|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 2, 2013 16:50:29 GMT
I know climate models are very limited in what they can actually do. I wish the loudmouths would get over CO2 and start really digging into more of the chaotic events that do drive climate.
As is always the case, we are at a period of tech development that allows us to measure/record and analyze items that previously had large error ranges.
Frustrated that the folks who get the lions share of the money aren't acting like scientists, but rather policy makers.
I don't see any change in the near future, as the current administration in the USA is hell bent on a single cause. And by becoming enamored with that cause, are setting the base for even more economic distress.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 13, 2013 15:50:36 GMT
This seemed like an appropriate thread to post this: Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalseSummary
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 26, 2013 15:35:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 26, 2014 18:07:36 GMT
Another 3 months have passed and it's time again to update my global temperature prediction from 2007 of flat global temperatures (Hadcrut3 anomaly at 0.47C) for 2007 through 2037. The beginning Hadcrut3 anomaly is based on the 2007 anomaly from a least squares fit of the 1977-2007 data.
Through the end of 2013 the average Hadcrut3 temperature is running slightly below my prediction at 0.41C.
The PDO was predicted to remain predominantly in the cool phase for 2007-2037 and average around -0.6 which was the 1947-1977 average. It's running slightly cooler with an average of -0.8 for 2007-2013.
ENSO as measured by the multivariat ENSO data was forecast to average -0.3 for 2007-2037, the same as 1947-1977, and that's what the average is so far.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 26, 2014 20:37:45 GMT
Thanks Duwayne.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Jan 26, 2014 21:18:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 30, 2014 21:25:26 GMT
From the time I first posted my first forecast here years ago, I noted that there was no basis for the IPCC modelers’ claim that aerosols were responsible for the flat temperatures from 1947 through 1977. Their plug factors were bogus. Guess what. The IPCC has now discovered that the aerosols didn’t have the cooling effect they were supposed to have had during that period. linkAnd guess what. They didn’t discover this until after the recent AR5 report was published. In another few years as the global temperatures remain flat they’ll catch up to the fact that there is an approximately 60-year natural ocean cycle which many of us have known for a long time. Will this be just after AR6?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2014 22:40:08 GMT
dwayne:
From what I have read, it has been known for a LONG time that the aerosol cooling thing was bunk. But it flies in the face of what Dr. Hansen/Trenbeth think.
I think Prof Lindzen has it right. The not too bright folks go into climate studies. It is becoming more evident all the time.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2014 2:51:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Jan 31, 2014 12:57:16 GMT
They should be able by now to de-construct that Global Temp Decadal figures splitting expected temps, rain-droughts etc wi each Pole, tropical zones, NH, Africa, Europe etc. that would have some meaning for the mean citizen and could be followed up easily... But they won´t dare, not even for next five years!. Global Mean Temperature is a political figure made for what they suspect to be illiterate masses. I bet that if all scientist and public employees involved in Climate Change had their jobs and fundings granted REGARDLESS their conclusions -aiming simply at better understanding of Earth´s Climate dynamics- Science would soon take over politics and we all would get real economic benefits from that Knowledge. Big Question now could be wether it wouldn´t be more prudent to stop pouring-wasting our limited wealth for preventing (?) or mitigating an unlikely doom scenario, while increasing funding for proper scientific investigation would be much wiser and cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 1, 2014 4:02:49 GMT
I would like to join the prediction business, which I am told is very dangerous, especially when it is about the future.
My prediction: "Three more years of weak solar cycle will at best demonstrate global temperatures still tracking sideways, at worst a serious decline will become evident."
A fascinating solar system wide geophysical experiment is in progress. We are just bystanders.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 1, 2014 4:37:56 GMT
If history is a guide, what we are presently observing is rapid general cooling of the earth. The Arctic is warm, with very little water vapor and also a very thin troposphere. The higher temps are an open door to warmth leaving the planet.
One can observe the general cool of the Pacific. Antarctica is a pool that has had very little change.
Previous times of low solar has indicated that the sun does provide small changes that are amplified on earth.
It looks to me like we are in an extended period of cooling temps.
I think Duwayne is too high with his projection by approx 0.6c over the next 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 1, 2014 6:29:04 GMT
Sigurdur
What do you mean by too high? Higher or lower global temperatures than Duwayne?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 1, 2014 13:13:32 GMT
Even Duwaynes projection is too high by approx .6C.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 1, 2014 18:30:32 GMT
Sigurdur, could you be more specific. Is it your prediction that the Hadcrut3 will average -0.1C for 2007-2037?
My 7-year old prediction is that global temperatures will be flat for 2007-2037. This prediction goes back to the previous Cycle 24 Board (and actually to another web site a little before that). If you go back to page 1 of this thread which is the first page of the “new” Board, I describe the method for determining the specific flat temperature. It is the 2007 temperature trend based on a least squares fit of the 1977-2007 temperatures. For Hadcrut3 this is 0.47C. If my prediction is 0.6C too high, then the Hadcrut3 anomaly would average -0.1C for the 2007-2037 period.
At the time I made this forecast (based on a 60-year ocean current cycle) there were many skeptics who also argued that the IPCC was significantly overestimating global warming. But there were very few who were predicting flat or cooling temperatures and the ones who were, did it mostly on the basis of reduced Solar activity and the Maunder Minimum.
This Solar cooling seemed like a “possibility” to me (not what I felt had the high probability of the ocean current cycle) so I included a proviso with my prediction which is stated on page 1 of this thread…
“If the sun “dims” for a number of years (fewer than normal sunspots and reduced overall solar activity) as some believe or there is prolonged volcanic activity or a large meteorite hits then Global temperatures could be much lower than predicted above.”
My interest in the Cycle 24 site stems from its earlier focus on Solar activity and the possibility of a dimming sun.
Since I made my forecast, two key things have happened. Global temperatures have been flat. As a result my prediction is no longer an extreme position. In fact with the likes of Judy Curry and others, this is slowly becoming the mainstream view. The second thing that happened is that Cycle 24 is looking to be weaker than any cycle for the past 100 years or so. So the odds of Solar-based cooling have increased. Hathaway says Maunder Minimums are typical of the sun 10 to 15 percent of the time. But other than noting that fact, I haven’t seen a rush to predict that we are entering a Maunder Minimum by the so-called mainstream experts. And moreover, how this affects global temperatures is not so clear. As I’ve stated before, I’m disappointed by the lack of specific global temperature predictions and if people are convinced that a dimmed sun is probable where are the specific predictions? How cold will it get? When? How long?
Sigurdur and Douglavers, you are breaking new ground. I labeled my first forecast MaxCon 1.0. So far I haven’t seen a reason to change it since I still think I have the effect of the ocean current cycle about right. But as I said before I’m always contemplating whether I should update this to MaxCon 2.0 which would include the effect of a dimmed sun.
|
|