|
Post by steve on May 29, 2013 6:42:29 GMT
The only problem I have with the LIA is the term LIA. Seems that things looked set to gradually cool till all the CO2 got emitted which will wipe out 3 millennia of very gradual cooling in 150 years. Maybe volcanoes made it even cooler for periods. As temperatures are rising (albeit steadily) I expect it will be warmer (in the surface record) this decade than the last. Steve, do you really think that CO2 is the ONLY reason for any warming of the climate? Nautonnier, no I don't "really" think that. Why would I mention volcanoes if I "really" thought that? I "expect" warming because I don't "expect" a massive volcanic eruption in the next 7 years to 2020 (though it's not impossible). I seriously don't expect solar activity in the next 7 years to upset my expectation. If aerosols are influencing the current hiatus/pause/call it what you like I don't expect their influence will override CO2 over the next 7 years. I don't expect other radiative gases to vary radically in any way. I do expect an El Nino to occur sometime within the next 7 years which should lift the annual means comfortably above the recent records.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 27, 2013 9:17:50 GMT
nautonnier, Been away - hence the delay in response. The question in 2313 would be whether the *average* of all the proxies indicated a warm period for the recent 20 years. Assuming the current warm period ends (due to a big uptick in volcanoes for example) and observations are all lost in the next nuclear war, there may be sufficient high resolution proxies to indicate that the 1993-2013 period was warm. But there may not. If there are not enough high res proxies to prove a 20 year warm period then you would certainly not be able to be sure the current period was warm. In the same way, the current set of proxies cannot find a warmer than now period in the past millennium, but such periods are not ruled out (at the 95+% possibility IIRC). What I'm arguing though is that the co2"science" database is in line with what I say, but is presented to say the opposite and is understood to say the opposite by people taking the co2"science" headlines at face value. Steve, It would appear that there are more 'proxies' showing global LIA. Interesting story here: To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is HereOh and several people seem to think things will get colder. I seem to remember on the old board talking to you about how long temperatures would need to stay static before you re-examined AGW and that at that time it was 10 years (could have been another 10 years but it was some time ago.) Have you set a date after which if temperatures are still static you would look at things again? The only problem I have with the LIA is the term LIA. Seems that things looked set to gradually cool till all the CO2 got emitted which will wipe out 3 millennia of very gradual cooling in 150 years. Maybe volcanoes made it even cooler for periods. As temperatures are rising (albeit steadily) I expect it will be warmer (in the surface record) this decade than the last.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 27, 2013 8:46:46 GMT
I've mentioned Loehle a few times. He thinks there is one 30 year period that may have been warmer than the preceding 30 year period. Each year without global cooling makes this less likely (the years since his paper were warmer than the years 30 years ago). Again (and again) the main point is that absence or weakness of the evidence against a belief cannot simply be taken as evidence for a belief. You continually impress me Steve. I can't imagine how somebody can get it up to spin: "I've mentioned Loehle a few times. He thinks there is one 30 year period that may have been warmer than the preceding 30 year period." into, "In the same way, the current set of proxies cannot find a warmer than now period in the past millennium, but such periods are not ruled out (at the 95+% possibility IIRC)" My English must be screwed up. I read the former to say that Loehle thinks it better than a 50% chance that there was a period in the past 1000 years that was warmer; and I read the latter to say that its not quite 95% certain that there was no warmer period in the last 1000 years. If you get much further apart one would be properly labeled an "absolute flat earther" instead of a "sort of flat earther" . At any rate this should seque nicely into the Ben Santer statistics discussion as well. Icefisher, Different people have different views. That is all there is to it. I'm inclined to believe the 95% possibility. Loehle clearly *thinks* he has found a warmer 30 year period, but his abstract says "The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade, but not significantly so[." Translation: the evidence is weak despite my best efforts to find a warm period. And note that the most recent tridecade to now is 0.1C warmer than the most recent tridecade to 2007 (when Loehle's paper was first published). I suspect that has dented his statistic even more.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2013 13:00:32 GMT
I've mentioned Loehle a few times. He thinks there is one 30 year period that may have been warmer than the preceding 30 year period. Each year without global cooling makes this less likely (the years since his paper were warmer than the years 30 years ago).
Again (and again) the main point is that absence or weakness of the evidence against a belief cannot simply be taken as evidence for a belief.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2013 12:34:44 GMT
icefisher,
Which Ben Santer statistics. At a guess you are referring to Santer 2011 which was published well after the last IPCC report, so I don't know how you have made such an (erroneous in my view) link.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 25, 2013 20:41:57 GMT
Duwayne, You need to re-read the article. Trenberth is *not* quoted as talking about a 60 year cycle. The 60 year cycle comment is added by the article's author. I would guess Trenberth said something similar to what he said in 1999 and the author paraphrased it. It just means that the 60-year cycle meme is getting a hold. If you *can* get a quote of Trenberth talking about a 60 year cycle, then we can discuss the context in which he makes it. Trenberth is backing heat being sequestered into the deep ocean. The current measurements seem to back him up. Was he visionary in identifying the "travesty" of being unable to properly observe energy flows when, perhaps, there was a degree of complacency among some "warmists" in not planning properly for the potential of the 1990s rapid warming being followed by much slower surface warming in the 21st century? Or is it inevitable that when a forecaster bets on the most likely outcome and the least likely one occurs, that the forecast will always be regarded as a "fiasco". Which people have I labelled as "denialist" up to now? The only time we can discuss fiascos is if it becomes clear that equilibrium climate sensitivity falls short of the 2-4.5C for CO2 doubling. The observations are *way* off from demonstrating this. So, without a single shred of evidence, you accuse the warmist author of lying about what Trenberth said. And then without a single shred of evidence you purport to know what Trenberth said. Please don't subject me to this drivel. I did not accuse the warmist author of lying. The author has paraphrased. Sense is lost in paraphrases. You are, in my opinion, reading too much into the author's paraphrase. I have presented the reason why. You may decide it is drivel, but calling it such is not a very good argument. So clear evidence that Trenberth (a noted "alarmist") was making heavily qualified statements in 1999 won't shift you from your position. And you add to your errors with other memes (shutting down funding of other scientists etc.) Tremendous resources *have* been wasted by ignoring the risks that are *still* apparent even if some short-sighted people believe that an *apparent* lull in the warming tells us anything that should make us reject the long-term projections that have remained consistent since the 2nd IPCC report. [/quote] You'll find your denialist accusations back on the old board around the time that you mentioned that you were a scientist and an atheist. [/quote] That doesn't answer the question I asked. There is a distinction between deliberately funding propaganda based on distorted evidence and presenting evidence in a partial manner that is intended to be constructive. I am blunt about the first group and less blunt about the second. Do you have a good memory or is there a cache of comments somewhere? I'd be interested to see how my opinions have changed.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 25, 2013 20:17:40 GMT
nautonnier, This is very weak. You are highlighting a cherry-picked and limited amount (in time and space) of cold weather. The *global* anomaly for the last winter is very warm compared with the last 100-odd years of instrumental temperatures. The average of the last few winters for Germany and China will also be warm. So you are simply using co2"science" tactics. Did you have a heavy weekend? Not at all - you appear to have missed my point. Let us say we are 2313 and having this conversation and I am saying that there was a warm 20 years at the end of the 20th century. You say: " Can't be true - here are some historic reports and measures from Iraq showing they had snow for several winters even snow in Saudi Arabia and Southern Syria - what used to be called Israel - and at the same time there are reports here of Chinese getting fish from the rivers by cutting out the ice. We also have the tree rings metrics from a well known climatologist that show a significant decline in temperatures in the 1990's and reports from the old UK at the time show that more than 200,000 people died of cold in the first 15 years of the 21st century. So it may have been warmer in Australia but it certainly wasn't global...." nautonnier, Been away - hence the delay in response. The question in 2313 would be whether the *average* of all the proxies indicated a warm period for the recent 20 years. Assuming the current warm period ends (due to a big uptick in volcanoes for example) and observations are all lost in the next nuclear war, there may be sufficient high resolution proxies to indicate that the 1993-2013 period was warm. But there may not. If there are not enough high res proxies to prove a 20 year warm period then you would certainly not be able to be sure the current period was warm. In the same way, the current set of proxies cannot find a warmer than now period in the past millennium, but such periods are not ruled out (at the 95+% possibility IIRC). What I'm arguing though is that the co2"science" database is in line with what I say, but is presented to say the opposite and is understood to say the opposite by people taking the co2"science" headlines at face value.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 12, 2013 23:11:00 GMT
I've done nothing except get hold of the papers and demonstrate that what I say is true - that they highlight limited periods of warmth and ignore matching periods of cold. You've done nothing except link to co2"science abstracts and hockeyschtick posts, and been taken in hook, line and sinker by the skewed analyses. I didn't ignore the Marcott thread - I posted up to 6 days after it was created. Why do you make up stuff *all the time*? I should have added that even the Loehle paper pretty much backs up what I say which given that it was written by a sceptic and published in E&E should tell you something: So given that Germany has just reported its coldest winter for a considerable time and that the Chinese winter was similarly harsh. Using your approach you would say that we are not in a warming period now? nautonnier, This is very weak. You are highlighting a cherry-picked and limited amount (in time and space) of cold weather. The *global* anomaly for the last winter is very warm compared with the last 100-odd years of instrumental temperatures. The average of the last few winters for Germany and China will also be warm. So you are simply using co2"science" tactics. Did you have a heavy weekend?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 12, 2013 11:32:52 GMT
Duwayne, Scientists have always been "quietly" making such statements. This is what Trenberth said in 1999: www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/vol5no1/extreme.htmlIn a "personal perspective" within this longer article he says: So although one might argue that the recent evidence is against this hypothesis, it was put in a relatively measured way. Steve, your point escapes me. My predictions specifically concerned the recognition of the existence of a 60-year Ocean Cycle and the recognition that the IPCC projections originally supported by the 97% warmist cohort are wrong. The mere mention of the Ocean Cycle and its components by Trenberth in 1999 has nothing to do with my predictions. I don't see any mention of the word cycle, let alone 60 years. The 60-year cycle by the way is clearly at odds with his "threshold" concept. And obviously there is no mention of the problematic 2007 IPCC models in 1999. Let me make a prediction of how you will deal with the continued flat global temperatures as the months roll along and the failure of the warmist cohort predictions become even more apparent. You'll continue to bring up straw man arguments, attribute them to some skeptic and beat them down without mercy in an attempt to divert attention away from the warmist fiasco. And you'll not acknowledge that the predictions of the people that you labeled as denialists are in fact turning out to be true. Steve, you can make me wrong on this prediction. Duwayne, You need to re-read the article. Trenberth is *not* quoted as talking about a 60 year cycle. The 60 year cycle comment is added by the article's author. I would guess Trenberth said something similar to what he said in 1999 and the author paraphrased it. It just means that the 60-year cycle meme is getting a hold. If you *can* get a quote of Trenberth talking about a 60 year cycle, then we can discuss the context in which he makes it. Trenberth is backing heat being sequestered into the deep ocean. The current measurements seem to back him up. Was he visionary in identifying the "travesty" of being unable to properly observe energy flows when, perhaps, there was a degree of complacency among some "warmists" in not planning properly for the potential of the 1990s rapid warming being followed by much slower surface warming in the 21st century? Or is it inevitable that when a forecaster bets on the most likely outcome and the least likely one occurs, that the forecast will always be regarded as a "fiasco". Which people have I labelled as "denialist" up to now? The only time we can discuss fiascos is if it becomes clear that equilibrium climate sensitivity falls short of the 2-4.5C for CO2 doubling. The observations are *way* off from demonstrating this.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 12, 2013 11:05:41 GMT
So not a quote - rather a wikipedia summary of a Guardian article. And from 2008. Hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 12, 2013 11:00:01 GMT
cuttydier,
As I said above, this is angels on the head of a pin stuff:
Has it got warmer?
Yes.
Are you sure?
Yes.
Is it still getting warmer?
Well it's not getting cooler.
Are you sure?
Yes.
How sure are you?
Pretty sure.
On a scale of 1 to 10 how sure are you?
Well that kind of depends what 1 and 10 mean.
Well you decide.
OK, lets say that on a scale of 1 to 10 we're at a 7 if you use a linear trend with autoregressive noise.
Is that the best method?
Well, it's the one we picked to try and give you an answer to you question.
What about a driftless third order autoregressive integrated model?
Where the heck did you drag that one from?
It doesn't matter - is it better than a linear trend with autoregressive noise?
Erm...why should we care. We answered your question and now you're asking us to apply a different technique with no explanation as to why.
Is it better?
Why are you asking us?
IS IT BETTER?
If you're so clever, what do you think.
IS....IT....BETTAHHHH!
This is getting boring now. I refer the dishonourable gentleman to my previous replies...oh - and by the way has he stopped beating his wife.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 11, 2013 18:29:05 GMT
Wow!Steve If I have read the graph correctly you think the September minimum will be lower than last year's all time low Checking the Sepember minimum back to 1979, whenever there is a big drop there is always a slight recovery the following year. I hope I am not too ambitious in predicting a recovery back to 2011 levels We are obviously at opposite ends of the spectrum (Oops! Sorry about the mixed metaphor) If you click the data download button, you can see that last year's minimum was: 3489063 So 3.5 is a guess for the same or thereabouts. After 2007 there was a recovery of ice volume in the winter matched by an increased ice cover the following year. The last 3 years of winter have all been similarly low with regards to volume, though, followed by summers where 2011 came in behind 2007 and 2012 coming well ahead. psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20?So given a third winter of similar volumes, perhaps the odds are on for something in between the two values... Then again, 2011 had a pretty cold late August, so I'll stick with my guess in the hope (?) that there is no similar late summer cold snap. It's just for fun.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 11, 2013 12:20:55 GMT
cuttydyer, Yes the co2"science" project has been mentioned many times before. Basically, they look at proxy papers. If the paper says it may have been warmer or drier than some period in the 20th Century for a short period some time between 850 and 1450AD they will say "aha!!! this proves the MWP was present in this location". Given that many of the proxies also show large periods of time when temperatures were similar or cooler, and given that the late 20th Century and early 21st Century warming is not picked up by many proxies, the average of the proxies tend to back up the findings of folk such as Esper, Mann and Marcott - that temperatures now are globally as warm or warmer than any time in the last millennium. LOL! Esper, Mann and the spaghetti graph? The Marcott fraud (which you seemed to have ignored a couple days after Sigurdur created a thread on it)? That's your saving grace? You're joking right? ROFL, OMG. BTW, finding cooling in a warming world is nothing new, so when some "new" study showing it cooler today than MWP at some region, just throw it in the bin of exceptions, not the rule. CO2Science, whether you like them or not, is quite detailed in their work. You've done nothing to refute their findings. The HockeySchtick has dozens of new studies not included in the CO2Science project that show various regions warmer during the MWP. Even today that is the case with finding cooling trends: diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/ I've done nothing except get hold of the papers and demonstrate that what I say is true - that they highlight limited periods of warmth and ignore matching periods of cold. You've done nothing except link to co2"science abstracts and hockeyschtick posts, and been taken in hook, line and sinker by the skewed analyses. I didn't ignore the Marcott thread - I posted up to 6 days after it was created. Why do you make up stuff *all the time*? I should have added that even the Loehle paper pretty much backs up what I say which given that it was written by a sceptic and published in E&E should tell you something:
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 11, 2013 11:45:17 GMT
3.5 then.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 11, 2013 9:53:48 GMT
It hung around for a week or so, but has now bu**ered off again.
|
|