|
|
Post by socold on Sept 20, 2009 0:11:31 GMT
Latif was a Keenlyside co-author. Their longterm temperature projection for coming decades ends up at the same place as GCM projections. It's only shortterm variation which separates them. What cooling (well it's more flat than cooling) exists initially in their projection is 'made up for' by faster warming later on.  Ie there's no disagreement over the significant warming effect of ghg increases. The disagreement is over how natural variation will overlay that significant warming. www.wmo.int/wcc3/sessionsdb/documents/PS3_Latif.ppt |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 20, 2009 1:56:08 GMT
The longterm contribution can be zero even if ENSO masks or enhances warming every few years. The net affect seems to actually be zero on the PDO (which affects the output of ENSO). But while the PDO is dominant in the regular fluctuations of the temperature there are several other currents that can affect temperature...ALSO with a net neutral (over their entire cycle) affect. Them going into warming modes one by one (culminating in them all being positive during the late 90's and early 2000's) would produce a ramp...with a leveling off period once they all reached a warming state. Let's look at the evidence in the temperature record...hmmm, ramping up with a leveling off. Now let's look at what the AGW hypothesis has to say...warming driven almost entirely by CO2. There was cooling starting when the CO2 really started to go up...no match there (except with the ocean currents) Ah, then there's a match during the 80's and 90's...oops and it levels off again. |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 20, 2009 3:30:27 GMT
two issues the 1960 to 1980 temperature rose in those graphs.
I think the world can live very comfortably with that sort of warming. Given that the 70's were one of the cold decades for many. (I think there is a revisionist tint there.)
In addition they talk about a 0.8C temp increase from 1960 to 2020. I for one would consider the graph to be a little biased to the AGW side given the clear cooling and warming and then cooling again that there has been had through the bulk of the period.
But the AGW story does not hinge on an increase of .4C or .8C over sixty years but 7C over 100yrs. I think the AGW's and the non AGW's will mostly agree that the 7C is a big issue but that 1C is almost irrelevant given the earth's obvious resilience in the last 500m years.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 20, 2009 7:46:05 GMT
The Keenlyside projection is in trouble already. It shows cooling beginning in ~1995. This, of course, didn't happen.
I'm a bit surprised that the very people who criticise the GCMs are the same ones who are ready to embrace Keenlyside and Latif.
|
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 20, 2009 8:57:55 GMT
Whatever opinions the modellers might have it is obviously true that people like me who have a science degree are not alone in thinking that the modellers are probably only correctly following a trend that existed already or one that is about to majorly move away from the models.
The earth obviously has a huge amount of ability to control the temperature within certain limits of atmospheric pressure and solar power and so forth and this can be based on simple observations like for example there is only 1mm of water (if it fell as rain) in the atmosphere above Antarctica all the way to outerspace and therefore it does not snow there very much.
As we have seen it snows most away from the poles where there is more water in the atmosphere
And as we have seen it rains most where it is warmer and water evaporates most where it is warmer. Water in the atmosphere mainly arises where it is most warm and then progressively is removed from the atmosphere as you move towards the poles.
And glaciers dont grow when there is not much snow because the ice just 'evaporates' to the dry air. And some glaciers are growing for very different climatic effects than others. Each glacier has a glacier type.
Not surprisingly when the earth gets warmer there is more water in the atmosphere and it snows more and then in time gets cooler and dryer again and the ice on the ground recedes and eventually once the ground is exposed it begins to warm again and snow more.
Our amazing planet in action
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 20, 2009 9:03:45 GMT
Latif was a Keenlyside co-author. Their longterm temperature projection for coming decades ends up at the same place as GCM projections. It's only shortterm variation which separates them. What cooling (well it's more flat than cooling) exists initially in their projection is 'made up for' by faster warming later on. Ie there's no disagreement over the significant warming effect of ghg increases. The disagreement is over how natural variation will overlay that significant warming. www.wmo.int/wcc3/sessionsdb/documents/PS3_Latif.pptThis is the 2nd most common situation auditors find. A projection does not pan out and company executives are invested in the outcome thus a rationale is developed that does not fundamentally conflict with the executives original thoughts. The most common one auditors find is just a resistance to accept the auditor findings. Thus the auditor's job is to hold out by not signing off on the information until the client comes around. In that process you can say that "yeah, it might pan out in a few years. . . .but for not you are going to have to establish a loss reserve." I enjoyed his recommendations. "We need a better understanding of the mechanisms of decadal variability." Yep! I would suggest probably centennial variability as well. |
|
