|
Post by hunterson on Aug 17, 2010 20:25:09 GMT
I think the trend will be well within historical ranges, as it is now. For a number of years I have said that predicting worldwide average temeprature is an oxymoronic effort with about as much meaning as discissing angels dancing on the head of a pin.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Aug 18, 2010 1:04:19 GMT
Hunterson nailed it.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 18, 2010 2:08:34 GMT
I most certainly do remember this. The prediction was made in March 2008 after the notably cold January and February (remember the "cooling equivalent to a whole century of warming" stories.) 2008: I said 0.3, HadCRUT3 said 0.312 2009: I said 0.4, HadCRUT3 said 0.439 2010: I said 0.6, HadCRUT3 are currently saying 0.546 after 7 months of data. If 2010 cools off a few tenths, socold probably beats me (he was ahead after 2009). If 2010 warms, or stays the same, I think I'll try to claim victory. hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annualSadly, not many "coolers" played along with the game. Well now that this has worn thin what is your prognosis for 11, 12, and 13?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 18, 2010 7:21:45 GMT
I think the trend will be well within historical ranges, as it is now. For a number of years I have said that predicting worldwide average temeprature is an oxymoronic effort with about as much meaning as discissing angels dancing on the head of a pin. What makes it an oxymoron? Your "sour grapes" response to the correctness of "warmer" predictions shows that your stated views about such things are tactical attempts to get your objections in early.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 18, 2010 8:03:37 GMT
Icefisher,
How would you have reacted if a prolonged La Niña and/or large volcanic eruption had made my guesses look really bad, I wonder? Its just a game to make you put your credibility where your keyboard is, so what's yours?
My prediction is that temperatures will continue to diverge rapidly from Akasofu's dodgy graph. I'll watch ENSO a bit more before I'm more specific.
|
|
|
Post by robertski on Aug 18, 2010 10:59:36 GMT
I have kept out of this thread, but i think people should be aware that according to the Met Office we have warmed a whopping 0.07c since 1998. See this quote off there web site... www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html"The record-breaking temperatures in 1998 occurred after three decades of warming, starting in the 1970s. These decades saw an increase in global average temperature of about 0.45 °C. After 1998, however, warming slowed significantly — trends over the past 10 years show only a 0.07 °C increase in global average temperature. Although this is only a small increase, it indicates that there has been no global cooling over this period. In fact, over the past decade, most years have remained much closer to the record global average temperature reached in 1998 than to temperatures before the 1970s. "
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 18, 2010 17:13:46 GMT
Icefisher, How would you have reacted if a prolonged La Niña and/or large volcanic eruption had made my guesses look really bad, I wonder?Are you looking for criticism? I look for inconsistencies. But it seems things are playing out in a traditional pattern. It appears you did fall short on your projected step up in 2010 which should have happened if we were still on the 1977-1998 elevator. Beyond it looking more like a step down than a step up everything else appears to be rather par for the course. Its just a game to make you put your credibility where your keyboard is, so what's yours?
My prediction is that temperatures will continue to diverge rapidly from Akasofu's dodgy graph. I'll watch ENSO a bit more before I'm more specific.
Diverge? I have no idea what you are talking about. Your prediction was for a .6 this year which would have been a divergence from Akasofu's graph but it doesn't appear to be in the cards. As you can see the little dot is traveling along a relative level spot still in the Akasofu curve. I see no divergence whatsoever. Warmth this year could easily be predicted by the post-minimum El Nino, a particularly strong El Nino seen regularly in the record within a couple of years post solar minimum. It should have been the Super El Nino (from the standpoint of maximum anomaly) Hansen predicted; but it wimped out. Why? Or did it really wimp out? It had to probably expend a lot of its energy climbing out the 2008 La Nina hole. Verification of that might come if we plunge into a super La Nina in the next couple of years. If that happens one might even argue the El Nino of 2009 was stronger than the El Nino of 1998, by measuring it from its base like saying Mauna Kea is the largest mountain in the world measured from its base, taller than Mt Everest. Akasofu's graph does not project details to that level of detail (no ENSO fluctuations) but has presented instead a smoothed curve going forward, which if you look at the figure going backwards is significantly different shaped but still generally following the smoothed curve. If Akasofu is wrong it will be by virtue of the Team being proven right on their projections of .2c warming over the coming decade as reported by you from your early look into AR5 models. And by your prediction of a .6 for this year which would have been going that direction. But the real divergence from the IPCC looks more like climate everyday. Meanwhile the Team still claims model consistency based upon some weird compilation of models despite no know physical explanation for why the extreme low of the prediction is the only thing still in play. Here a volcano or out-of-season La Nina could have provided an excuse. Akasofu shows it still cranking along somewhere between .4 and .5 (with peaks and valleys smoothed off) and soon to begin a decline of perhaps .2, as opposed to the IPCC AR5 increase of .2. We have a start with a stunted decadal El Nino in the books. Lets see what happens next. If you want me to predict something I will but I don't have a lot of confidence in being able to predict anything. Akasofu looks pretty good so I will pick something below the first decade of the 21st century average as an average for the next 3 years and may get more specific as it plays out also. So I will take it your are going to be up and I am going to be down since your pick is a divergence from the level to slight decline one might gleen from the Akasofu chart for the next 3 years. Using Hadcrut 3 the average for the first decade is not quite in but it is looking like maybe about a .44. The underlying non-PDO influenced Akasofu book would put the decade average at .49. Spencer has the PDO perhaps exerting something around a negative 1.9 watts for a -1 PDO anomaly which equates to about a 1/5 degree on Spencers 8.3w/degC short term forcing scale. Add back in the .05 per decade and you have maybe an average of minus .15 for the decade. Put some heavy error bars around this and the result could be anything from a slight increase to a healthy decrease, say +.46 to +.12. That would be the Akasofu range by my estimate and you picked a rapid divergence from that. So depending upon what you mean by rapid, I assume you mean the +.2 estimated by the Team or .64 with commensurate error bars say giving you a range of +.47 to +.81. Does that give you enough wiggle room? Or do you want more on the likelihood Katla is going to blow its top?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Aug 18, 2010 17:22:51 GMT
Great graphic.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 18, 2010 19:53:41 GMT
I've updated it for you:
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 18, 2010 20:03:11 GMT
Great graphic.
It might be if the 1800-1900 period wasn't made up by the bloke who created the graphic. Still no source cited for Akasofu's 19th century data. Naturally, Icefisher blindly swallows it all without question.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 18, 2010 20:41:06 GMT
Great graphic. It might be if the 1800-1900 period wasn't made up by the bloke who created the graphic. Still no source cited for Akasofu's 19th century data. Naturally, Icefisher blindly swallows it all without question. Fits as well as anything else in the following graphic GLC. You just don't like the implications so you are kind of running around nitpicking at the far end of the analysis where the data is admittedly terrible but just about any reconstruction one could imagine could fit in there.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 18, 2010 21:06:54 GMT
Fits as well as anything else in the following graphic GLC. You just don't like the implications so you are kind of running around nitpicking at the far end of the analysis where the data is admittedly terrible but just about any reconstruction one could imagine could fit in there.
Akasofu's "reconstruction" doesn't fit with any of the the long term temperature records, e.g. Uppsala, Stockholm, CET..... The "following graphic", (i.e. McShane and Wynter) does not show the 0.5 deg increase in temperature that Akasofu claims happened in the 19th century. In fact the 1800-1900 temperature trend is more or less flat - which agrees with most of the long term records.
So tell us again - what data did Akasofu use?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 18, 2010 22:44:58 GMT
Fits as well as anything else in the following graphic GLC. You just don't like the implications so you are kind of running around nitpicking at the far end of the analysis where the data is admittedly terrible but just about any reconstruction one could imagine could fit in there. Akasofu's "reconstruction" doesn't fit with any of the the long term temperature records, e.g. Uppsala, Stockholm, CET..... Uppsala, Stockholm, CET don't fit with Akasofu either, nor with each other. Akasofu isn't chopped liver he supported his reconstruction.
The "following graphic", (i.e. McShane and Wynter) does not show the 0.5 deg increase in temperature that Akasofu claims happened in the 19th century. In fact the 1800-1900 temperature trend is more or less flat - which agrees with most of the long term records.
You can fit a negative trend from 1800 to the Present within the uncertainty ranges of McShane and Wynter GLC! Don't you understand the first thing about data? You don't just take the central tendency as Gospel! Anything that fits within the bars of uncertainty is a possibility. If you want to make a case a construction is a remote possibility you have to do it mathematically not just show a picture of central tendency. When you look at the uncertainty pattern for McShane and Wynter it is almost 2 degrees and you are trying to hang me and Akasofu out to dry on a half degree! I would like to remind you a half degree isn't much at all, nothing anyone would ever notice! I am having a noticeably cold summer but it is 5 degrees below normal. That is noticeable but a tenth of that isn't. Fact is we would be extremely lucky to find a temp proxy that gets 1800 at the right temperature and for evidence of that I will offer the GISTEMP interpretation of the Arctic right now, using proxy measurments from outside the arctic circle when scores of bouys and ship readings are available that suggest a strong negative anomaly instead of a strong positive one (probably a half degree off). And when you consider our actual temperature records of the arctic are far better today than global instrumentation in 1800 well you get the picture. So tell us again - what data did Akasofu use? [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 18, 2010 23:04:44 GMT
Akasofu's graphic uses GISTEMP meteorlogical stations from 1880 to 2000. He then just extrapolates the longterm trend both backwards in time and forward in time. No idea what the IPCC prediction is based on though. The IPCC don't predict, project, or anything, about GISTEMP met stations.
So far in 2010 the temperature is running above the high end of the "IPCC prediction" according to Akasofu's graph.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 18, 2010 23:51:14 GMT
Akasofu's graphic uses GISTEMP meteorlogical stations from 1880 to 2000. He then just extrapolates the longterm trend both backwards in time and forward in time. No idea what the IPCC prediction is based on though. The IPCC don't predict, project, or anything, about GISTEMP met stations. So far in 2010 the temperature is running above the high end of the "IPCC prediction" according to Akasofu's graph. You obviously didn't read what Akasofu did Socold. His graph is a composite interpretation from several sources with a different anomaly base than GISS. Thus you cannot just plot GISTEMP on this graph and call your work anything other than stupid. And that doesn't even go to pointing out that GISTEMP is so far out there, doesn't even make sense in places like the Arctic. If someone were doing that kind of work reaching across the aisle to people disagreeing with him one would call it stretching for common ground. But in the case of Jim Hansen its just another manifestation of him being a sociopath.
|
|