|
Post by Ratty on May 5, 2015 9:00:21 GMT
I won't even try to act surprised! Bad for my blood pressure. Early in the scare, I was prescribed something for that ...... but it didn't stop me shouting at the TV when climate change items came up.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on May 5, 2015 12:40:57 GMT
PDF]“To Fe or not to Fe?” Iron fertilisation in the Southern Ocean There are many reference to the Fe link to CO2 sequestration or fish growth improvement. www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/.../Turi%20McFarlane%20Review.pdfIts possible that this could feed the people and help fix the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. Fix the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere... I think after 20 years of hearing fraudsters scream that CO2 is going to kill us all has sort of sunk into peoples brains. CO2 is a precious resource that is necessary for life. Period. With all of the anti CO2 hype it is hard to remember that CO2 is for plants what oxygen is for us. Take it away and the plants die. If for some reason (CAGW nutters with the geoengineering version of a CO2 killing planet buster for example.) CO2 levels in the atmosphere fall below 200 ppm all life on earth larger than single celled critters will become extinct. The biosphere is STARVED for CO2, don't let the nutters tell you different with their incessant babble.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 5, 2015 16:24:34 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? duwayne. I've been perusing your past posts in search of climate projections and methodologies. Quite a wealth of information here. Your question in your last sentence stimulated a response. In my humble opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your prediction (still looking for the exact method of AMO/PDO incorporation). I've never dabbled in climate projections, but have done enough demographic and socio-economic projections to understand that 'you reap what you sow' in terms of the logical structure, assumptions and feedbacks that you build into your model. Many times, the simplest models produce the best results and are certainly the most transparent. Sometimes they don't. Looking at the list of projections posted by Neilhamp(?) appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm#easterbrookI note, not surprisingly, that practically all are based on some variation of the assumption that "the recent past (geologically speaking) is the key to the future. Nothing wrong with that approach ... as long the 'drivers' in your base period do not dramatically change. The IPCC and other AGW-supporting scientists are the only ones in this set that "modeled in" a dramatic change from the past ... and its seems fair to say that these so-called sophisticated models have failed dramatically, at least so far. In his recent co-authored paper, Easterbrook has adjusted his earlier 2001 projection to incorporate the possibility of a future based on changes in the 'drivers' that are largely outside of the quantitative parameters of the detailed historical data base. scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/multidecadal_tendencies.pdfThis is where mainstream models may truely fail. Call them 'black swain' events or merely changes outside of historical patterns ... this is what will make the next one or two decades "very interesting". i will merely quote D'Aleo and Easterbrook ... "We live in a most interesting time. As the global climate and solar variation reveals themselves in a way not seen in the past 200 years, we will surely attain a much better understanding of what causes global warming and cooling. Time will tell. If the climate continues its cooling and the sun behaves in a manner not witnessed since 1800, we can be sure that climate changes are dominated by the sun and that atmospheric CO2 has a very small role in climate changes. If the climatic patterns, cyclic warming and cooling, that occurred over the past 500 years continue, we can expect several decades of moderate to severe global cooling." I merely wish to live long enough to see who's right.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 5, 2015 17:50:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 5, 2015 18:39:41 GMT
Missouriboy, I use Hadcrut4 since it has the longest data record. It has led me to a methodolgy which can be applied to other anomalies. The one anomaly which didn't fit well with my methodology was UAH. Interestingly enough, there is a new updated version of UAH, version 6, which now fits. It looks more like RSS, the other satellite-based anomaly. duwayne. Is your technique very similar to this? wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/amopdo-temperature-variation-one-graph-says-it-all/Yes. My predictions are built largely on the observation that Ocean Currents (AMO, PDO, etc.) play a very significant role in global temperatures. The climate scientists have been deniers of this and of the "pause" as well...... until recently. Thanks for posting the link.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 5, 2015 19:18:08 GMT
Hi Duwayne , just out of interest, what techniques do you use for your long range forecasting? Acidohm, In paragraphs 3 and 4 above I show how I calculated my predicted values. All you need are the historical values for the Hadcrut4 anomalies and the MVENSO and PDO. Past posts on this thread describe the rationale behind my forecasts. I'll post something in the next day or so when I get time which resummarizes my rationale. Thx again for posting this, I have also read some of your past posts as Missouriboy linked to which go further to explain your ideas. I think you go some way to tie in global systems such as 30yr PDO cylces to changes in the climate temps and like your reasoning behind future temperatures, very simple which is elegant. However, do you think temperature is caused by co2 or (as I think) do you feel temperature can causes co2 rises? It's kinda ironic that a warm sea gives up co2 and a warm climate increases bio activity which could be interpreted as a feedback or indeed a cause in itself. I also theorise about some sort of threshold mechanism where if the sun's activity remains above a certain level, a warmer, stable climate is maintained whereas below a certain level of activity our climate switches to cold mode.... In any eventuality I'm sure all will become much clearer in the coming decade and I look forward to seeing how you get on with your forecasts.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 5, 2015 19:20:42 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? duwayne. I've been perusing your past posts in search of climate projections and methodologies. Quite a wealth of information here. Your question in your last sentence stimulated a response. In my humble opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your prediction (still looking for the exact method of AMO/PDO incorporation). I've never dabbled in climate projections, but have done enough demographic and socio-economic projections to understand that 'you reap what you sow' in terms of the logical structure, assumptions and feedbacks that you build into your model. Many times, the simplest models produce the best results and are certainly the most transparent. Sometimes they don't. Looking at the list of projections posted by Neilhamp(?) appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm#easterbrookI note, not surprisingly, that practically all are based on some variation of the assumption that "the recent past (geologically speaking) is the key to the future. Nothing wrong with that approach ... as long the 'drivers' in your base period do not dramatically change. The IPCC and other AGW-supporting scientists are the only ones in this set that "modeled in" a dramatic change from the past ... and its seems fair to say that these so-called sophisticated models have failed dramatically, at least so far. In his recent co-authored paper, Easterbrook has adjusted his earlier 2001 projection to incorporate the possibility of a future based on changes in the 'drivers' that are largely outside of the quantitative parameters of the detailed historical data base. scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/multidecadal_tendencies.pdfThis is where mainstream models may truely fail. Call them 'black swain' events or merely changes outside of historical patterns ... this is what will make the next one or two decades "very interesting". i will merely quote D'Aleo and Easterbrook ... "We live in a most interesting time. As the global climate and solar variation reveals themselves in a way not seen in the past 200 years, we will surely attain a much better understanding of what causes global warming and cooling. Time will tell. If the climate continues its cooling and the sun behaves in a manner not witnessed since 1800, we can be sure that climate changes are dominated by the sun and that atmospheric CO2 has a very small role in climate changes. If the climatic patterns, cyclic warming and cooling, that occurred over the past 500 years continue, we can expect several decades of moderate to severe global cooling." I merely wish to live long enough to see who's right. Missouriboy, my prediction comes with provisos, ie, no "black swan" events such as a major series of volcanic eruptions or no major meteorite strike or no major dimming of the sun. And the forecast is based on the assumption that CO2 emissions will continue to grow at their current rate rather than a prediction of what the rate might be. In fact my prediction is one of global temperatures in the future if things go on as they have. That is a key point which I make over and over, we have 70 years of history which shows what happens when CO2 grows rapidly. We don't need highly inaccurate general circulation models to mislead us. A few days ago, the Kentucky Derby was run for the 141st time. We could have predicted the winning time for this year's 1 1/4 mile race within a few seconds by averaging the winning times over the last several years. I don't believe any model which tried to simulate the bodily movements of a horse from first principles could achieve such accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 5, 2015 22:19:57 GMT
Missouriboy, my prediction comes with provisos, ie, no "black swan" events such as a major series of volcanic eruptions or no major meteorite strike or no major dimming of the sun. And the forecast is based on the assumption that CO2 emissions will continue to grow at their current rate rather than a prediction of what the rate might be. In fact my prediction is one of global temperatures in the future if things go on as they have. That is a key point which I make over and over, we have 70 years of history which shows what happens when CO2 grows rapidly. We don't need highly inaccurate general circulation models to mislead us. A few days ago, the Kentucky Derby was run for the 141st time. We could have predicted the winning time for this year's 1 1/4 mile race within a few seconds by averaging the winning times over the last several years. I don't believe any model which tried to simulate the bodily movements of a horse from first principles could achieve such accuracy. I noted the provisos. I also note that your base period, which by definition, is a part of Hadcrud4, includes a run-up in both the PDO and AMO, with the former trailing off toward the end of your base period. Hadcrud4 has its quantification of what happened in the previous 30-year period under reverse PDO/AMO expressions, when CO2 was also rising rapidly. MY personal opinion is that the temperature declines during that period are understated in the Hadcrud series, and that recent increases are somewhat inflated. Others have expressed similar opinions. If you are building in a PDO/AMO decline of the Hadcrud magnitude for 1947-77 (essentially zero), then your horse may get whacked somewhere not too far down the track. That assumes that there is an 'honest' temperature measure to compare to. There seem to be quite a number of observers that seem to think that Hadcrud and honest should not be used in the same sentence. Thus, another measure of temperature decline for the 1947-77 time period might be useful as a companion projection. It might accomplish the same purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 5, 2015 22:27:22 GMT
[ Snip ] I merely wish to live long enough to see who's right. With me, it's to say "I told you so" to a few people.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 6, 2015 0:35:30 GMT
[ Snip ] I merely wish to live long enough to see who's right. With me, it's to say "I told you so" to a few people. That too!
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 6, 2015 19:15:03 GMT
Duwayne’s Global Warming Prediction Rationale- Part 2 Summarizing Part 1….. 1) The IPCC model predictions of CO2-induced warming are very inaccurate 2) “Feedback” estimates are the major issue 3) My predictions are based on an analysis of historical information rather than General Circulation Models Below is a chart of Hadcrut4 global temperature anomalies. The temperatures rise over the period from 1850 to 2015 but not steadily. The large year-to-year fluctuations are attributable to EL Ninos, La Ninas and volcanic eruptions. But there are multidecadal trend changes as well. By applying 7-year smoothing to the hadcrut4 anomalies, much of the ENSO and volcanic effect can be removed. The result is a chart of historical temperatures which shows that warming occurs in 30-year spurts. Between the 30-year spurts are 30 year periods where the temperature trend is slightly down or flat. A periodigram analysis of the Hadcrut anomalies indicates the temperature cycle to be 60 years and shows it to be very significant. If CO2 is the major driver of temperature as the warmists claim, then why have temperatures grown in spurts while atmospheric CO2 growth has been steady? The explanation given by the “warmists” for the 1947 to 1977 flat period of global temperatures is aerosols. But the science is completely missing. Aerosols can heat or cool depending on where they are in the atmosphere. A couple of years ago James Hansen finally admitted that that the aerosol science is (his words) “very uncertain”. He also noted that temperatures for some unknown reason have been flat for 15 years. Furthermore, the warmists have no explanation for the earlier similar 1887-1917 flat period. A comparison of detrended Hadcrut4 global temperature anomalies to the Atlantic Meriodinal Oscillation (AMO) is shown below. The correlation of global temperatures cycles with the AMO is obvious. Analysis also shows that during the flat global temperature periods the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is strongly negative on average while La Ninas outnumber La Ninas considerably. The reverse is true during the warming spurts. Unfortunately, the global temperature information only dates back to 1850 and the AMO and PDO information is only available for a limited period but there are myriads of studies, a lot of which are admittedly regional, which show that the quasi 60-year temperature cycles extend back before 1850 and the ocean current cycles have been around for a long time. Many of the studies which show the historical temperature cycles attempt to tie the cycle to the sun or planetary movements. More recently Judith Curry has put forth a “Stadium Wave” concept. My position is that regardless of the reasons behind the Ocean Current cycles it is a certainty that they exist. Given their historical tendency it seems more likely than not that they will continue in the future even though we can’t pinpoint their cause just like sunspot cycles and ENSO continue despite our inability to fully explain the science. My conclusion, then, is that there has been a history of continuing Ocean Current cycles of approximately 60 years in length made up of a warm phase of 30 years followed by a 30 year cool phase. Global temperatures are flat during the cool ocean current phase and grow faster than normal during the warm phase . The last 2 cycles, the only ones for which we have reasonably good data are quite similar. And, based on this history it’s likely that these oscillations will continue into the future with a 60-year period being a “best guess” estimate. Would it be nice to have 100’s of years of data on the global temperature cycles? Yes. Should we ignore the cycles we know about ? No. Are aerosols a credible explanation for these cycles? No. Are ocean currents a credible explanation for these cycles? Yes. Part 3, predictions, will follow in 2 or 3 days.. In the meantime any comments or questions on what I've written so far are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 6, 2015 19:59:20 GMT
Sensible and simple, really like your line of inquiry here Duwayne. ....Thanks for taking the time to compile this series!!!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 6, 2015 23:28:17 GMT
Scarfetta
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 7, 2015 15:49:47 GMT
Sensible and simple, really like your line of inquiry here Duwayne. ....Thanks for taking the time to compile this series!!! Acidohm, thanks for your comments. Hopefully you and others will excuse the grammatical errors which I often make in my haste to write without taking too much of my time.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 7, 2015 17:09:31 GMT
Sensible and simple, really like your line of inquiry here Duwayne. ....Thanks for taking the time to compile this series!!! Acidohm, thanks for your comments. Hopefully you and others will excuse the grammatical errors which I often make in my haste to write without taking too much of my time. I'm sure we can find it in our hearts to let the odd one slide past unnoticed!!
|
|