|
Post by duwayne on Aug 7, 2014 18:40:36 GMT
I predicted some time ago that, as the flat global temperatures continue, the Climate Scientists will be coming around to the view that the climate is significantly driven by the ocean current oscillation - 30 years of cooling followed by 30 years of warming. This prediction would always cause our former poster friend, Steve, to go off on a tirade. This was especially true when Steve couldn't handle the fact that Trenberth had finally "discovered" the 60-year ocean current cycle according to a warmist reporter. Here's a recent quote from an NASA climate scientist concerning the recent "hiatus". "Loeb [NASA scientist] said that changes in solar radiation, water vapor and aerosol particles in the air have likely played a role [in the hiatus], but a major factor may be an El Nino-like pattern of climate variability that has historically coincided with a slowing in global warming. Loeb noted that a rise in global temperatures slowed in the 1940s as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation climate pattern was active – a pattern that similarly lasted 20-30 years." The reporter did not include the obvious additional comment that of course the El Nino type pattern (Oscillation) also likely added a natural boost to the warming in the following 30 years thus causing significant overstating of CO2's effect global warming. The key here is that scientists are admitting the flat temperatures in the 1947-1977 period were not due to aerosols. There never was any science to support the aerosol case. Even Hanssen wrote a couple of years ago that the aerosol science is "extremely uncertain" which is as close as we're going to get to an admission that something else caused the flat temperatures.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 8, 2014 2:08:40 GMT
When you look at the high resolution temps that were published last year, or the year before, for Greenland the cycle is so obvious it isn't funny.
I think the Pacific plays a roll, but I am leaning now more to the AMO as the actual player in the whole scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 8, 2014 2:25:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Aug 8, 2014 6:47:26 GMT
When you look at the high resolution temps that were published last year, or the year before, for Greenland the cycle is so obvious it isn't funny. I think the Pacific plays a roll, but I am leaning now more to the AMO as the actual player in the whole scheme of things. I'll 2nd that. RSS lower trop. global mean temperature versus the AMO: AMO vs RSS looks like a far better correlation than RSS vs CO2. Here's a good "60 year cycle" site: appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Aug 8, 2014 13:28:38 GMT
Cuttydyer, thanks for the link to the appinsys 60-year cycle site.
Sigurdur, I agree that the AMO correlates closely with global temperatures, even moreso than the PDO. The advantage of the PDO is that it leads the turns in global temperatures while the AMO is concurrent. In 2007, the PDO turning negative provided evidence that the warm cycle was over. Hence my focus and prediction then was on the PDO although my references were always to the broader ocean cycles including the AMO to substantiate the 60-year cycle pattern.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 8, 2014 13:34:18 GMT
duwayne: What I want to find out is what change in currents provides the AMO and PDO cycle. And both have cycles.
I have no clue as to the cause of the shifts, doesn't appear that variation in the sun does it.
But, there most certainly are cycles, and AGW folks are not giving us any clues.
They are too intent on CO2 and its magical non-powers on a global scale.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 8, 2014 14:08:09 GMT
duwayne: What I want to find out is what change in currents provides the AMO and PDO cycle. And both have cycles. I have no clue as to the cause of the shifts, doesn't appear that variation in the sun does it. But, there most certainly are cycles, and AGW folks are not giving us any clues. They are too intent on CO2 and its magical non-powers on a global scale. Well the 'Sun might do it ' but through a different mechanism. A long way back in this board's history, Pidgey I believe used to post a lot of information on 'Length of Day' (LOD) variations. This links to areas that Anthony Watts deletes or refuses to post on WUWT, where the orbital changes of the Earth -caused by variations in the path of the Sun due to the other planets - impinge on the rotation of the Earth and small LOD changes. These changes in turn impact the thermohaline currents as the oceans have huge inertia. But mention anything that hints of barycenter on WUWT and its like going to SKS and talking about Svensmark. There is a lot of discussion on these areas over at Tallbloke's Talkshop. For some reason it is considered that the Sun unlike any other star with planets does not wobble in its path around the galaxy due to the combined gravitational pull of the planets. ConjectureWe are sitting on a thin skinned blob of lava around a molten iron core with an even thinner layer of water and air; every now and then the movement of the sun is perturbed by the motions of the planets so that it is no longer the center of rotation of the solar system but is actually itself orbiting that 'barycenter'. The movement of the Sun means that the vector of its gravitational attraction also alters and our thin skinned bubble of lava has its velocity changed and its rotational rate changed. Changing the velocity of a planet requires considerable force and acceleration. The skin on the lava bubble deforms slightly and earthquakes and volcanism break out at weak points in the thin skinned bubble's crust. At the same time the liquid that covers 70% of the surface lags the change in velocity due to inertia and currents within the liquid and the air around it distort. The changes in the ocean currents tend to have a resonant frequency that leads to alterations in the heat distribution by the oceans which changes the currents in the air. Note I did not once mention TSI but it was the Sun changing its velocity (speed and vector) that could cause changes. Google: epitrochoid Rhodes Fairbridge Theodore Landscheidt Or go to see more on Landscheidt hereOh and I have been here before Some time ago
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Aug 8, 2014 17:32:32 GMT
It would be great if the underlying cause of the 60-year cycle was known with certainty. But in the meantime climate science should be able to move forward based on the knowledge that there is such a cycle.
Some Climate Scientists are just now belatedly acknowledging publicly that there is a 60-year cycle. I like their choice of words in describing it - an ENSO-like phenomenon with a more regular cycle. Using that desciptor conveys the notion that there is something which significantly affects global temperatures but for which the driving force is not at all understood. This is a big step. Having taken that step, I expect that in the not too distant future we will see something that to my knowledge has not been done. This is something which I have complained about and wondered about for some time.
I predict that we are nearing the point where a respected Climate Scientist (at least respected up to that point in time) will produce a long term global warming forecast which directly encompasses the effects of the 60-year ocean current cycle. To date forecasts built around the 60-year cycle have come from geologists, physicists and even a chemical engineer like myself - people with limited or no credentials in climate science.
If the current El Nino turns out to be a dud, and especially if a super La Nina arises which is a likely event during the Ocean Cycle cool phase,climate scientists will be forced to face reality. But even if there is a moderate El Nino unaccompanied by a major increase in global temperatures I think some climate scientists will begin to emerge from their self-spun cocoons and "discover" reality with respect to the 60-year cycle.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 23, 2014 17:53:45 GMT
Judy Curry's recent presentation to the National Press Club link does a good job of raising questions about CAGW, but think about how much better her arguments would be if she could point to specific past predictions by credible skeptic scientists of the global warming "hiatus". For a long time now I have been asking "Where are the skeptic predictions?". Curry, herself, has co-authored a paper on the "Stadium Wave" which would seem to provide a basis for global temperature predictions, but she seems more interested in focussing on uncertainty than in making forecasts. Meanwhile the CAGW crowd generates forecasts that are wildly wrong but fill the void. Dr. Akasofu wrote a paper link in 2013 with global temperature predictions similar to my 2007 prediction (which so far is on track), but he seems to have generated little in the way of support from the CAGW skeptic community. Scafetta's predictions may be fairly accurate to the extent they are based on a 60-year cycle, but the paper unfortunately is rife with highly controversial solar system calculations which limit its usefulness. We have many decades of temperature data covering the period when CO2 was rapidly rising. Surely this information can be used by skeptic scientists to make a prediction. What's wrong with my prediction? Is it too simplistic for the science community?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 23, 2014 21:21:49 GMT
Duwayne: There is a saying in business. KISS(keep it simple stupid). Whenever one observes something, of that isn't applied all kinds of red flags are raised.
Your forecast is simple and accurate thus far. By being so simple it can't be argued.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Sept 24, 2014 7:07:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 24, 2014 16:46:13 GMT
Neilhamp,thanks for the list. Easterbrook's predictions are impressive in that they are based on a version of the 60-year cycle and they have been accurate. But he is a geologist. Joe, the Actuary's, simple sine wave prediction is far superior to the IPCC's. Where are the climate scientists?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 26, 2014 12:22:30 GMT
Neilhamp,thanks for the list. Easterbrook's predictions are impressive in that they are based on a version of the 60-year cycle and they have been accurate. But he is a geologist. Joe, the Actuary's, simple sine wave prediction is far superior to the IPCC's. Where are the climate scientists? Duwayne, climate 'scientists' do not make predictions they make linear projections. Would you really believe someone making linear projections of the behavior of a chaotic system? They have strapped themselves to the IPCC mast which more and more seems to be policy based evidence making, you will not get more out of them than that.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 30, 2014 15:59:42 GMT
From Bishop Hill's Blog.... linkJohn McLean, Professor of Physics at James Cook University in Australia, emails with details of a paper he has just had published in Atmospheric and Climate Sciences about the warming of the planet at the end of the last century. He adds a useful layman's summary. The paper ... - indicates that the temperature pattern can be attributed to a sequence of events, namely a shift in the prevailing ENSO conditions, then a reduction in total cloud cover and then a shift on cloud (decrease in low level cloud that was largely offset by an increase in mid and upper level cloud) - uses the Trenberth, Fasulo & Kiehl energy balance diagram to show that the loss in total cloud cover caused an increase in heat energy being absorbed at the Earth's surface that was greater than the increase that IPCC 5AR claims was due to greenhouse gases - indicates that greenhouse gases played little if any part in the warming, which not only refutes the IPCC's belief or opinion but also means that there is negligible, or even no, 16 or more years' of "missing heat" to be found. - shows the changes in cloud cover and temperature both as global averages and then for the six latitude bands each of 30 degrees, the latter indicating the changes in cloud cover applied to most latitude bands except the Antarctic and to a less extent 30S-60S. - doesn't attempt to identify the reason for the reduction in total cloud cover or the shift from low level cloud. The paper is open access and can be seen here.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 4, 2014 15:19:54 GMT
Every 3 months I compare my 2007 Global Warming forecast to the most recent observations. I used the Hadcrut3 data until it was discontinued and replaced by Hadcrut4. Now Hadcrut4 has been replaced by Hadcrut4.3 which I'll still refer to as Hadcrut4. Guess what..... the historical temperatures have been increased in Hadcut4.3 over those in Hadcrut4.0, but only by a hundreth of a degree or so. Here are the comparisons for the 2007 through the current month averages versus my predicted averages for the 2007 to 2037 period. Last quarter my predictions were the same as the actuals. This quarter the MVENSO (multivariate ENSO) is 0.1 higher than predicted as the mini El Nino continues to drag on.
|
|