|
Post by tacoman25 on Jun 18, 2009 2:18:54 GMT
Where can I find that graph, Magellan?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 18, 2009 2:55:43 GMT
Where can I find that graph, Magellan? I don't recall the source (shame on me). ClimateAudit is loaded with info on GISS. www.climateaudit.org/?p=1139That particular chart may have come from WUWT. I could be accused of making it up, but the chart is nothing new. It's funny. Warmers argue if the surface trend is lowered due to qualitative adjustments for urbanization etc., it will strengthen the argument for CO2 AGW because then the satellites will be at a higher trend as the models dictate. What they don't get is the satellites would need adjusting as well ;D That is precisely why the keepers of surface station records (Jones, Hansen, Peterson, Karl, Parker) defend their methods and claim UHI etc. are properly accounted for the last 30+ years, which they aren't and can't be. Of course, everybody has their own sense of perfection. Climate "science" is definitely in a league by itself; a lot of sloppy work and political to boot. Recently Phil Jones, who was connected to the formal fraud accusations by Doug Keenan www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm , has back pedaled on China. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warming-by-a-major-climate-scientist/But that's just China. Everywhere else is A-OK.
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Jun 18, 2009 3:17:25 GMT
For April, the adjusted projection versus reported temps were... # UAH projected 0.145 actual 0.091 # GISS projected 0.47 actual 0.44 # Hadley projected 0.383 actual 0.388 Not too shabby for GISS and Hadley, but UAH is a bit of a wildcard. Comparing this to election projections, I wait till 25% of the results come in before making a projection [...deletia...] These are my May projections. UAH = 0.050 - 0.066 * 1.089 / 0.985 = -0.023 GISS = 0.56 - 0.066 * 0.563 / 0.985 = 0.53 Hadley = 0.433 - 0.066 * 0.423 / 0.985 = 0.404 UAH seems to be the least reliable projection. We'll see what happens. April was # UAH projected 0.145 actual 0.091 # GISS projected 0.47 actual 0.44 # Hadley projected 0.383 actual 0.388 May was # UAH projected -0.023 actual 0.043 # GISS projected 0.53 actual 0.55 # Hadley projected 0.404 actual 0.400 I should forget about UAH. Hadley and GISS have come in quite close to my projections. It lookes like June is going to really test my correlations for Hadley and GISS. Given the first 16 days of June, it looks like Hadley and GISS should be virtually identical. It does happen occasionally, but not very often.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 18, 2009 8:38:45 GMT
So now the U.S. is representative of the globe? I thought it was too small to compare. So be it, that's good because the current warming is hardly distinguishable from the 1930's.
The US is obviously not representative because 70% of the globe is covered by oceans and the US only represents ~2% of the total surface area anyway, but if you want to concentrate on the US - fine. I'll repeat the trends. since 1979
UAH +0.26 deg per decade GISS +0.25 deg per decade
So let's cut to the chase , how much of the US warming trend is due to UH or artificial heat contamination.
Next the world. The global trends since 1992 are as follows
UAH +0.22 deg per decade GISS +0.24 deg per decade
How much of the Global warming trend is due to urban heat. Finally the oceans. Since 1975, the accumulation of heat in the oceans has been
4 x 1022 joules per decade
How much of this is due to Urban Heat?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 18, 2009 10:42:53 GMT
P.S.
Now that El Nino is here, we can expect the Big Warm to bust the charts in 2009, and a repeat in 2010, right?
You know that's not what I said. I said 2009 would be warmer than 2008 and that 2010 or 2011 would come within 0.1 deg of the 1998 record. On the other hand, I seem to recall you making some ridiculous cooling claims a few months back - none of which materialised. You seem to have gone a bit quiet on the "dramatic cooling" predictions recently. I can't think why. We're still in a solar minimum and a negative PDO - what's the problem?
Must be all those badly sited surface weather stations that are contaminating the satellite readings 14000 ft above them.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 18, 2009 11:34:27 GMT
P.S.
Now that El Nino is here, we can expect the Big Warm to bust the charts in 2009, and a repeat in 2010, right? You know that's not what I said. I said 2009 would be warmer than 2008 and that 2010 or 2011 would come within 0.1 deg of the 1998 record. On the other hand, I seem to recall you making some ridiculous cooling claims a few months back - none of which materialised. You seem to have gone a bit quiet on the "dramatic cooling" predictions recently. I can't think why. We're still in a solar minimum and a negative PDO - what's the problem? Must be all those badly sited surface weather stations that are contaminating the satellite readings 14000 ft above them. Oh yes, the Sudden Stratospheric warming.......I recall that.....3 month lag.......long cold Spring, late crops, freeze warnings, cold summer. Here in Michigan we've barely made it past 70 degrees through June 18. Have you read the crop reports for Canada lately? Once again, you don't understand that satellites will see UHI and other land surface changes, but they can't go to www.surfacestations.org and look at the poor siting of 70% of the stations. It was quite brave to predict 2009 would be warmer than 2008, a La Nina year, but what's your prediction for June? No doubt you've reviewed the 3 month patterns for the past 30 years. For someone who claimed to be a skeptic of AGW and even had a sock puppet come to your defense, is that why you and your alter ego John Finn go to various blogs and carry the water for AGW? I mean, most of your arguments come straight from the AGW talking point sections. Now I will patiently await your latest rewriting of CO2 AGW doctrine concerning how the lack of warming in the troposphere doesn't matter. This should be good, and we can all be assured that Gavin Schmidt or RC will not have any influence whatsoever, because you are a skeptic denialist and as such would never rely on Gavin Schmidt, failed debater, for truthful information ;D Must be all those badly sited surface weather stations that are contaminating the satellite readings 14000 ft above them. And I had always thought that heat rises. Where is that missing heat going?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 18, 2009 12:38:45 GMT
Once again, you don't understand that satellites will see UHI and other land surface changes, but they can't go to www.surfacestations.org and look at the poor siting of 70% of the stations. Let me see if I've got this right. The urban stations are contaminating the surface record, which presumably means that the urban stations are not representative of the much wider area. This, of course, would be shown up by the rural stations. So if we had lots and lots and lots of rural stations there would be a much lower warming (or even a cooling) trend.
However, the satellites also track the current urban/rural mix which means that the satellites are somehow only picking up signals from locations which are urban and, in particular, that have poorly sited stations. Well, it's an interesting hypothesis, but one which I fear may have one or two holes in it. Must be all those badly sited surface weather stations that are contaminating the satellite readings 14000 ft above them. And I had always thought that heat rises. Where is that missing heat going? Yes - Quite. Time for a lie down , I think.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 18, 2009 12:56:04 GMT
Since 1975, the accumulation of heat in the oceans has been 4 x 1022 joules per decade How much of this is due to Urban Heat? How much of it is due to back radiation from co2? This will be good. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 18, 2009 13:06:42 GMT
How much of it is due to back radiation from co2?
The honest answer is, of course, that we don't really know, but it's perfectly possible that all of it is, as I showed in a post a few days ago.
This will be good.
It was.
Lol.
He who laughs last ......
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 18, 2009 13:38:42 GMT
glc writes " We're still in a solar minimum"
This is a misleading statement, since the term "solar minimum" is used to mean two completely different things. There is the solar minimum that occurs between all Schwab cycles. This minimum has little, if anything, to do with world climate. But it is true we are still in the minimum between cycles 23 and 24.
But then there is the "grand minimum" which occurs over several Schwab cylces. It is this type of minimum (or maximum) that is believed to control world climate. In this sense, we are only at the very beginning of what many scientists believe is going to be a grand minimum of the Maunder type. So, for this type of minimum, we are not in a solar minimum at all. We are, potentially, at the very early start of a grand solar minimum.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 18, 2009 13:54:18 GMT
You seem to have gone a bit quiet on the "dramatic cooling" predictions recently. I can't think why. We're still in a solar minimum and a negative PDO - what's the problem? I think to go for dramatic cooling predictions you have to be a believer in solar variability and think you can predict what the sun is going to do. Something that apparently none of the experts can do as was so graphically demonstrated to all of us last year. But if you figure that we will see a normal fluctuation over 30 years of a negative .4 to .6 drop in temperature, after the first 10 we are exceeding the target hitting minus .221 in the first 10 years. It would probably be a mistake to multiple that times 3 to predict an unprecedented (in recorded history anyway) .663 drop as we all know these things do not happen evenly. So in answer to your question of whats wrong, I would say you probably shouldn't start fretting too much about being so far ahead of schedule at least yet. Looking at the AMSU-A site this morning things are looking really cold for the first half of June. I don't know what the results are going to be but its shaped a lot like May 2008 through the first half of the month. Guess that El Nino better get cracking.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 18, 2009 15:12:19 GMT
My observation is that El Nino and La Nina episodes nearly always occur back-to-back and can be considered different faces of a single phenomenon. (To the extent that I'm failing to credit this idea to the proper source, forgive me because I just got up.) The tug-of-war that is taking place among different camps on this site and elsewhere can be viewed as one taking place with the Pacific's upper ocean heat content as the rope and La Ninas and El Ninos as apparent advantages for either side. If you have ever been in a long, tightly contested tug-of-war, with many lead changes, you may remember the feeling of HUGE INERTIA in the system. You may remember that a brief move in one direction is usually followed by a brief move in the opposite direction. The idea that longwave IR radiation could generate the quite sudden movement away from cold and toward warmth (as in the tug-of-war) that the history of ENSO events shows does not make intuitive sense to me. www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdfRun down to page 23 to see El Ninos and La Ninas side by side. Also, given the fact that the most recent cool phase of the equatorial Pacific SSTs did not rise to official La Nina status, it would not surprise me if the movement toward surface warmth on this occasion failed to get the rope very far.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 18, 2009 17:10:11 GMT
Oh yes, the Sudden Stratospheric warming.......I recall that.....3 month lag.......long cold Spring, late crops, freeze warnings, cold summer.The SSW predominantly affected the stratosphere - hence it's name. Even so it only affected a small region above the north Pole. See UA Lower Strat record vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/uahncdc.lsFebruary (the peak) is colder globally than all the following months.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 19, 2009 8:49:42 GMT
How much of it is due to back radiation from co2? it's perfectly possible that all of it is, How far does long wave radiation penetrate into the ocean compared to shortwave radiation from the sun glc?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 19, 2009 9:46:21 GMT
How much of it is due to back radiation from co2? it's perfectly possible that all of it is, How far does long wave radiation penetrate into the ocean compared to shortwave radiation from the sun glc? It only warms the very surface of the water, but this is enough to warm the lower ocean (by reducing heat loss through the surface)
|
|