|
Post by duwayne on Oct 24, 2015 17:45:49 GMT
Interesting methodology and set of forecasts. In the last quarter of the 20th Century, the sun was at its most active for ?8,000 years. That has now reversed. I don't think your forecasts take account of this. Douglavers, when I provide longer, more detailed versions of my predictions as I have several times on this thread, I include the caveat that the global temperatures will be lower than my estimates if there are extensive major volcanic eruptions, a large meteor strike or a major "dimming" of the sun. It's correct to say that my predictions do not take into account past (since 1947) and future global temperature fluctuations due to fluctuations in solar activity. I believe the solar affects on recent temperature trends were small. I'm following the literature on predictions of future solar effects but the possibility of significant cooling due to the sun still seems too speculative to include in a prediction. If there was a high degree of certainty then there should be global temperature forecasts available from the proponents.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 24, 2015 20:52:47 GMT
Did Astro just acknowledge he was wrong and that his call of no El Nino this year is incorrect? Nope. That all depends on what happens by December. It is starting to look like it has no following warm water and there is a lot of cold water around it. Even the shape of the warm area does not match the classic El Nino. So although you are all eager to call it - sit on your hands for a few weeks. Even CFS is showing down from now on
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 24, 2015 20:58:18 GMT
The Paris meetings require a lot of hype. It is an El Nino, but far from a Super El Nino, whatever that is.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 25, 2015 0:31:52 GMT
The Paris meetings require a lot of hype. It is an El Nino, but far from a Super El Nino, whatever that is. Does super El Nino have a definition? If one looks at the short history of El Ninos and you mathematically classify them as small, medium/small, medium, medium/large, and large it appears likely this El Nino appears likely to score a "large". This will be the 22nd El Nino and it is currently being projected as the 4th largest ever. A projection that does not require any more warming of El Nino 3.4 If that qualifies for the label "Super" I don't know. The label was most likely invented either to ease the attribution of El Ninos to global warming; for which zero science exists to suggest what causes El Ninos. Or altenatively, if invented by skeptics, it was likely invented to explain the unusual climate warming that surrounded it. So if either is true perhaps whether it earns that label might depend on its climate effect in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 25, 2015 0:37:15 GMT
I wish it had long legs, but today it looks like its kneecaps are being blown away.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 25, 2015 20:44:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 5, 2015 15:02:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 5, 2015 15:49:54 GMT
Drop him an e-mail or call him. More than likely he will share his paper with you.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 29, 2015 16:07:06 GMT
Drop him an e-mail or call him. More than likely he will share his paper with you. Sigurdur, I took your advice and Emailed Craig Loehle and he forwarded a copy of his paper. The paper concluded that the global warming trend has been at one-half the rate claimed by the IPCC. I suggested to him that he publish a prediction based on his findings of a 67-year AMO cycle and 1.21 Transient Climate Response. This would show an alternating period of flat temperatures followed by a period of rising temperatures. He told me why he was hesitant to do that but he has published a paper which predicts the future overall global temperature trend without showing the cycles. Here is the link.His predictions for the year 2100 are very close to my 8-year old predictions and for the same reasons.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 29, 2015 16:24:00 GMT
Drop him an e-mail or call him. More than likely he will share his paper with you. Sigurdur, I took your advice and Emailed Craig Loehle and he forwarded a copy of his paper. The paper concluded that the global warming trend has been at one-half the rate claimed by the IPCC. I suggested to him that he publish a prediction based on his findings of a 67-year AMO cycle and 1.21 Transient Climate Response. This would show an alternating period of flat temperatures followed by a period of rising temperatures. He told me why he was hesitant to do that but he has published a paper which predicts the future overall global temperature trend without showing the cycles. Here is the link.His predictions for the year 2100 are very close to my 8-year old predictions and for the same reasons. The only climate scientist that I have e-mailed or called that won't communicate with me is Dr. Mann. And it is truly amazing how contacts help. I called Colorado a few years ago to get a better handle on Earth Brightness. Going through the chain of folks, talked to one tech whose dad was a PhD, and from North Dakota. Turned out I knew the feller! Well, that helped grease the skids a lot! Learned a lot. Our atmosphere, since approx 1996, has become much more clear. Able to absorb SW on the ground and in the ocean. Glad that you had a positive response.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 29, 2015 16:29:48 GMT
That is an interesting paper! Thank you DuWayne!
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Dec 29, 2015 17:06:50 GMT
"Our atmosphere, since approx 1996, has become much more clear."
Why is this, do you know?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 29, 2015 17:52:08 GMT
Supposedly because of the drop in particulate pollution. Do I believe this is the only reason? Nope. According to the tech, air currents, lower strat, volcanic eruptions, cloud cover, rain........height of thunderstorms....
The bottom line was, lots of ideas that prob all play out together.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Dec 29, 2015 19:08:12 GMT
It is hard to imagine a drop in particle pollution, any gains we have made in the west seem more than offset by new pollution from Asia. But I don't know
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 29, 2015 19:44:21 GMT
It is hard to imagine a drop in particle pollution, any gains we have made in the west seem more than offset by new pollution from Asia. But I don't know I think during the heyday of the 50's, 60's and 70's, that the particulate pollution of the west in aggregate is probably higher than China/India today. Noting that the Earth Brightness measurements didn't start showing an increase till the mid 90's, there is potentially a loading lag involved as well?
|
|