|
Post by glc on Jul 22, 2009 7:15:34 GMT
Hmm! So far 2009 is the 7th. warmest year since records began This compares with the Met Office prediction "2009 is expected to be one of the top 5 warmest years on record"
It'll almost certainly make 6th place. The last few months of 2007 were 'cold' due to La Nina. The fact is it 2009 could finish anywhere between 2nd and 7th but as there's ony a few hundredths of a degree between them this is not particularly significant.
This comment by Poitsplace is correct, i.e.
Yeah but they say EVERY year is supposed to be in the top 5 or 10 warmest. Of course, this is hardly a bold prediction and sounds nothing like most global warming fanatics think. Since we're in the warmest period we have on record and this period is only a decade long, it's essentially saying "We think temperatures will be about what they have been for the last 10 years." Of course, I'm not entirely sure the met office sees that this is the case either
However, although there might not be much warming, it's clear there is no cooling either. There has been not yet been a measurable shift to a cooler phase.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jul 22, 2009 10:44:23 GMT
glc writes "However, although there might not be much warming, it's clear there is no cooling either. There has been not yet been a measurable shift to a cooler phase. "
People seem to be under the impression that if we are, indeed, heading for a Maunder type solar grand magnetic minimum, that global temperatures are going to fall precipitously. If the future is a Maunder type minimum, then we are heading for some 70 years of below average temperatures. We are unlikely to see any sort of significant fall in temperatures for several years; maybe not until 2015. However, if temperatures dont start rising soon, then, hopefully, our politicians will be even more reluctant to implement any sort of carbon tax. So there is still hope.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 22, 2009 11:18:06 GMT
I think we can all agree, however...no matter what the significance (or lack thereof) of this event...right now we really are just talking about weather
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 22, 2009 12:23:25 GMT
glc.
However, although there might not be much warming, it's clear there is no cooling either. There has been not yet been a measurable shift to a cooler phase.
As long as you disregard the fact that parts of the northern states are running 10 degrees below normal this year. Just weather, I know.
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jul 22, 2009 13:25:17 GMT
However, although there might not be much warming, it's clear there is no cooling either. There has been not yet been a measurable shift to a cooler phase. Well.. Some areas are clearly strongly affected by the southern shift of the jet stream even if earth has not cooled by much. Like for example northern most parts of northern Norway. Most areas are running 1-1.5c below normal. Been cooler than normal for the last 2-3 years there during summer. Here is a nice example of a weather station running well below normal: www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/histGraphAll?day=22&year=2009&month=7&ID=ENVD&type=1&width=500
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 22, 2009 19:03:14 GMT
People seem to be under the impression that if we are, indeed, heading for a Maunder type solar grand magnetic minimum, that global temperatures are going to fall precipitously. If the future is a Maunder type minimum, then we are heading for some 70 years of below average temperatures. We are unlikely to see any sort of significant fall in temperatures for several years; maybe not until 2015Why 2015? What is the mechanism that will produce the cooling. I can't see why we shouldn't see a drop to 1980s or early 1990s temperatures fairly soon. After all SC23 wasn't a particularly active cycle. The last strong cycle (SC22) finished in 1996. According to Friis-Christenen and Lassen ( www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html ), the temperature response to solar cycle length is fairly immediate. David Archibald's reconstructions also imply a response within a few years. Whose theory are you basing your assertions on, Jim?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jul 22, 2009 19:38:04 GMT
glc writes "Whose theory are you basing your assertions on, Jim?"
I am not quoting anyone's theory; I am observing actual data. Assuming we are heading for a Maunder type minimum, (which I believe) the only one we have any data on, lasted for about 70 years; from roughly 1645 to 1715. The maximum cold occurred around 1685. If history repeats itself, then the minimum temperatures this time, will occur around 2050. I simply dont believe that temperatures will drop precipitously in the early years. So it will be 5 or 6 years before the effects of the minimum are felt.
I would suggest that we do not have any proper physics to explain why the magnetic effect of the sun controls climate; lots of different hypothese, but no really good theory. If we ever find out, I am convinced it will be infinitely more complicated than anything that anyone has suggested to date.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jul 22, 2009 20:05:01 GMT
glc writes: Why 2015? What is the mechanism that will produce the cooling. I can't see why we shouldn't see a drop to 1980s or early 1990s temperatures fairly soon.
Isn't that what we're starting to see in the UAH & RSS datasets?
GISSTEMP seems to run a program of Temp = temp + (year - 1970)*.15
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Jul 22, 2009 20:41:41 GMT
I just checked out HadCRU compared to GISS I have calculated GISS-HadCRU for each month since January 1998 The mean annual difference for each year is shown below: -
1998 0.02) 1999 0.03) 2000 0.05) Mean 0.04 2001 0.06)
2002 0.09) 2003 0.07) 2004 0.03)
2005 0.13) 2006 0.11) 2007 0.16) Mean 0.10 2008 0.10) 2009 0.12)
Up to 2001 there seems to have been relatively close agreement After 2005 there is a significant difference between HadCRU and GISS
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 22, 2009 21:22:09 GMT
Isn't that what we're starting to see in the UAH & RSS datasets?
Are we? Let's just give it a couple of years shall we before jumping to conclusions.
GISSTEMP seems to run a program of Temp = temp + (year - 1970)*.15
Trends since 1992 in the 4 main datasets are pretty much the same.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 22, 2009 21:23:42 GMT
hadcrut values are anomalies from the 1961-1990 period wheras gistemp values are anomalies from the 1951-1980 period. Because the 1961-1990 period was warmer than the 1951-1980 period, this makes the hadcrut values 0.1C lower. To compare hadcrut and gistemp on the same baseline, either all the hadcrut values must be increased by about 0.1C or all the gistemp values must be decreased by about 0.1C
1998 -0.08) 1999 -0.07) 2000 -0.05) Mean -0.06 2001 -0.04)
2002 -0.01) 2003 -0.03) 2004 -0.07)
2005 0.03) 2006 0.01) 2007 0.06) Mean 0.02 2008 0.00) 2009 0.02)
The satellite records use baseline 1979-1999 and to compare them with gistemp on the same baseline they must be increased about 0.2C
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 22, 2009 21:38:31 GMT
I would suggest that we do not have any proper physics to explain why the magnetic effect of the sun controls climate; lots of different hypothese, but no really good theory.
Amazing. You query the theory that CO2 causes warming to the point you actually question Planck and Beer Lambert, but you quite happily accept some airy fairy solar nonsense which you admit has "no theory" or "proper physics".
Jim, I can accept scepticism even when the pro evidence is quite strong, but I get a bit irritated with those who are highly sceptical when it suits but accept anything if it supports their personal beliefs.
The correlation between solar activity and climate is far from clear and it's certainly not consistent. Friis-Christenen & Lassen showed a close relationship between solar cycle length and temperature which sceptics embraced enthusiastically for a while. It's now clear that that particular relationship has broken down in spectacular style. David Archibald's predictions are heading the same way.
So where's the correlation which points to cooling from 2015?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jul 22, 2009 21:54:03 GMT
glc writes "Jim, I can accept scepticism even when the pro evidence is quite strong, but I get a bit irritated with those who are highly sceptical when it suits but accept anything if it supports their personal beliefs."
I get extremely hostile to people who claim some basis in physics which connects increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere with increasing global temperatures when there is absolutely no experimental data whatsoever to connect the two. Just a series of non-validated computer programs. History shows that global temperatures vary with time. No-one has an explanation for this. Why would anyone in their right mind, believe that the latest slight temperature rise has anything to do with CO2?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 22, 2009 22:44:06 GMT
I get extremely hostile to people who claim some basis in physics which connects increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere with increasing global temperatures when there is absolutely no experimental data whatsoever to connect the two. Just a series of non-validated computer programs
But there is experimental data. There are experiments which show that if you increase the concentration of CO2 then you increase the amount of IR light absorption. There are emission spectra which shows that CO2 absorbs and emits in the upper atmosphere. There are text book explanations for why and how the CO2 molecule absorbs IR radiation which you choose not to read.
But, incredibly, you dismiss this and happily accept some mumbo jumbo about the sun's magnetic minima affecting climate during the Maunder Minimum. You have no expeimental data whatsoever. Do you even have ONE single temperature reading from the 1645-1715 period - or are you basing your conclusions on anecdotal evidence.......
....you have no idea what the L&P study means or what it is implications are but you choose to interpret the findings in a way that L&P never intended.....
...and then to cap it all I note on the other thread that you ignore Leif Svalgaard because he's "not a sceptic". This is a scientist who has spent the last 40 years studying the sun.
You have no credibility whatsoever.
|
|
birder
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 223
|
Post by birder on Jul 22, 2009 22:48:02 GMT
People seem to be saying the suns effect on the earths temperature is complex, but how about temperature being controlled by the solar wind. Like when the sahara wind blows it's hot. When the sunspots are high it's hot and when there low it's cold. Simple.
|
|