|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 18, 2010 13:36:59 GMT
We're talking about different things. Simulations of the 20th Century include solar and volcanic. The IPCC projections into the 21st century do not include variations due to solar and volcanic, as the aim was to project the anthropogenic impact. So the causes of any of the cooling episodes that most of the models demonstrate throughot the whole of the 21st century are not volcanoes. Maybe I missunderstood this, but to my mind we probably have a good record of volcanic activity during last 200 yrs and maybe also some calculations of its impact on climate ( mostly cooling due to sulfur aeorosols and dust covering the sky...). In the case of CO2 we have a lot of confusion, from missundrstanding of Stefan's law, half life of CO2 in the atmosfere, missing budget of CO2 and many more. So here we come to the unusual Sun's inactivity. And outer space with its bombardment of cosmic rays. Any of these parameters has more or less the same uncertainty as influence factor on climate. So why than IPCC focused only on CO2? This is a real mistery for me. And also one here mentioned that 1/8 of cooked data ( Climategate I) should not mean that all IPCC work is garbage. As we are now slowly coming to Climategate II ( USA), I can say that 1/8 is already more than the top of iceberg which sunked Titanic. Climategate I+2 are just top of iceberg. Once a thief, always a thief. Once a lier, always a lier. So forget 1/8 and let's find out how much is x of x/8. Yes, you did misunderstand it. Much of the confusion has been "made" by some AGW skeptics, who have their own agenda. Why the AGW scientists focus on CO2? 1) We might have something to do with it (so we can influence it). 2) Future volcanic/solar activity are currently still unpredictable (and we can't do anything about it) 3) They think CO2 is a stronger climate driver than most of the relatively short term natural variables. I do however think that it is time that many AGW scientists who are really trying to do honest research speak up and show what they are doing. (Most scientists I know don't really give a **** about all the fuss which is going on, don't want to get involved in endless discussions which they will probably loose, even if they are right. Many of them (not all of course) are actually just "nerds", who live for their work, but lack the eloquence and social skills to be actively involved in political games and PR, which they really don't care about. They will check any skeptic research, but usually not comment on it in public even if they disagree.) The ones who are deliberately trying to produce measurements and analysis should be kicked out as soon as possible. Science don't need them. They'd better start a political party or environmental group or something like that. (Or even better, just get lost.)
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 18, 2010 14:31:17 GMT
We're talking about different things. Simulations of the 20th Century include solar and volcanic. The IPCC projections into the 21st century do not include variations due to solar and volcanic, as the aim was to project the anthropogenic impact. So the causes of any of the cooling episodes that most of the models demonstrate throughot the whole of the 21st century are not volcanoes. Maybe I missunderstood this, but to my mind we probably have a good record of volcanic activity during last 200 yrs and maybe also some calculations of its impact on climate ( mostly cooling due to sulfur aeorosols and dust covering the sky...). In the case of CO2 we have a lot of confusion, from missundrstanding of Stefan's law, half life of CO2 in the atmosfere, missing budget of CO2 and many more. So here we come to the unusual Sun's inactivity. And outer space with its bombardment of cosmic rays. Any of these parameters has more or less the same uncertainty as influence factor on climate. So why than IPCC focused only on CO2? This is a real mistery for me. And also one here mentioned that 1/8 of cooked data ( Climategate I) should not mean that all IPCC work is garbage. As we are now slowly coming to Climategate II ( USA), I can say that 1/8 is already more than the top of iceberg which sunked Titanic. Climategate I+2 are just top of iceberg. Once a thief, always a thief. Once a lier, always a lier. So forget 1/8 and let's find out how much is x of x/8. The IPCC was set up specifically to show that fossil fuel burning was bad - not to investigate what was causing global warming. Its origins are in the UK politics of the 1970s and in particular the Conservative party problems with the National Union of Mineworkers. Read www.john-daly.com/history.htmThe expectation was that by using this means there would be support for Nuclear Power - no-one in their wildest flights of fantasy in the 1970s would have believed that the UK would be covered with wind turbines and be taxing travel using carbon footprints as the justification.
|
|
|
Post by Purinoli on Jan 18, 2010 16:07:24 GMT
Maybe I missunderstood this, but to my mind we probably have a good record of volcanic activity during last 200 yrs and maybe also some calculations of its impact on climate ( mostly cooling due to sulfur aeorosols and dust covering the sky...). In the case of CO2 we have a lot of confusion, from missundrstanding of Stefan's law, half life of CO2 in the atmosfere, missing budget of CO2 and many more. So here we come to the unusual Sun's inactivity. And outer space with its bombardment of cosmic rays. Any of these parameters has more or less the same uncertainty as influence factor on climate. So why than IPCC focused only on CO2? This is a real mistery for me. And also one here mentioned that 1/8 of cooked data ( Climategate I) should not mean that all IPCC work is garbage. As we are now slowly coming to Climategate II ( USA), I can say that 1/8 is already more than the top of iceberg which sunked Titanic. Climategate I+2 are just top of iceberg. Once a thief, always a thief. Once a lier, always a lier. So forget 1/8 and let's find out how much is x of x/8. Yes, you did misunderstand it. Much of the confusion has been "made" by some AGW skeptics, who have their own agenda. Why the AGW scientists focus on CO2? 1) We might have something to do with it (so we can influence it). 2) Future volcanic/solar activity are currently still unpredictable (and we can't do anything about it) 3) They think CO2 is a stronger climate driver than most of the relatively short term natural variables. I do however think that it is time that many AGW scientists who are really trying to do honest research speak up and show what they are doing. (Most scientists I know don't really give a **** about all the fuss which is going on, don't want to get involved in endless discussions which they will probably loose, even if they are right. Many of them (not all of course) are actually just "nerds", who live for their work, but lack the eloquence and social skills to be actively involved in political games and PR, which they really don't care about. They will check any skeptic research, but usually not comment on it in public even if they disagree.) The ones who are deliberately trying to produce measurements and analysis should be kicked out as soon as possible. Science don't need them. They'd better start a political party or environmental group or something like that. (Or even better, just get lost.) Yes, we can have a big influence on about 4% of CO2 in the atmosfere which means 4% on 0.04%. The rest (96%) is natural exchange, following Henry's law. And of course a little share caused by volcanoes and natural fires and other sources... Future volcanoes activities can be predicted with some statistic accuracy due to our good records of 200 yrs and also on other signs of its past activity. I am very sure that these predictions are more accurate than our ( yours) predictions about present and future CO2 influence. We even can't agree about half life of CO2 in the atmosfere, about net GH effect, budget of CO2 has a hole of about 30%..... We have had too much ups and downs of global temp. without CO2 influence in the last few hundreds of yrs that CO2 could play so crucial role in GW/GC. About your point #3 : If they think CO2 is so strong climate driver than they should have a good explanation why we have had 500 yrs of very mild ( AGW's would say "hot") climate arround 800-1300. And than a bitter cooling after that. Please, don't say it was "local" because few 100's yrs of green Greenland can't be "local". And no CO2 poluters around.... And we have had 7,000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosfere at some time. And sea level was about 3 m lower at the time of Roman empire. As a kid I saw remnants of Roman navy port in the city I live ( Izola, Slovenia; Adriatic sea). When i dive there ( 1958) and when I dive now, it is all at the same level. We have marks there. I also saw pictures from 1901 and the shore was on the same position. So what caused rising this sea level during last 2,000 yrs? Maybe ruining Roman empire caused too much fire=>Co2? At the end, I am sure also among the garbage of IPCC mafia there are a lot of good scientists doing a good job and good science. But also within Al Capone gang I have heard there were many honest people involved in mafia "business". But the fish smelled anyway. From the head down....
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 18, 2010 18:22:30 GMT
Yes, you did misunderstand it. Much of the confusion has been "made" by some AGW skeptics, who have their own agenda. Why the AGW scientists focus on CO2? 1) We might have something to do with it (so we can influence it). 2) Future volcanic/solar activity are currently still unpredictable (and we can't do anything about it) 3) They think CO2 is a stronger climate driver than most of the relatively short term natural variables. I do however think that it is time that many AGW scientists who are really trying to do honest research speak up and show what they are doing. (Most scientists I know don't really give a **** about all the fuss which is going on, don't want to get involved in endless discussions which they will probably loose, even if they are right. Many of them (not all of course) are actually just "nerds", who live for their work, but lack the eloquence and social skills to be actively involved in political games and PR, which they really don't care about. They will check any skeptic research, but usually not comment on it in public even if they disagree.) The ones who are deliberately trying to produce measurements and analysis should be kicked out as soon as possible. Science don't need them. They'd better start a political party or environmental group or something like that. (Or even better, just get lost.) Yes, we can have a big influence on about 4% of CO2 in the atmosfere which means 4% on 0.04%. The rest (96%) is natural exchange, following Henry's law. And of course a little share caused by volcanoes and natural fires and other sources... Nature reabsorbs the 96% each year as leaves regrow etc.. Humans don't reabsorb their proportion. That's why there is a build up over time of (currently) about 0.5% per year. Yesterday I turned my boiler on and my house got warmer. Obviously my boiler had nothing to do with it as it was warm last summer and my boiler wasn't even on then. It was a) partly local (other parts of the planet were warmer at the same time b) not as hugely warm or as "bitter" cold as you'd like to think. And c) just because the climate can change without CO2 changing it doesn't prove that CO2 doesn't cause the climate to change. Yes. When the sun was about 10% less strong than now. Have you looked into techtonic and isostatic reasons for this apparent sea level change. I think you should do a bit more research before you come out with these insults.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2010 18:50:54 GMT
You might consider revising the above. Here is a cut and paste from the SPM TAR Figure SPM-2: Simulating the Earth’s temperature variations (°C) and comparing the results to the measured changes can provide insight to the underlying causes of the major changes. A climate model can be used to simulate the temperature changes that occur from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The simulations represented by the band in (a) were done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. We're talking about different things. Simulations of the 20th Century include solar and volcanic. The IPCC projections into the 21st century do not include variations due to solar and volcanic, as the aim was to project the anthropogenic impact. So the causes of any of the cooling episodes that most of the models demonstrate throughot the whole of the 21st century are not volcanoes. In that case its a misnomer to call it a "climate" model. Its a model but obviously not intended for this world. I suppose I can believe this since volcanic eruptions big or small helps moderate the climate. Leaving them out then becomes another unrealistic warming assumption that we have grown to expect from the shoddy science that keeps getting foisted on us. However, I think you are just blowing through your hat and that maybe the truth is a few more credible scientists actually have such estimates in their model or just have far higher error bars or have more realistic senstivity numbers. So where does all that takes us? From your comments that scientists overegged warming by not including volcanic eruptions in their models, or even if you are wrong and they overegged sensitivity instead as shown by the recent decade just proves probably 90% of the work provided for the IPCC was just trash. The little quick and dirty analysis I did earlier in this thread suggests like Akasofu and extensons of the UAH database vs GISS that what we are looking for global warming is in the realm of a half a degree centigrade per century and the AGW is maybe some unquantified part of that. . . .the rest being longer term centennial natural variation that we see in the sawtooth variation patterns of every longterm proxy and is a solid part of the anecdotal evidence that history provides us. From an auditor standpoint that Q&D analysis is just a starting point. What an auditor in a financial issue would do would be to lockdown the forcing formula some (IPCC provided 3 alternatives so all 3 should be run and compared) and second do a thorough math and logic check. Then you provide it to the client and ask for an explanation for why you might be wrong. We are all here to learn but learning needs to rise consistently from a broad understanding of the empirical basis and that seems to be a serious serious issue here.
|
|
|
Post by Purinoli on Jan 18, 2010 19:18:55 GMT
Steve : Yesterday I turned my boiler on and my house got warmer. Obviously my boiler had nothing to do with it as it was warm last summer and my boiler wasn't even on then. ------ Purinoli : Yesterday I got a small portion of snow ( only 8 cm on 50 cm old snow) and tonight I got a small portion of cold ( only -8C). All together is much more than it should be. After all we are warming, don't we? ------ SteveIt was a) partly local (other parts of the planet were warmer at the same time b) not as hugely warm or as "bitter" cold as you'd like to think. And c) just because the climate can change without CO2 changing it doesn't prove that CO2 doesn't cause the climate to change. ------ Purinoli CO2 does warm planet. No doubt. But how much? Nobody knows even with +/- 50% accuracy. Maybe its impact is missed even much more. Either way. Not as hugely warm? So why than Vikings lived in Greenland so many years? And with no heating oil, no solar panels, probably with no coal ? And how you know that Greenland was an isolated "island of mild weather " for so many time and other parts of NH was what? Cold? ------ Steve : Yes. When the sun was about 10% less strong than now. ------ Purinoli The Sun steadily increased its irradiation, but CO2 did not follow it exactly. Its conc. was jumping up and down. Max conc. of CO2 were even 14% for some time because of "ice/snow ball Earth". ----- Steve : Have you looked into techtonic and isostatic reasons for this apparent sea level change. ------ Purinoli For sea levels tectonics are player also today, not only 2,000 yrs ago. ----- Steve :
I think you should do a bit more research before you come out with these insults.[/quote][/i] ----- Purinoli : IPCC gurus from EU and specialy East Anglia CRU, where Climategate 1 came out are financed partly with EU money. I am an EU tax payer. I have all right to call people involved in Climategate 1 mafia. Better say "Science" mafia. Also in our country member of IPCC make jokes of us telling us to "save water when we wash tees, don't drink cofee, one cup is xxx g of CO2, don't use car, go by bycicle.....and such stupid comunist propaganda. I once asked her in her blog why IPCC have such big summits like Bali with 15,000 people traveling 10,000 km one way on average ( Co2 he he). It would be very CO2 friendly to make a video conference.OShe responded : we can't because this would not be so media attractive.
For such people who take a real money on CO2 taxes from us I have only one word which I repeat : mafia.
P.S. I am sorry for a little bit shaked text. I am still not familiar with this editor. Promise will learn it. I am just occasionaly here. Hope its anyway understandable.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 19, 2010 0:44:36 GMT
Yes, we can have a big influence on about 4% of CO2 in the atmosfere which means 4% on 0.04%. The rest (96%) is natural exchange, following Henry's law. And of course a little share caused by volcanoes and natural fires and other sources... Nature reabsorbs the 96% each year as leaves regrow etc.. Humans don't reabsorb their proportion. That's why there is a build up over time of (currently) about 0.5% per year. Yesterday I turned my boiler on and my house got warmer. Obviously my boiler had nothing to do with it as it was warm last summer and my boiler wasn't even on then. It was a) partly local (other parts of the planet were warmer at the same time b) not as hugely warm or as "bitter" cold as you'd like to think. And c) just because the climate can change without CO2 changing it doesn't prove that CO2 doesn't cause the climate to change. Yes. When the sun was about 10% less strong than now. Have you looked into techtonic and isostatic reasons for this apparent sea level change. I think you should do a bit more research before you come out with these insults. "Nature reabsorbs the 96% each year as leaves regrow etc.. Humans don't reabsorb their proportion. That's why there is a build up over time of (currently) about 0.5% per year."Steve I do not think its quite as simple as you appear to believe. There is a huge amount of pure water in droplets in the atmosphere they are colloquially known as 'clouds' measured as vertically integrated liquid (VIL). These droplets are cold and provide a surface area that is many times larger than all the oceans' surface areas. In accordance with Henry's law CO 2 will rapidly dissolve in these droplets. These will then carry the CO 2 to the surface in precipitation. If the surface is warm some of the CO 2 will outgas as it may well be doing from warm surface water of the oceans - again in accordance with Henry's law. If the oceans cool then CO 2 rise could rapidly cease. The oceans (as you have been repeatedly pointing out) have been warming for many decades - and thus the solubility of CO 2 in the oceans has been reducing and this would explain the monotonic rise with the diurnal pattern linked purely to ocean surface warming in sunshine. The rise that you are claiming is due to man's output of CO 2 may well just be the result of CO 2 solubility in the sea surface following Henry's law. "Yesterday I turned my boiler on and my house got warmer. Obviously my boiler had nothing to do with it as it was warm last summer and my boiler wasn't even on then."Ignoring the sarcasm..... Steve you turned your boiler on and the house got warmer --- around 15 - 20 minutes after the boiler started perhaps? There is a time lag - the Earth has a similar lag on cooling and heating but scaled up from your house to planetary size it is very much longer - ocean heat content is more difficult to change than the warmth in your two-up-two-down
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 19, 2010 7:48:00 GMT
Ignoring the sarcasm..... Steve you turned your boiler on and the house got warmer --- around 15 - 20 minutes after the boiler started perhaps? There is a time lag - the Earth has a similar lag on cooling and heating but scaled up from your house to planetary size it is very much longer - ocean heat content is more difficult to change than the warmth in your two-up-two-down - I thought OHC was already changing. Most posters on here seem to think it's been cooling since 2003.
- How come there was very little "time lag" in the mid-1970s. The weak solar cycle (SC20) ended in ~1976. Warming kicked in more or less immediately - not much longer than it took Steve's boiler to warm the house.
- When Pinatubo erupted in June 1991 the cooling was detected within months. Despite the presence of El Nino (similar strength to the current one), the October 1991 UAH anomaly was negative. There were negative anomalies for the next 2 years.
While it might take a few years to reach a state of equilibrium (or the max/min of warming/cooling) initial temperature changes can normally be detected early on. If solar activity has any sort of influence we should not be seeing record high anomalies in the satellite record. WUWT did a recent post, i.e wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/15/uah-satellite-data-has-record-warmest-day-for-january/This referred to January 13th 2010. However Jan 13th is now only 5th warmest January day. It's since been surpassed, easily in some cases, by the 14th....17th January. I warned about the reliance on the sun over 18 months ago. The solar theorists are getting backed into a corner and are now running out of credible options.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 19, 2010 9:14:35 GMT
We're talking about different things. Simulations of the 20th Century include solar and volcanic. The IPCC projections into the 21st century do not include variations due to solar and volcanic, as the aim was to project the anthropogenic impact. So the causes of any of the cooling episodes that most of the models demonstrate throughot the whole of the 21st century are not volcanoes. In that case its a misnomer to call it a "climate" model. Its a model but obviously not intended for this world. I suppose I can believe this since volcanic eruptions big or small helps moderate the climate. Leaving them out then becomes another unrealistic warming assumption that we have grown to expect from the shoddy science that keeps getting foisted on us. However, I think you are just blowing through your hat and that maybe the truth is a few more credible scientists actually have such estimates in their model or just have far higher error bars or have more realistic senstivity numbers. I wouldn't say I'm "blowing through my hat". I doubt that volcanoes have been ignored. The point that I am making is that the cooling episodes that models have are not caused by volcanoes being set off randomly in different models which was what was suggested. The recent decade tells us virtually nothing about sensitivity. I'm sure 99% of science is trash, but the trash gets discarded and the 1% of useful stuff gets published and cited.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 19, 2010 10:12:46 GMT
Nature reabsorbs the 96% each year as leaves regrow etc.. Humans don't reabsorb their proportion. That's why there is a build up over time of (currently) about 0.5% per year. Yesterday I turned my boiler on and my house got warmer. Obviously my boiler had nothing to do with it as it was warm last summer and my boiler wasn't even on then. It was a) partly local (other parts of the planet were warmer at the same time b) not as hugely warm or as "bitter" cold as you'd like to think. And c) just because the climate can change without CO2 changing it doesn't prove that CO2 doesn't cause the climate to change. Yes. When the sun was about 10% less strong than now. Have you looked into techtonic and isostatic reasons for this apparent sea level change. I think you should do a bit more research before you come out with these insults. "Nature reabsorbs the 96% each year as leaves regrow etc.. Humans don't reabsorb their proportion. That's why there is a build up over time of (currently) about 0.5% per year."Steve I do not think its quite as simple as you appear to believe. There is a huge amount of pure water in droplets in the atmosphere they are colloquially known as 'clouds' measured as vertically integrated liquid (VIL). These droplets are cold and provide a surface area that is many times larger than all the oceans' surface areas. In accordance with Henry's law CO 2 will rapidly dissolve in these droplets. These will then carry the CO 2 to the surface in precipitation. If the surface is warm some of the CO 2 will outgas as it may well be doing from warm surface water of the oceans - again in accordance with Henry's law. If the oceans cool then CO 2 rise could rapidly cease. The oceans (as you have been repeatedly pointing out) have been warming for many decades - and thus the solubility of CO 2 in the oceans has been reducing and this would explain the monotonic rise with the diurnal pattern linked purely to ocean surface warming in sunshine. The rise that you are claiming is due to man's output of CO 2 may well just be the result of CO 2 solubility in the sea surface following Henry's law. Except that the pH of the oceans is changing in line with the expectation that the higher partial pressure of CO2 will result in more CO2 being absorbed by the oceans *despite* the higher sea surface temperatures. It wasn't sarcasm. I'm just trying to find new ways of saying that just because the climate has changed *without* a CO2 rise doesn't mean that the climate won't change *with* a CO2 rise. As we know, the northern latitudes received more summer sunlight 1000 years ago. It certainly is more "difficult" to warm the ocean (or, indeed, the tiled concrete floor in my kitchen ). That is why it is useful to know that the build up of ocean heat content is roughly in line with what the models projected.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 19, 2010 14:48:50 GMT
Ignoring the sarcasm..... Steve you turned your boiler on and the house got warmer --- around 15 - 20 minutes after the boiler started perhaps? There is a time lag - the Earth has a similar lag on cooling and heating but scaled up from your house to planetary size it is very much longer - ocean heat content is more difficult to change than the warmth in your two-up-two-down - I thought OHC was already changing. Most posters on here seem to think it's been cooling since 2003.
- How come there was very little "time lag" in the mid-1970s. The weak solar cycle (SC20) ended in ~1976. Warming kicked in more or less immediately - not much longer than it took Steve's boiler to warm the house.
- When Pinatubo erupted in June 1991 the cooling was detected within months. Despite the presence of El Nino (similar strength to the current one), the October 1991 UAH anomaly was negative. There were negative anomalies for the next 2 years.
While it might take a few years to reach a state of equilibrium (or the max/min of warming/cooling) initial temperature changes can normally be detected early on. If solar activity has any sort of influence we should not be seeing record high anomalies in the satellite record. WUWT did a recent post, i.e wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/15/uah-satellite-data-has-record-warmest-day-for-january/This referred to January 13th 2010. However Jan 13th is now only 5th warmest January day. It's since been surpassed, easily in some cases, by the 14th....17th January. I warned about the reliance on the sun over 18 months ago. The solar theorists are getting backed into a corner and are now running out of credible options. What's your theory for January LT temp rise? CO2? Please explain in detail. We are lectured that one month or one year is not climate, and here you are micro managing days. What's next, minutes? Maybe you can now lecture us how CO2 can cause such a spike in warming of the LT and at the same time record snow and cold throughout the NH. What happens to the heat when it snows? When water freezes? Maybe it should be considered this winter is the coldest start to El Nino in 40+ years, comparable to 1972-1973 strong El Nino. See what happened in the subsequent years thereafter; the Ice Age scare. ENSO indicies are not following 1997-1998, but more closely resemble 72-73/02-03/06-07, and as mentioned, the coldest start since 72-73. If 2010 will be a record temp year, exceeding 1998, what are the telltale numbers to watch other than waiting until Dec? Based on SOI and ONI compared to historical El Nino events, those numbers are not adding up. Warming kicked in more or less immediately - not much longer than it took Steve's boiler to warm the house. A quick search horizon.ucsd.edu/miller/download/climateshift/climate_shift.pdfWhat's you forecast for February? I say it will be more brutal cold and snow as a result of the enormous release of heat in the LT.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 19, 2010 17:15:01 GMT
What's your theory for January LT temp rise? CO2? Please explain in detail. It's mainly due to El Nino. However we've had El Ninos before but, apart from 1997/98, they haven't caused the temperature spikes we're seeing at the moment. The main point, though, is that temperatures are clearly not following the solar activity. We are lectured that one month or one year is not climate, and here you are micro managing days. What's next, minutes? It isn't just one month. November 2009 was a record high for November. September 2009 was within a whisker of being a record high for September. When I first began posting on here there as a lot of talk about global cooling (that thread seems to hae gone a bit quiet). The reason for the dip in temperatures was the 1997/98 La Nina, but no-one wanted to hear that. I pointed out that once La Nina was over temperatures would return back to their previous levels. They have. Maybe you can now lecture us how CO2 can cause such a spike in warming of the LT and at the same time record snow and cold throughout the NH. What happens to the heat when it snows? When water freezes? [/i] Why do you think CO2 would cause a constant increase. Lots of factors will act to dampen or amplify the warming, e.g. ENSO, solar cycle etc. As far as the "NH cold" is concerned. The cold wasn't widespread. Plenty of places were much warmer than normal. In the UK it was cold for about a fortnight. According to UAH, the NH anomaly for December was +0.33, so it's not been that cold - has it? Maybe it should be considered this winter is the coldest start to El Nino in 40+ years, comparable to 1972-1973 strong El Nino. The "coldest start" - where? It's not been the coldest start in Canada or Australia. See what happened in the subsequent years thereafter [1972/73] ; the Ice Age scare.Global temperatures began to rise in the post 1972/73 period. The ice age scare was over within a few years If 2010 will be a record temp year, exceeding 1998, what are the telltale numbers to watch other than waiting until Dec? Based on SOI and ONI compared to historical El Nino events, those numbers are not adding up. We don't need a super El Nino - just a decent one which extends to the end of the NH summer. Warming kicked in more or less immediately - not much longer than it took Steve's boiler to warm the house.
A quick search horizon.ucsd.edu/miller/download/climateshift/climate_shift.pdfAnd what does your "quick search" reveal? What's you forecast for February? I say it will be more brutal cold and snow as a result of the enormous release of heat in the LT. "Brutal cold" - where? It's unlikely that the UK and Europe will get anything like the low temperatures of early January.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 19, 2010 18:15:29 GMT
Ignoring the sarcasm..... Steve you turned your boiler on and the house got warmer --- around 15 - 20 minutes after the boiler started perhaps? There is a time lag - the Earth has a similar lag on cooling and heating but scaled up from your house to planetary size it is very much longer - ocean heat content is more difficult to change than the warmth in your two-up-two-down - I thought OHC was already changing. Most posters on here seem to think it's been cooling since 2003.
- How come there was very little "time lag" in the mid-1970s. The weak solar cycle (SC20) ended in ~1976. Warming kicked in more or less immediately - not much longer than it took Steve's boiler to warm the house.
Gee what a perfect example of confirmation bias. GLC has always noted the ENSO when it suits his argument but here he either found what he wanted before looking at ENSO or worse looked at it and didn't decide to mention that 1976 exited in an El Nino state. And of course we should also note that cycle 20 was NOT a weak cycle but decidedly a very average one that hit its peak in 1968, not 1976. It is possible sunspots are indicative of something else and they themselves may have response modified by currents on the sun as the earth clearly has.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 19, 2010 18:22:34 GMT
This referred to January 13th 2010. However Jan 13th is now only 5th warmest January day. It's since been surpassed, easily in some cases, by the 14th....17th January. I warned about the reliance on the sun over 18 months ago. The solar theorists are getting backed into a corner and are now running out of credible options. It seems logical it is going to stay warm for sometime considering the huge warming cycle we have gone through. It also makes sense that the atmosphere is being affected by a cooling cycle while the overall globe remains warm from OHC. At any rate we will probably know the answer in a few years.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 19, 2010 18:25:44 GMT
In that case its a misnomer to call it a "climate" model. Its a model but obviously not intended for this world. I suppose I can believe this since volcanic eruptions big or small helps moderate the climate. Leaving them out then becomes another unrealistic warming assumption that we have grown to expect from the shoddy science that keeps getting foisted on us. However, I think you are just blowing through your hat and that maybe the truth is a few more credible scientists actually have such estimates in their model or just have far higher error bars or have more realistic senstivity numbers. I wouldn't say I'm "blowing through my hat". I doubt that volcanoes have been ignored. The point that I am making is that the cooling episodes that models have are not caused by volcanoes being set off randomly in different models which was what was suggested. It is obvious volcanoes occur rather randomly Steve. Are you saying the models are not realistic? If not then what pattern do volcanoes follow in the models?
|
|