|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 25, 2012 19:45:20 GMT
Here is Joe Bastardi. Of course there are experts whom suggest its really just masked and is still in the pipeline. Maybe stored on Venus and will be laser projected to Earth by Venusians when the time is right. "In a piece of defensive journalism from Tom Yulsman of the Boulder Stand challenges the Stand Climate skeptics on record heat: have a nice big slice of cherry pie. He claims we are cherry picking when sites like Climate Depot ably compile evidence that the world is cooling even as the US has a non winter and record March. It really frosts advocacy journalists when we have a comeback to their attempt to use extremes of all types and weather elsewhere to counter their attempts to use and extreme event, month or even season to drive home their ideology. NCAR is no objective source anymore thanks to government largesse. In actual fact we have gone not just a decade without warming, but really no statitistically significant changes have occurred for a full 17 years globally in sharp contrast to IPCC projections. Recall none other than Ben Santer of LLL had said it falsification of AGW needed not a few years, not even a full decade but 17 years of non-warming. Even with massive still ongoing after climategates manipulation of the data to induce false warming, the data from the site the author recommends (Wood for Trees) does exactly that - falsify man made global warming. The 17 years started in a cold period and ended in a cold period with three El Nino spikes in between. We end the period 0.3C colder than we began. " icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-coolupdate here is an WUWT link that was not up when I posted wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/25/bastardis-reply-to-tom-yulsmans-article-on-cherry-picking/#more-60125 |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 25, 2012 20:38:20 GMT
What it all boils down to is that sensativity to CO2 is not nearly as high as previously thought.
The measurements of radiation via satillite show that the radiation imbalance is not nearly as much as modeled.
That is why the IPCC models verses reality are out of whack.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 26, 2012 1:18:31 GMT
Well its official. (sorry glen I stole your image) "Study: Global temperatures could rise 5 degrees by 2050"  "The climate models used in the study accurately reproduced actual, observed temperature changes over the last 50 years: Assuming that models that simulate past warming realistically are the best candidates for future warming predictions, the authors conclude in the study that a warming of from 2.5 to 5.4 degrees by 2050, compared with the 1960-90 average, is in the "likely range" of climate warming. The earth's average temperature during the decade of 2000-2010 was almost a full degree higher than the average from 1960-90, Rowlands says. The project ran almost 10,000 climate simulations on volunteers' home computers, which was made possible because volunteers donated time to run the simulations on their home computers through climateprediction.net, as part of the BBC Climate Change Experiment."Perhaps the most ambitious effort to date, this work illustrates how the citizen science movement is making an important contribution to this field," says paper co-author Ben Booth, a senior climate scientist with the U.K. Met Office's Hadley Centre." content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/03/climate-change-global-warming-temperature-rise-model-predict/1#.T2_BSVKZaSo |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 26, 2012 1:42:28 GMT
Interesting link trbixler.
So we can expect another 1.5C increase in temps for the 21st century?
Color me surprised.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 26, 2012 5:21:55 GMT
As I thought about the P.R. side of the Met office involving volunteer's computers I was struck by how they recently brought on a teraflop level machine for calculations. Maybe the windmills were not turning fast enough to power the machine. Or maybe they needed a Green outreach moment. Why is my B.S. meter pegged with accurate predictions of the past meaning we understand tomorrow. "The Met Office's £33 million supercomputer that keeps Britain - and the world - turning... Now try complaining about the forecast" "7,500,000,000,000,000. That's the amount of floating-point operations (or calculations) the Met O ffice's supercomputer makes every minute in its quest to forecast the weather. And what thanks does it get? Live reports on the electronic legacy of empire that keeps Britain - and the world - turning"  Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1249957/The-Met-Offices-33-million-supercomputer-keeps-Britain--world--turning--Now-try-complaining-forecast.html#ixzz1qCHNCO7p |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 26, 2012 14:00:09 GMT
Poor old socold, waiting for an el nino to bump temps up. Unfortunately, neutral ENSO is going to be as good as you can hope for before we go back to double dip La Nina. We've already just had a double dip La Nina. You mean triple dip? The odds are for an El Nino now, but even a period of ENSO neutral would be telling though so see how high global temperatures reach. Socold, you continue to point out that the ocean currents have reduced the amount of global warming over the recent past and rightly so. But you seem to ignore the fact that ocean currents contributed significantly to the warming during the 1977-2007 period when the ocean currents were in their warm phase. Why does this only work in one direction? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 27, 2012 0:17:12 GMT
Socold: If you think Foster and Rahmstorf: iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022Has ONE iota of scientific integrity, I would be most open to exploring it. I have the paper in full text. If this is the best that the AGW folks can do, then I shudder to think what their worst looks like. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 27, 2012 2:48:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Mar 27, 2012 3:47:57 GMT
As I thought about the P.R. side of the Met office involving volunteer's computers I was struck by how they recently brought on a teraflop level machine for calculations. Maybe the windmills were not turning fast enough to power the machine. Or maybe they needed a Green outreach moment. Why is my B.S. meter pegged with accurate predictions of the past meaning we understand tomorrow. "The Met Office's £33 million supercomputer that keeps Britain - and the world - turning... Now try complaining about the forecast" "7,500,000,000,000,000. That's the amount of floating-point operations (or calculations) the Met O ffice's supercomputer makes every minute in its quest to forecast the weather. And what thanks does it get? Live reports on the electronic legacy of empire that keeps Britain - and the world - turning" Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1249957/The-Met-Offices-33-million-supercomputer-keeps-Britain--world--turning--Now-try-complaining-forecast.html#ixzz1qCHNCO7pI'd like to test this machine against my long-range climate and weather forecasting and let's all see the results in public. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 29, 2012 0:21:39 GMT
All it does is generate the wrong forecast faster
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 31, 2012 14:45:49 GMT
We've already just had a double dip La Nina. You mean triple dip? The odds are for an El Nino now, but even a period of ENSO neutral would be telling though so see how high global temperatures reach. Socold, you continue to point out that the ocean currents have reduced the amount of global warming over the recent past and rightly so. But you seem to ignore the fact that ocean currents contributed significantly to the warming during the 1977-2007 period when the ocean currents were in their warm phase. Why does this only work in one direction? It doesn't work in only one direction. From 1977-2007 though ENSO hasn't trended upwards enough to explain much of the warming at all. Since 2002 it has trended downwards enough to explain significant cooling |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 31, 2012 14:48:44 GMT
Socold: If you think Foster and Rahmstorf: iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022Has ONE iota of scientific integrity, I would be most open to exploring it. I have the paper in full text. If this is the best that the AGW folks can do, then I shudder to think what their worst looks like. It's a good paper. It's almost exactly the same method I use. Removing ENSO, solar cycle and volcanic eruptions from the data to see what remains. Once all that noise is removed the upward progress of the underlying signal is a lot clearer:  The biggest uncertainty I think is the solar cycle contribution. Here's the solar component T&F use:  Here's the ENSO component:  further to my reply to duwayne's comment: The same reasoning is being applied over all time periods too, eg 1977-2007. You can see in the above graph that ENSO doesn't significantly change over 1977-2007. 2002- though it does drop quite a lot (relative to the short time period). Solar also has a cooling effect since 2002. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 31, 2012 15:29:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 31, 2012 15:30:59 GMT
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000867The strong sensitivity of the Earth's radiation balance to variations in the lower stratospheric ozone—reported previously—is analysed here by the use of non-linear statistical methods. Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)—driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)—explains 75% of total variability of Earth's T variations during the period 1926–2011.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 31, 2012 15:50:09 GMT
Socold:
Looking at the MEI verses temp, you can see that over a longer term, the temp influence is basically -O-.
Read the papers about the Sun. There is much more to a cycle, TSI, variation than temperature.
I still disagree with you. After buying a copy of F&R and reading it, I thought what a waste of good hard earned money.
|
|
