|
Post by icefisher on May 18, 2009 16:17:36 GMT
That brings out the main question. Being the models are so wrong on something so obviously checked, does that indicate that they are wrong period?If the models are wrong - and I suspect they probably are - where do you think this leaves us. It certainly doesn't blow the "greenhouse effect" theory out of the water. That still stands and is accepted by all serious climate-related scientists including sceptics such as thingy Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Jack Barrett et al. Given that fact - should we continue to emit ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide? Is that even possible? Aren't we at peak oil? The guys mentioned above (RL, RS, PM & JB) don't see a serious problem and believe any warming will be modest and within the bounds of natural variability. Others disagree and use models (& some ice age evidence) to support their argument. Now, the models could easily be wrong, but they could be wrong in lots of ways. They could be wrong but still end up with the right result. LOL! Yeah why not give them a passing grade. . . .for effort! ROTFLMAO!! However, it's most likely that the models over-estimate any feedback. By overestimate do you mean like in miss the right sign? The debate is, and always has been, about feedback. Whatever else you might read in these threads, this is where the serious, responsible disagreement lies. The rest is just speculation. By overestimate do you mean like maybe even miss the right sign? In a nutshell: we can probably expect some warming over the coming decades, but that could easily be offset by a long term negative PDO/AMO or strong volcanic eruption. I can actually buy into that somewhat. . . .but its just slightly better than a guess. Kind of like predicting one will die at 83 instead of an actuarial average of 84. Some people will get excited about that and change their entire lifestyle and others will not. Today we are faced with the same kind of tyranny our forefathers fought against . . . .having our lives controlled by others of a different religion.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on May 22, 2009 7:12:55 GMT
HadCRU data still not out. It normally appears around 18th. of the month. I wonder if they are having difficulty reconciling the data.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on May 22, 2009 13:59:29 GMT
HAD/CRU seems to have come in at 0.388 C. According to my calculations, if the average for 2009 is going to be 0.44, as per Smith et al, then for the rest of 2009, HAD/CRU monthly data will have to average 0.474 C.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on May 22, 2009 18:48:20 GMT
The running mean HadCRU data for the first 4 months of each year is as follows The year end figure is shown in brackets after the 4 month data 1998 0.60 (0.52) 1999 0.38 (0.29) 2000 0.34* (0.27) 2001 0.38 (0.41)** 2002 0.55 (0.46) 2003 0.45 (0.47)** 2004 0.52 (0.45) 2005 0.45 (0.48)** 2006 0.37* (0.42)** 2007 0.52 (0.41) 2008 0.25* (0.32)** 2009 0.37 (April 0.388) I started to keep track of the HadCRU data because the UK Met Office predict that "2009 will be one of the TOP-FIVE warmest years on record." * So far, 2009 is one of the TOP-NINE warmest years ** 5 out of 11 year end figures are higher than first 4 months. We might see a repeat of 2001, 2006 or 2008. To make the fifth warmest year 2009 must exceed 2004 at 0.45 The Met Office also claim that "at least half of the years after 2009 will exceed the warmest year currently on record." This means FIVE of the next ten years must exceed 1998 which HADcru recorded as 0.526 (Wow!) This view is echoed by Joe Romm at climateprogress.org/2007/12/04/global-warming-bet-arctic-ice-melting/ He has offered a bet to any takers. “The Arctic will be ice free by 2020”. His confidence is based upon a Science Magazine article predicting an accelerated warming over the next several years. Their research suggests “at least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record“
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on May 25, 2009 18:17:33 GMT
Jim Who are Smith et al.? Where do they make their claim? Neil
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on May 25, 2009 19:33:31 GMT
neilhemp writes "Jim Who are Smith et al.? Where do they make their claim? Neil "
Try Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Globla Climate Model" Smith et al Science 10 August 2007 Vol 317 pp 796 to 799.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on May 26, 2009 13:49:44 GMT
Thanks very much Jim. Now I know the source of these statements regarding "half of the next 10 years warmer than 1998"
It was just about warm enough for a barbeque last weekend and they are predicting similar weather here in the UK for the coming weekend. Perhaps Hadley centre are going to be right for 2009.
Time will tell
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 26, 2009 15:15:40 GMT
Totally off topic - but does anyone know what's happened to the "Kevin ....." thread?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 26, 2009 15:18:05 GMT
Thanks very much Jim. Now I know the source of these statements regarding "half of the next 10 years warmer than 1998" It was just about warm enough for a barbeque last weekend and they are predicting similar weather here in the UK for the coming weekend. Perhaps Hadley centre are going to be right for 2009. Time will tell Glancing through Wunderground's numbers for London for the past month, it appears that about 80% of your morning lows have been well below average and afternoon highs slightly below average. Is that about right?
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 26, 2009 16:24:27 GMT
Glancing through Wunderground's numbers for London for the past month, it appears that about 80% of your morning lows have been well below average and afternoon highs slightly below average.
Is that about right?
No.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 26, 2009 18:56:13 GMT
Glancing through Wunderground's numbers for London for the past month, it appears that about 80% of your morning lows have been well below average and afternoon highs slightly below average.
Is that about right? No. OK, fair enough. It must be that Wunderground's measuring period is too brief. What have the past 30 days in London been like?
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 27, 2009 8:08:38 GMT
OK, fair enough. It must be that Wunderground's measuring period is too brief. What have the past 30 days in London been like?
Yes that is a point. If they're making comparisons to very recent years then May 2009 would seem pretty average.
|
|
|
Post by astrodragon on May 27, 2009 13:42:58 GMT
Glancing through Wunderground's numbers for London for the past month, it appears that about 80% of your morning lows have been well below average and afternoon highs slightly below average.
Is that about right? No. OK, fair enough. It must be that Wunderground's measuring period is too brief. What have the past 30 days in London been like? Actually, your pretty much correct. you have to understand that glc seems to inhabit his own personal microclimate that doesn't apply to anyone else. Its been pretty chilly in the mornnigs (a bit west of london here), in fact we still have the duvet on the bed, I've never kept it on this late in the year. Its been very pleasant during the day, because we've had lots of sun, but it hasnt been terribly warm. The first warm weekend we've had was this weekend, when (outside the London UHI) it got up to 21, however its just gone down to 16-17 today... The cool nights hav again been due to clear weather - its been unusually clear here for the last 6 weeks, for once the Atlantic weather systems haven't made it over the SE of the country. Its forecast to go up to 22 this weekend, but as the forecasts are inaccurate even over a 24 hour period, I wait to be convinced.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 27, 2009 16:24:09 GMT
Actually, your pretty much correct. you have to understand that glc seems to inhabit his own personal microclimate that doesn't apply to anyone else.You have to understand that it's MAY. Up until recently it wasn't unusual to have frost in May. Snow showers, sleet, cold weather I can remember them all happening during May. May 2009 has had above average temperatures. Not scorching - but certainly above the long term average. The first warm weekend we've had was this weekend, when (outside the London UHI) it got up to 21, however its just gone down to 16-17 today...The average Maximum May temperature where I live (in the Midlands) is 16.2 deg. There is an old English saying which goes as follows: "Ne'er cast a clout till May be out"There are other variations to this. But basically a "clout" refers to clothing or a fragment of cloth. There was good reason to follow this advice particularly if you were planning to go walking in the Lake District during the old whit week-end 20 or 30 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on May 27, 2009 19:49:26 GMT
glc writes ""Ne'er cast a clout till May be out""
Sorry, glc, the May does not refer to the month. It should be "may" and refers to the flower.
|
|