|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 20, 2009 20:40:41 GMT
Thank you AJ. I will be most interested in reading it.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Dec 20, 2009 22:22:28 GMT
Not to hijack the thread, and probably not worth starting a new one for, but any predictions on where the furthest south terminal moraines will end up in the coming ice age?
In North American nomenclature, the past 4 ice ages have been named Wisconsin, Illinoisan, Kansan and Nebraskan in order of increasing age.
Any guesses on how far south the continental ice sheets will pile up their excavations during MIS- -1? (the as yet unpredicted next glacial maximum)
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 20, 2009 22:38:53 GMT
I am hoping for my kids sake that it is the Northwest Territories....
|
|
|
Post by lamont on Dec 20, 2009 23:39:30 GMT
Even as a "warmer" I'm not so confident about that. If solar variability has any influence on short term climate variability we might be in for some relatively (i.e. deviant from the expected AGW trend) cool weather if the sun remains rather inactive or especially if it becomes more inactive. GCM do not have this feature, because nobody knows exactly how to predict the sun's variability, so they have used a rather "constant" solar forcing I believe. Solar variability has still explained most of the warming of the previous centuries (note: not all), and there are indications of a lull in solar activity (e.g. Livingston and Penn) to a Dalton or Maunder minimum. Well, the solar minimum occurred earlier this year, and I'll believe in a new Dalton/Maunder minimum when I see it. We can pretty well conclude that the recent very high level of activity is over, but that doesn't mean that the sun guaranteed to transition to extreme minimum levels of activity, and it would take a new Maunder minimum to cause global warming to plateau. What happens to "global cooling" if by 2012 we're having a 1900-level solar maximum while we've set new global temperature records, new arctic sea ice minimums, still retreating glaciers, etc? And by around 2015 we should have conclusive evidence one way or the other than either we're warming, stable or cooling: tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 20, 2009 23:47:02 GMT
Even as a "warmer" I'm not so confident about that. If solar variability has any influence on short term climate variability we might be in for some relatively (i.e. deviant from the expected AGW trend) cool weather if the sun remains rather inactive or especially if it becomes more inactive. GCM do not have this feature, because nobody knows exactly how to predict the sun's variability, so they have used a rather "constant" solar forcing I believe. Solar variability has still explained most of the warming of the previous centuries (note: not all), and there are indications of a lull in solar activity (e.g. Livingston and Penn) to a Dalton or Maunder minimum. Well, the solar minimum occurred earlier this year, and I'll believe in a new Dalton/Maunder minimum when I see it. We can pretty well conclude that the recent very high level of activity is over, but that doesn't mean that the sun guaranteed to transition to extreme minimum levels of activity, and it would take a new Maunder minimum to cause global warming to plateau. What happens to "global cooling" if by 2012 we're having a 1900-level solar maximum while we've set new global temperature records, new arctic sea ice minimums, still retreating glaciers, etc? And by around 2015 we should have conclusive evidence one way or the other than either we're warming, stable or cooling: tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/Tamino wouldn't know which side of a piece of toast to butter. And I am serious when I am saying that. I have caught him with so many lies on RC it isn't even funny. But enough of that. The earth has been loosing THC since 2002- earely 2003. The CRU/GISS averages are only that, and have been massaged. I say that with a straight face. See, this is the part that pisses me off. When I take regional data, which I have at my fingertips, and compare it to GISS and CRU anomolies, all I can say is that they are so full of it that they should be called GWB. Anyways....back to real life. The PDO switched, and the world wide implications are only now being felt, which is to be expected. That, along with the Svensmark theory provides a bleak outlook for temps. I also will state that CRU data is overstated by at least .3-.4C with their anomolies.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Dec 21, 2009 0:22:56 GMT
What a hateful place that Tamino's blog is. I'd be sad if the name - Open Mind - hadn't given me a laugh.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 21, 2009 0:32:03 GMT
I think Tamino is a good man....but I think he has been fed the koolaid of AGW and ran with it rather than investigating it.
When one looks at the total corruption of facts and papers, I just get angry, sorry , can't help it.
There are so very veryyyyyy many holes in the scientific hypothosis of AGW....
Ahhh....I have to stop. I am not that type of person. I only feel sorry for those who are so duped.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 21, 2009 0:32:40 GMT
And I am thankful that Al Gore invented the internet!
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Dec 21, 2009 9:47:15 GMT
Tamino wouldn't know which side of a piece of toast to butter. And I am serious when I am saying that. I have caught him with so many lies on RC it isn't even funny. But enough of that. The earth has been loosing THC since 2002- earely 2003. The CRU/GISS averages are only that, and have been massaged. I say that with a straight face. See, this is the part that pisses me off. When I take regional data, which I have at my fingertips, and compare it to GISS and CRU anomolies, all I can say is that they are so full of it that they should be called GWB. Anyways....back to real life. The PDO switched, and the world wide implications are only now being felt, which is to be expected. That, along with the Svensmark theory provides a bleak outlook for temps. I also will state that CRU data is overstated by at least .3-.4C with their anomolies. I just don't get the massive rush. Well...I can get why SOME are pushing for (foolishly) fast action (green vested interests) but the bulk of the people really should respond well to the idea...since nature has thrown us a bone in the simultaneous PDO and Solar minimum, we REALLY should be waiting a few years to see if temperatures go down. I have to say that ANY good scientist should be jumping for joy at the idea of being able to test a hypothesis like AGW within their lifetime. They should NOT be shrugging it off and saying the science is settled. Now, on the overstated warming front...I don't think they're overstating warming by .4C, but even with only half that the error bars between 1940/2000s temps...overlap. I am almost certain that the way Hansen keeps fudging the data every few years he has to have at least .1C of semi-intentional bias in there, possibly in the 2000s alone. On the winter weather is not climate front...the fact that we've been having big snow storms all over the place during one of the top 10 warmest years does leave me wondering. Really, how much of our perception of it being cold in the past was based on it ACTUALLY being cold and how much was based on there being snow on the ground at times? Well, on the bright side...with all these eyes on the climate we should at least collect some good data for a transition to a cooling period. As long as nobody tosses out data (which unfortunately now seems more likely) we'll EVENTUALLY be able to work out what went on.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Dec 21, 2009 10:35:37 GMT
The earth has been loosing THC since 2002- earely 2003.
You have some proof of this, presumably. If you're referring to OHC then it's possbily 'flat' - no more than that.
The CRU/GISS averages are only that, and have been massaged. I say that with a straight face. See, this is the part that pisses me off. When I take regional data, which I have at my fingertips, and compare it to GISS and CRU anomolies, all I can say is that they are so full of it that they should be called GWB.
What about UAH? November UAH anomaly is again highest of the 4 main datasets. It's much, much higher than CRU if you use the same base period (1979-1998).
Anyways....back to real life. The PDO switched, and the world wide implications are only now being felt, which is to be expected. That, along with the Svensmark theory provides a bleak outlook for temps.
The PDO switched in 1999 according to Easterbrook. UAH has just recorded it's warmest November on record. This so-called PDO switch has been a damp squib. Following the shift in the 1940s global temperatures fell by over 0.2 deg in just a few years.
I also will state that CRU data is overstated by at least .3-.4C with their anomolies.
Where does that leave UAH? In June you were lauding UAH for the low monthly anomalies. You seem to have gone a bit quiet on that now. I'm afraid global cooling has hit the skids.
Unless there's a volcanic eruption (Mayon perhaps) 2010 is going to be a top 3 year.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 21, 2009 13:13:35 GMT
The earth has been loosing THC since 2002- earely 2003. You have some proof of this, presumably. If you're referring to OHC then it's possbily 'flat' - no more than that. The CRU/GISS averages are only that, and have been massaged. I say that with a straight face. See, this is the part that pisses me off. When I take regional data, which I have at my fingertips, and compare it to GISS and CRU anomolies, all I can say is that they are so full of it that they should be called GWB.What about UAH? November UAH anomaly is again highest of the 4 main datasets. It's much, much higher than CRU if you use the same base period (1979-1998). Anyways....back to real life. The PDO switched, and the world wide implications are only now being felt, which is to be expected. That, along with the Svensmark theory provides a bleak outlook for temps.The PDO switched in 1999 according to Easterbrook. UAH has just recorded it's warmest November on record. This so-called PDO switch has been a damp squib. Following the shift in the 1940s global temperatures fell by over 0.2 deg in just a few years. I also will state that CRU data is overstated by at least .3-.4C with their anomolies. Where does that leave UAH? In June you were lauding UAH for the low monthly anomalies. You seem to have gone a bit quiet on that now. I'm afraid global cooling has hit the skids. Unless there's a volcanic eruption (Mayon perhaps) 2010 is going to be a top 3 year. Methinks a bias is showing.... one month in June and it was 'only weather' one month in November and its 'climate change' In any case - it is not the temperatures that should be the argument - it is the _cause_ and that has yet to be proven. The mere fact that AGW proponents felt the need to fiddle figures to 'prove' AGW makes me doubt it is validity.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Dec 21, 2009 21:40:31 GMT
Methinks there is a bias in your reading of posts. Sceptics always predict the start of global cooling during cool months, and always prefer the temperature statistic with the lowest anomaly. But it's usually only a month or two before the cooling blip turns out to be weather, which is what glc was saying.
Anyways I see there are two more brave people going for a record warm 2010! That El Niño seems to be teetering though...
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Dec 21, 2009 23:37:30 GMT
Steve -
Personally I am thinking it will be warmish in 2010. Though, there could be a massive caveat, and that would be the Mayon volcano. Depending on the size of its apparently immeninent eruption, it oculd have a small-moderate effect. (Currently discounting a Pinotubo sized eruption)
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Dec 22, 2009 12:19:45 GMT
Methinks there is a bias in your reading of posts. Sceptics always predict the start of global cooling during cool months, and always prefer the temperature statistic with the lowest anomaly. But it's usually only a month or two before the cooling blip turns out to be weather, which is what glc was saying. Anyways I see there are two more brave people going for a record warm 2010! That El Niño seems to be teetering though... I will go further - not only will 2010 be a record warm year, but also a record wet year as well with strong storms and plenty of flooding as a result for some geographic regions, and signs of increasing drought in others. Further means that the years afterward 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 will also be warmer years with increasingly strange colder climate anomalies, which are signs of things to come in the 2020s and 2030s. My forecast is this - Wet and warmer in 2010 - major ENSO year that continues into 2011 with La Nina. Warmer through the mid-2010s w/ increasing droughts & dry climes. Colder by 2017 - major year of strange temperature drops. Increasingly colder into the 2020s. Peaking in the 2030s, reducing in strength in the 2040s, but still cold, with the climate warming again in the mid-2050s. This is what I see astronomically.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 22, 2009 16:02:09 GMT
At Astromet:
the grand question most of us have been waiting for to be answered is how cold will it become? I.e. what is the expected temperature drop between now (take the previous decadal average for example) and 2030-2040 or 2020-2030?
Personally I wouldn't know, based on my knowledge on AGW I would expect it to be almost half a degree warmer, maybe a bit less if the sun is very inactive or if we see an unexpected increase in vulcanic activity.
|
|