|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 8, 2009 4:25:29 GMT
concerning that underlying trend.. I should have added "an underlying trend which does not correlate to any solar parameters". You have made the same mistake as Mann did with the H-S. You have grafted recent observations onto a long term proxy record. Either stick with the proxy record or actual observations - not both. Apart from that the plot tells us nothing about fluctuations on a decadal scale. Agreed. Proxy data is a great way to look at past behavior (as it's the ONLY way we can do it at all) but the spotty coverage, processing methods and nature of the proxies themselves mean they're not only somewhat inaccurate but could chop off short pronounced spikes...just we see with the disagreement between recent proxies v/s the actual temperature record.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 8, 2009 9:00:14 GMT
We started coming out of the LIA in the mid 1800s. Are you saying that the warming trend since then could only be caused by GHG?
Did we? what makes you think that? There's a few thousand sites of scientific studies, texts, and records dating back to that time. Either you have absolutely no knowledge of the history of earth or you're a troll. Either way, there's no point discussing anything else with you until you've matured.
Suit yourself. I just wondered why 1800. After all the Dalton Minimum started in 1790 and didn't end until 1820. There's supposed to be loads of literature saying the Dalton minimum was particularly cold. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I wouldn't say there was any obvious warming either. So your "few thousand sites of scientific studies" seems to contradict another "well researched theory".
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 8, 2009 13:34:32 GMT
It would appear that no one really knows what is causing the rise in temps from the LIA. I propose that it is mostly the natural fluctuations in climate. What drives these fluctuations is what the question is. The contribution from co2 is quit small at best it appears being the current temps certainly would have been considered normal 8,000BP or so. The hysteria that we might warm another .5-1.0C in the next century is really hysteria as no one knows. I will predict that within 50 years we will have a much better handle on what is actually driving climate. I certainly do not live in fear of that .5-1.0C increase in temps. IF it were to happen, the earth would be a better place for man to inhabit. The discussions on this and other threads are a wealth of information for thoughtful people who have open minds. Quit delightful and I commend the moderators/owners of this site for providing the gentlemanly forum. This site actually beats RC hands down in that the discussion is open to all and is actually useful to all. Time for the rest of the blogosphere to take lessons from all here.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Aug 8, 2009 15:22:33 GMT
What is fascinating to me is that the AGW community is now doing what they accuse skeptics of doing: Following short term weather and climate fluctuations and claiming those are proof of impeding climate catastrophe. My take is that the range of change in the recent global monthly averages are of nearly zero value in terms of trends.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 8, 2009 15:32:09 GMT
What is fascinating to me is that the AGW community is now doing what they accuse skeptics of doing: Following short term weather and climate fluctuations and claiming those are proof of impeding climate catastrophe. My take is that the range of change in the recent global monthly averages are of nearly zero value in terms of trends. You are totally correct. The surface temp is well within norms. The large item tho that is not being mentioned much is the HEAT of the earth. That is going down, as I suspect the global temp will reflect in the very near future. When one looks at maps dated 1998-2008 as the basis for anomaly, we are colder than the thingyens. The blue wayyy overshadows the red or orange.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 8, 2009 15:51:32 GMT
We started coming out of the LIA in the mid 1800s. Are you saying that the warming trend since then could only be caused by GHG?
Did we? what makes you think that? There's a few thousand sites of scientific studies, texts, and records dating back to that time. Either you have absolutely no knowledge of the history of earth or you're a troll. Either way, there's no point discussing anything else with you until you've matured. Suit yourself. I just wondered why 1800. After all the Dalton Minimum started in 1790 and didn't end until 1820. There's supposed to be loads of literature saying the Dalton minimum was particularly cold. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I wouldn't say there was any obvious warming either. So your "few thousand sites of scientific studies" seems to contradict another "well researched theory". GLC You appear to be writing as if he said 1800. He said mid 1800's ie 1850. The little ice age appears to be a well known event which is apparently agreed to have ended around 1850. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Ageany of several dates ranging over 400 years may indicate the beginning of the Little Ice Age:
1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow 1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe 1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315-1317 1550 for theorized beginning of worldwide glacial expansion 1650 for the first climatic minimum Among the earliest references to the coming climate change is an entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles dated 1046: "And in this same year after the 2nd of February came the severe winter with frost and snow, and with all kinds of bad weather, so that there was no man alive who could remember so severe a winter as that, both through mortality of men and disease of cattle; both birds and fishes perished through the great cold and hunger."[13]
In contrast to its uncertain beginning, there is a consensus that the Little Ice Age ended in the mid-19th centuryI suggest you write to Wiki and ask them to change the information if you want to dispute this further.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 8, 2009 18:48:41 GMT
GLC
You appear to be writing as if he said 1800.
He said mid 1800's ie 1850.
You are correct. My mistake - sorry. I must still have had another recent post in my mind. On a different thread, woodstove (I think) made a statement to the effect that we "came out of the LIA in 1800".
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Aug 8, 2009 23:23:31 GMT
glc. The sunspot count has been low for a couple of years, at least. We all know this. We also know that July 2009 was the second warmest July in the UAH record. But if you ignore the model output, you find that reality disagrees with the model. Winnipeg – The CWB today released its preliminary crop forecasts, projecting a western Canadian wheat, durum and barley crop of 29.7 million tonnes in the 2009 crop year, down almost 20 per cent from last year’s 36.7 million tonnes and significantly below the five-year average of 33.9 million tonnes. The all-wheat yield estimate announced by the CWB today, at 33.4 bushels per acre, is the lowest initial projection in seven years. www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsroom/releases/2009/061109.jspShouldn't warm weather be good for crops. Is it WARM FROST? Reality is overtaking the alarmist nonsense at an ever increasing rate. We are close to the alarmist tipping point.... Have you any idea what the reality of a 20% shortfall in food production will mean to the real world? I seriously doubt it. Still think it's warming outside the models glc?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 9, 2009 0:41:14 GMT
Still think it's warming outside the models glc?
What have the models got to do with it?
MSUs (microwave sounding units) on board orbiting satellites have recently recorded the second highest July temperatures in the past 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 9, 2009 1:16:57 GMT
Still think it's warming outside the models glc?What have the models got to do with it? MSUs (microwave sounding units) on board orbiting satellites have recently recorded the second highest July temperatures in the past 30 years. Glc, it's as I thought, your skeptic friends will happily throw UAH into the fire if it starts contradicting their worldview. There's plenty of ways to exagerate problems with the satellite records afterall, it's just that they haven't tried yet, they've been focusing their tactics exclusively on the surface records.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 9, 2009 2:51:08 GMT
MSUs (microwave sounding units) on board orbiting satellites have recently recorded the second highest July temperatures in the past 30 years. Whoa! A one month heat wave! What was it you said 6 years without warming isn't a trend? Guess we will know this is a trend in how many months? 95? LOL!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 9, 2009 3:07:29 GMT
Still think it's warming outside the models glc?What have the models got to do with it? MSUs (microwave sounding units) on board orbiting satellites have recently recorded the second highest July temperatures in the past 30 years. Glc, it's as I thought, your skeptic friends will happily throw UAH into the fire if it starts contradicting their worldview. There's plenty of ways to exagerate problems with the satellite records afterall, it's just that they haven't tried yet, they've been focusing their tactics exclusively on the surface records. What have the models got to do with it?
LOL, near surface stations are used to compare to models for "accuracy".....sheesh. That is interesting coming from those who aren't aware that asphalt parking lots, barbecue grills and roof tops get much warmer than grassy knolls and placing thermometers near them will exaggerate the temperature, despite denial by warmologists it "doesn't matter". Please no more blabber on anomalies, I know what they are and have read your proposition that when the "cool" stations (airports for example are removed, the trend doesn't change. It's bohunk. The rule, not the exception. It was glc that became overwhelmed with joy when UAH was .108 higher than RSS in February this year, then silent when it dropped the next four months. Considering UAH has a broader coverage than RSS is is more accurate, it wasn't surprising. In reality (are you tired of that word yet?) RSS has a steeper trend downward than UAH since 2001, so why wouldn't it be to my benefit to cherry pick when convenient? If it is legitimately found UAH is not up to par and RSS or some other satellite product is better, I'll go with it. Until then, keep drinking the surface station Kool Aid if that's what gets you off. No doubt you and glc have investigated the surface station network issue thoroughly, such as: ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/74/2/pdf/i1520-0477-74-2-215.pdfams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/8/5/pdf/i1520-0442-8-5-1394.pdfwww.climateaudit.org/www.ucd.ie/geograph/GMills/chicago95b.pdfams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/12/3/pdf/i1520-0442-12-3-811.pdfwww.climateaudit.org/?p=1954Remember that step you said doesn't exist? It was blended, but nowhere will you find one comprehensive Quality Control overhaul of the network. Do you homework, I'm not doing it for you. There is so much SWAG in the reporting of surface station records, particularly in the last 25+ years it is simply humorous listening to the apologists defending them.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 9, 2009 4:48:20 GMT
You seem all to certain this setup causes a warming bias in the record. It aint that simple. Some examples of how this setup could cause no bias or even a cooling bias: 1) The AC unit has always been alongside that sensor, in which case it has exerted a fairly constant influence on it and no trend bias. 2) The AC unit has been used less in recent years therefore exerting a cooling bias. 3) The AC unit was introduced suddenly during the sensor's history. The temperature rose sharply at that point. As this jump was not seen in neighbouring stations at this time, the record algorithm happened to remove the jump. Therefore no warming bias is caused. So in light of these possibilities, simply pasting a photo of a sensor isn't enough to demonstrate the record suffers a warm bias from it. Let alone there being a bias throughout the entire record. All the image shows is an example of potential problems that must be adjusted for. Of course the record compilers behind GISTEMP and Hadcrut already know this, in fact their algorithms are specifically designed because of problems in the records. They aren't comparing neighbouring stations for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 9, 2009 7:53:45 GMT
You seem all to certain this setup causes a warming bias in the record. It aint that simple. Some examples of how this setup could cause no bias or even a cooling bias: 1) The AC unit has always been alongside that sensor, in which case it has exerted a fairly constant influence on it and no trend bias. 2) The AC unit has been used less in recent years therefore exerting a cooling bias. 3) The AC unit was introduced suddenly during the sensor's history. The temperature rose sharply at that point. As this jump was not seen in neighbouring stations at this time, the record algorithm happened to remove the jump. Therefore no warming bias is caused. So in light of these possibilities, simply pasting a photo of a sensor isn't enough to demonstrate the record suffers a warm bias from it. Let alone there being a bias throughout the entire record. All the image shows is an example of potential problems that must be adjusted for. Of course the record compilers behind GISTEMP and Hadcrut already know this, in fact their algorithms are specifically designed because of problems in the records. They aren't comparing neighbouring stations for nothing. I cant imagine any scientist even beginning to defend this location for a temperature gauge. Is the picture even real? Are we able to show that this photo is not a construction to exaggerate the denialist claims that sensors are not correctly placed? As for algorithms to alter data? It would be better if detection systems identified stations for on site investigation and recalibration. The measured temperature should be a measured temperature rather than altered to fit whatever an observer believes it should be. It is a basic principal of science that you record what is measured. And it must also be a basic principal of science if you want to repeat the same experiment you did 100 years ago that you use the same equipment and methods.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 9, 2009 8:27:04 GMT
The intended purpose of the sensors was weather recording for which purpose a sensor on a roof probably isn't much of a problem.
The complication of a climate record from those recordings was started later by people who took the weather sensor data and tried to derive a climate record from it.
It was impossible at that point to go back in time and undo already existing local sensor biases. So with prevention not an option, they instead went down the path of trying to statistically detect and remove the local biases instead by comparing stations with their neighbours.
|
|