anything. I don't remember mentioning 2007 2007's amplitude was second only to 1998, however 2005 had a higher yearly average, as did 2002 and 2003 wasn't far behind with a much lower month high. So that come January/February 2010 we won't be surprised if it exceeds Jan 2007. As El Nino has strengthened going into November, keep in mind the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Any hopes of there being a 'Super El Nino' however are dashed. Up down, up down....that's what it does, where it leads to is dependent on what the oceans are doing. El Nino = release of heat La Nina = gain of heat The net result over time is the important measure. I see it as the loss of heat winning the battle thus far. BTW, ENSO drives PDO. PDO does not determine global surface temperatures.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 14, 2009 1:20:01 GMT
You've jumped from 2010/2011 exceeding 1998 to being within .1 of 1998 to "record temperature year", which I'd assume is the same as exceeding 1998. Nowhere will you find where I made specific predictions other than the months following the SSW last December, which turned turned out correctly.
Would you care to explain this?
SSW refers to Sudden Stratospheric Warming which happened in a very limited region. In your post, you have give me a link to the lower troposphere readings. Why?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 14, 2009 1:33:07 GMT
You've jumped from 2010/2011 exceeding 1998 to being within .1 of 1998 to "record temperature year", which I'd assume is the same as exceeding 1998. Nowhere will you find where I made specific predictions other than the months following the SSW last December, which turned turned out correctly. Would you care to explain this? SSW refers to Sudden Stratospheric Warming which happened in a very limited region. In your post, you have give me a link to the lower troposphere readings. Why? You asked for the satellite data I used for oceans. In the original post in another thread I said it was UAH, what else were you expecting? What happens in the oceans reflects in the LT. What occurs on Land is a result of what happens in the oceans.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 14, 2009 2:20:01 GMT
You asked for the satellite data I used for oceans. In the original post in another thread I said it was UAH, what else were you expecting? What happens in the oceans reflects in the LT. What occurs on Land is a result of what happens in the oceans.
Ok - so let me get this right. You are using the temperature readings in the atmosphere at an altitude of several thousand feet to determine what is currently happening to sea surface temperatures. Don't you think it might be better to use direct measurements of SST.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 14, 2009 4:22:56 GMT
You asked for the satellite data I used for oceans. In the original post in another thread I said it was UAH, what else were you expecting? What happens in the oceans reflects in the LT. What occurs on Land is a result of what happens in the oceans. Ok - so let me get this right. You are using the temperature readings in the atmosphere at an altitude of several thousand feet to determine what is currently happening to sea surface temperatures. Don't you think it might be better to use direct measurements of SST.
Don't you think it might be better to use direct measurements of SST.
Nope. Using satellite LT is much easier because it uses the same data collection process for land/ocean and global from one source. Why would I want to spend untold time gathering all the various ocean data when they don't have the spatial coverage satellites do anyway? Where does the heat in the LT come from? I don't need to know what is currently happening as the cyclical patterns are already established from previous years. The cycles are there, plain as day. If in the next 6 months it does not behave as I think it will, then I'll be the first to point it out; no skin off my back. Even during 97/98 El Nino the pattern exists, but the tropics began ramping up much earlier, the cycle lasts much longer and the tropics descended rapidly after the peak; along with them global temps. If the tropics rise between now and Jan 2010, there is a good likelihood global temps for that month will exceed 2007. It's too early to tell because they went flat in Aug-Sep and dropped a bit in Oct., but probably go back up. We'll know in a few months.
|
|
eric
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by eric on Nov 14, 2009 15:59:01 GMT
glc,
So, over the past 12 years CO2 has continued to climb and global temp has gone down. So I guess the correlation has broken down?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 14, 2009 17:02:50 GMT
glc,
So, over the past 12 years CO2 has continued to climb and global temp has gone down. So I guess the correlation has broken down?
I've explained why it's reasonable to expect short term pauses in warmings - or even slight cooling phases. CO2 is not the only climate driver - no-one ever said it was. If you don't accept the explanation that's up to you.
I'd suggest, though, that you leave it a few more years before deciding that there really is a cooling trend. The 12 year trend includes the 1997/98 El Nino the start of the period and the 2007/08 La Nina at the end. Take an 10 or 11 year trend then you get warming.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Nov 14, 2009 17:41:07 GMT
glc writes "I'd suggest, though, that you leave it a few more years before deciding that there really is a cooling trend. "
I wish we had the time. On an international basis, we can hope that Copenhagen will not result in any drastic attempts to control the emission of CO2. But if the world comes out of recession as quickly as I hope, this may not last. We can keep our fingers crossed that the developed world will not commit itself to binding CO2 emission reductions, but how much time do we have for the Earth to prove that more CO2 does not mean higher global temperatures? This myth that the heat is in the pipeline, and that it is certain that global temperatures are going to rise in the future, is very difficult to counter for the general public; i.e the voters.
|
|
eric
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by eric on Nov 14, 2009 18:44:02 GMT
glc,
That's perfectly reasonable, but when it comes to solar/temperature correlation people don't seem to be willing to look at the many variables that can cause a so-called break down in the direct relationship between solar radiation delta and global temperature delta (in particular, the moderating effect of the oceans).
|
|
|
Post by inverse on Nov 15, 2009 8:26:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by toughluck on Nov 17, 2009 17:08:09 GMT
Are you referring to the L & F-C reconstruction. Just check it out for yourself. Here's a copy of the paper www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.htmlNote that the correlation is just starting to break down in the 1970s. There is considerable divergence after that whereby global temperatures continue to climb while the Solar Cycle Length remains roughly the same. However things really go pear-shaped in the most recent cycle. SC23 lasted ~12.5 years. If we look at L&F-C's plot 12.5 years isn't even marked on the vertical axis. The lowest point is 11.9 years. If the L & F-C correlation is valid then we should be seeing temperature anomalies of -0.5 to -0.7. I am very curious about the correlation of cycle length vs, temperature anomaly as I have seen it referred to every once in a while. A few weeks ago I posted a query on this, and prof. Svaalgard promptly shut it down with a categorical statement that solar cycle length had no correlation with temperature anomaly, and posted a supporting graph. Can we resolve this discrepancy between this article (and the prior one I saw by David Archibald I believe) and Prof. Svaalgard? are they using the same data?, are they processing it the same? I am also not clear on what is being measured: cycle length of the prior cycle vs. the temperature anomaly in the peak of the next cycle, or the average anomaly over the next cycle? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Nov 17, 2009 18:07:48 GMT
toughluck writes "I am also not clear on what is being measured: cycle length of the prior cycle vs. the temperature anomaly in the peak of the next cycle, or the average anomaly over the next cycle? "
I am no expert on this, but let me try and exlain what I think. Somehow the sun controls the earth's climate; how, I have no idea. I suspect no-one else knows either. It relates to the occurrence of grand solar minima and maxima. There are all sorts of numbers associated with these minima and maxima such as sunspots, cycle lengths, magnetic effects etc. Presumably some of these are proxies for what is actually doing the controlling of the earth's climate.
However, until we know how the sun controls the earth's climate, any discussion of what the proxies mean is, IMHO, unlikely to be very fruitful.
|
|