|
Post by glc on Jan 12, 2010 0:05:33 GMT
What needs to happen to start settling the score is for the Met prediction to come through, or for the solar guys another full cycle with very low activity without any cooling at all. Anything in between can be labeled a mystery. In other words you need to cut the solar guys about 9 more years slack than you cut for the AGW folks.
Why - the strong solar cycles ended in 1996. SC23 wasn't anything special yet it includes the warmest decade on record.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 12, 2010 0:21:44 GMT
SC23 wasn't anything special Right, that's why we had all those record setting flares. SC23 was one of the most active on record.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 12, 2010 0:24:38 GMT
Observations trump theory every time. Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000hmm...... It should be remembered that the satellite data are actually measured, whereas the CO2 forcing (red lines in the above graphs) is so small that it can only be computed theoretically.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 12, 2010 2:02:58 GMT
Why - the strong solar cycles ended in 1996. SC23 wasn't anything special yet it includes the warmest decade on record. SC23 as you will recall was a double humper. It may not have been high amplitude but it did spend 40 months above 100 and as you will recall it didn't warm either.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 12, 2010 13:34:20 GMT
So if cycle 23 was low, the recent lack of warming is explained by that, and if the cycle 23 was high, it explains why it is the warmest decade in quite some time. Following this logic, if the next decade is warm, then the solar activity was high, and if it cools next decade, then it was due to this long solar minimum. A few cold years will always be related to a solar minimum (even if the cold years happen before, or way after a solar minimum) and warm years to high solar activity. There are also many parameters for solar activity, so you can always pick one which explains your point.
I know there are some people doing the same for AGW too. It almost seems like something else is also influential. Maybe climate is determined by many parameters. In the mean time, enjoy wiggle watching!
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 12, 2010 13:56:10 GMT
aj earth is not a Ferrari. Throttle and break delays etc.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 12, 2010 14:04:46 GMT
I know. But it is beautiful!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 12, 2010 14:30:52 GMT
Observations trump theory every time. Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000hmm...... It should be remembered that the satellite data are actually measured, whereas the CO2 forcing (red lines in the above graphs) is so small that it can only be computed theoretically. It should be remembered that there is so much variation in the total radiation measured by the satellite plus the choice of feedback parameter, that the purported trend-line is only theoretical, whereas the calculation of the trend of CO2 forcing is so simple that it can be computed reasonably accurately (and indeed matches the observations). Actually, I find Roy Spencer's postings interesting and thought-provoking. It's a shame he doesn't accept comments.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 12, 2010 23:10:03 GMT
Observations trump theory every time. Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000hmm...... It should be remembered that the satellite data are actually measured, whereas the CO2 forcing (red lines in the above graphs) is so small that it can only be computed theoretically. It should be remembered that there is so much variation in the total radiation measured by the satellite plus the choice of feedback parameter, that the purported trend-line is only theoretical, whereas the calculation of the trend of CO2 forcing is so simple that it can be computed reasonably accurately (and indeed matches the observations). Actually, I find Roy Spencer's postings interesting and thought-provoking. It's a shame he doesn't accept comments. So there is no direct evidence, satellite or otherwise, to support the CO2 AGW hypothesis. Spencer rolls out the observational evidence contradicting a high climate sensitivity, and all you can do is rehash the theoretical forcing? I'm going to ask you again steve, sorry if it rubs the wrong way. Is the absolute water vapor content in the upper troposphere increasing as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2. It should be an easy 'yes or no' answer. But we already know the answer don't we? it can be computed reasonably accurately (and indeed matches the observations) Don't leave us hanging, post it for all to see. Something is limiting whatever effects CO2 is said to have on global surface temperature. What is it?
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Jan 13, 2010 0:10:28 GMT
What needs to happen to start settling the score is for the Met prediction to come through, or for the solar guys another full cycle with very low activity without any cooling at all. Anything in between can be labeled a mystery. In other words you need to cut the solar guys about 9 more years slack than you cut for the AGW folks.Why - the strong solar cycles ended in 1996. SC23 wasn't anything special yet it includes the warmest decade on record. Maybe we are seeing the effects of a weak SC23 now. We just don't know.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 13, 2010 0:21:02 GMT
AJ I think you should start thinking in terms of global heat content rather than some reservoir of heat somewhere that natural cycles can dip into if they want. IF the quiet sun results somehow in less energy input into the Earth weather system, then the natural cycles cannot create that energy. What is more likely is that the natural cycles are in response to the energy input and the imbalance of the input between the tropics and the poles and between the hemispheres and convection and the Coriolis effects. These together with tides cause the complex turbulent flows that we call weather and ocean currents. Some of the ocean cycles such as the thermohaline currents have a lot of inertia and may take decades to respond damping out brief alterations in energy but reinforcing longer lasting changes. Atmospheric changes may be relatively fleeting and lead to some of the more fleeting ocean surface effects like El Nino / La Nina being caused by trade-winds. The point is that the cycles are just moving the energy around - if there is less energy input then it will get colder regardless of these cycles. I agree, but that does not change my point. I assume you are not saying that internal variability can't lead to an increase/decrease in global temperatures (as observed currently)? What's the difference between the global heat content, and the reservoir you are talking about? I agree that, simply put, if the net heat input becomes smaller, it will cool. That's why it will warm with CO2. "but that does not change my point. I assume you are not saying that internal variability can't lead to an increase/decrease in global temperatures "Errrm read what you wrote carefully AJ and think about it. The 'Global Heat Content' is the total amount of heat in the system. Internal variability may move this about - but it remains the total heat in the system. This means one part may warm up but ONLY at the expense of another part cooling down. So ocean heat is transferred to the atmosphere - ocean cools down a little - atmosphere warms a LOT..... an El Nino. But the heat content has not altered - until the heat transits the atmosphere to space. So - internal variability CANNOT alter the heat content of the system. It may move some heat to another area such as the Thermohaline current taking heat from the Gulf of Mexico toward Europe - but it is NOT creating more heat. The problem is that measurements of atmospheric temperatures which are then averaged - do not really say a lot about the Global Heat Content most of which is in the oceans. What _can _ happen is that the atmosphere warms after a very small amount of energy is transferred to it (transiently as it escapes to space). This energy is sufficient to destabilize the hydrologic cycle and weather systems on the way to space. Atmospheric temperatures tell you very little about Global Heat Content - and yet global heat content appears to be dropping and is what the energy budgets should be measuring.. (Ocean heat content has plateaued or dropped - Loehle, accepted by Josh Willis - it is definitely not climbing at the rate forecast by Hansen) This is why the lack of heating in the oceans is going to or already has falsified the AGW hypothesis. Measuring atmospheric temperatures is just measuring some of the heat escaping from the system
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 13, 2010 0:30:55 GMT
Japanese Meteorological Agency reports 2009 is probably going to end up the 3rd warmest year on record ( ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/news/press_20091215.pdf). CRU reports likewise the 5th warmest on record. GISTEMP looks like will be tied 3rd. NOAA looks like somewhere between 3rd and 5th. UAH is 6th. RSS is 7th. Global cooling in 2009. In the deep solar minimum.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 13, 2010 1:12:04 GMT
Japanese Meteorological Agency reports 2009 is probably going to end up the 3rd warmest year on record ( ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/news/press_20091215.pdf). CRU reports likewise the 5th warmest on record. GISTEMP looks like will be tied 3rd. NOAA looks like somewhere between 3rd and 5th. UAH is 6th. RSS is 7th. Global cooling in 2009. In the deep solar minimum. And yet, the trend is insignificant for 15 years for warming and 12 years cannot be rejected for cooling. In Sep I downloaded the Aug temps from HadCRUT. Sometime between then and now they "adjusted" each month through August upward. Now, there may be a very good reason for that, but I don't buy anything coming out of the surface station world. Also, as there are 12 months in a year, how does Met O know 2009 will fall in the top five, or was already determined in September?
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Jan 13, 2010 5:10:18 GMT
For the co2 model to fail it doesn't have to get cold. The delta is negative. It can be the 3rd or 5th warmest on record. The problem is that it isn't the warmest. And it hasn't been the warmest in how long now? If the prediction is geometric and the temp increase is arithmetic then the delta falls negative. For every year the delta is negative it will take that much more of a gain in temp to place the delta back at 0. If it does indeed get colder then the delta down become geometric over time as well with regards to the hockey stick graph. When this model fails and solar activity has been ruled out, we won't have a clue as to what is driving the climate. We are still pumping co2 into the environment. According to AGW theory, more co2 equals more warming because of the feedback. Each succeeding (if a year or 2 is colder or static then the next years have to be warmer still) year should not be below the warmest. If the most recent warmest year was 1998, that's been 11 years, or if I'm mistaken 2003, that's still 6 years. That's a long time for the delta to be negative. I've seen the papers that say 'it's much worse than we feared'. How can that be when the delta is negative? And that's with AGW's convoulted data.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 13, 2010 11:06:56 GMT
It should be remembered that there is so much variation in the total radiation measured by the satellite plus the choice of feedback parameter, that the purported trend-line is only theoretical, whereas the calculation of the trend of CO2 forcing is so simple that it can be computed reasonably accurately (and indeed matches the observations). Actually, I find Roy Spencer's postings interesting and thought-provoking. It's a shame he doesn't accept comments. So there is no direct evidence, satellite or otherwise, to support the CO2 AGW hypothesis. Spencer rolls out the observational evidence contradicting a high climate sensitivity, and all you can do is rehash the theoretical forcing? What was the "So" for? There *is* direct imperical evidence from satellites to support the CO2 AGW hypothesis. Harries J., H. Brindley, P. Sagoo, and R. Bantges, 2001: Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature, 410, 355–357 I don't fully understand what Spencer is claiming, which is why it would be nice to discuss the paper. But he hasn't included any error bars based either on the variability of the radiation or on the uncertainty of the feedback parameter, so it is hard to assess the significance even of what I think he is saying. You have to remember that Lindzen's recent paper which you were promoting as the "end of AGW" looks like it has been damaged by his failure to include uncertainty. Eg. if you increase or decrease the periods he was looking at by only one month, the apparent low sensitivity disappears. It doesn't rub the wrong way at all. The variation in the climate doesn't follow a nice smooth trend. But our observations aren't good enough to understand why. What I don't understand about Spencer's blog post is that he seems to be saying that the energy imbalance should be resulting in a warming, but isn't, and that the explanation is "internal forcing". That doesn't make physical sense to me. Either I don't understand what he is saying or he is not accounting for everything (all the obs and all the uncertainty). My recollection is that trends in upper troposphere water vapour are significantly dependent on radiosonde data, and that the radiosonde data is imperfect. I'm not avoiding the question, I don't know. What do you know?
|
|