|
Post by duwayne on Feb 5, 2015 15:56:04 GMT
Homewood and others raise good points which clearly bring the global temperature statistics into question. But the system allows their questions to go unanswered even though these statistics are used to guide the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars.
How about this as an improvement. Since the NASA and NOAA do duplicate work in providing temperature statistics, eliminate 1 of these activities. Take a portion of that money and create a small independent audit group working for another agency or even an independent audit firm to review the global temperature statistics. One requirement is that the audit group solicit public comments on the statistics and get satisfactory answers to questions brought up by outsiders.
This saves money and should improve quality. Who's not for saving money? Who's not for improving quality? Who's not for eliminating bias or the possibility thereof at no cost?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 28, 2015 16:38:53 GMT
The Paraguay case above seems pretty damning. Hopefully, sufficient pressure will be applied to force a response in the UK.
I think James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt at Nasa and Tom Karl at NOAA believed that the global warming in 1977 through 1998 was caused by CO2 and there was a chance it would continue and perhaps accelerate. Their pronouncements made them rich and famous. They became the darlings of the environmentalists. The environment groups have raised extraordinary amounts of money based on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and most of the money went into the pockets of the environmentalists themselves, their lobbyists and the politicians they funded. In addition climate scientists in general have seen their incomes and speaking fees and grants climb far above anything they had experienced prior to the CAGW era and their prestige (the PHd's objective function)soared.
The earth is not warming as predicted and it's clear that CO2 Has nowhere near the impact we were told it did but the good life is hard to give up. Lying, stretching the truth and biased research is necessary to sustain their incomes and prestige when the facts don't support the CAGW case.
And, it's sad to say that there's little downside for government employees who mislead the public and the media provides cover rather than unbiased investigation.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 28, 2015 0:07:03 GMT
-End of year update for my 2007 predictions for global temperatures, Multivariate ENSO (MVENSO) and the PDO Average for 2007 through 2014 Predicted Actual Global Temperature (Hadcrut4) 0.52 0.49 MVENSO -0.3 -0.2 PDO -0.6 -0.5
The Hadcrut4 average global temperature remains a little below my predicted level. The PDO and MVENSO were both on the warm side last quarter and whereas both predictions were spot on last quarter, they are now both 0.1 above my prediction.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 26, 2015 22:37:43 GMT
Why the IPCC and the models are clearly wrong....
The IPCC claims growth in atmospheric CO2 causes warming of 1.0C per doubling of CO2 due to the direct greenhouse gas effect. They also estimate an additional “feedback effect” of 0.5 to 3.5C per doubling. The size of this error range where the high number is 7 times the low number indicates they are extremely uncertain about feedbacks. They estimate total CO2 warming as the total of base effect the plus feedback effect or 1.5 to 4.5C per doubling.
We can check this number easily since we have 55 years of history where atmospheric CO2 has been growing significantly as measured at the Mauna Loa sampling site in Hawaii.
Using the Hadcrut4 global temperatures and the Mauna Loa CO2 data which begins in 1959, and using the assumption that the CO2 warming effect is logarithmic as stated by the IPCC, a simple calculation shows that the warming was 2.1C per doubling of CO2 over the 1959-2014 period - if all the warming is attributed to CO2.
It’s easy to make the case that the all the warming wasn’t due to CO2 and that the CO2 sensitivity is therefore less than 2.1C per doubling. 1) There were other greenhouse gases that contributed to the warming during this period, including methane. 2) Urbanization and deforestation added extra heat. 3) The satellite global temperature records indicate that global warming was only 75% of the Hadcrut4 figures during the period when satellite temperatures were recorded. And, moreover, the satellites measure temperatures in the troposphere where temperatures are predicted to rise 20% faster than the surface. 4) Natural ocean currents such as the AMO likely added to the warming during this period. 5) A more active sun than normal likely added to warming during this period. 6) Warming estimates based on earlier beginning dates yield lower sensitivity numbers. For example, using an estimate of 290ppm CO2 for 1850 the warming has been only 1.7C per doubling if all of the warming was due to CO2 and the Hadcrut4 numbers are to be believed.
Despite IPCC’s lowering the bottom of the CO2 sensitivity range from 2.0 down to 1.5 in their latest report, the actual sensitivity is still probably below the bottom of the range.
By the way the CO2 sensitivity this century using Hadcrut4 and assuming all warming is due to CO2 is 0.3C per doubling of CO2.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 25, 2015 18:22:05 GMT
Here's evidence of another CAGW alarmist beginning the journey toward recognition of the 60-year Ocean Current cycle and its importance. From Bob Tisdale's post at WUWT"Skeptics have been preaching for years that natural variability can contribute to the long-term global surface warming trend…and suppress it, in effect stopping it. It was quite amazing to finally see one of the key members of the alarmist blog SkepticalScience (and global-warming reporter at The Guardian) finally admitting the same. Of course, Dana Nuccitelli forgot to advise his readers that “a preponderance of El Niño events” had “sped up” global surface warming from the mid-1970s through the 1990s, not just “during the 1990s”. He also forgot to mention that another mode of natural variability, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, had also contributed to the warming then."
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 20, 2015 22:17:57 GMT
I try to follow up on the various predictions I make here and as soon as the Hadcrut4 anomaly is available for December 2014, I'll report on my long-term global temperature prediction. Today, I wanted to report on my prediction from a few years ago that the warmists will before too long begin to "discover" the natural 30-year "Ocean Current" cycle. Several months after I made the prediction, Kevin Trenberth, a warmist scientist, was quoted as saying there was a 30-year natural cycle which affected global temperatures. When I posted a link to this quote, "Steve", a warmist poster here, went ballistic and claimed that Trenberth was misquoted in the source because the writer of the article must have misunderstood what Trenberth was saying. (I wonder what happened to Steve.) Now, of all people, Gavin Schmidt, a warmist icon, seems to be publicly moving toward acceptance that the flat global temperature pause still has considerably more time to run and the pause is due to natural causes offsetting any greenhouse gas effects. From this linkNASA's Gavin Schmidt: the pause will not persist and in five to 10 years time - it is changes in greenhouse gases that will dominate.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 6, 2015 15:27:03 GMT
Graywolf, did you read the transcript you referenced? Could you provide the quote from Ms. Curry which says "any 'hiatus' cannot last 20yrs or more" or a quote similar to that? Graywolf, if Dr. Curry expresses a belief that the ‘hiatus’ will not last more than 20 years as you stated, then that is real news. She is very knowledgeable and from what I’ve seen she argues on the basis of science rather than bias as is so often the case in the climate science community. However, I was quite certain your statement was wrong. Because of its importance, I felt it appropriate to take the time to check the veracity. Here is a post from Dr. Curry’s website written about the time of the article you posted. Link to Curry blogI’d recommend that you read the entire post, but in it she includes these 2 pertinent statements. 1) For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature, which has been referred to as a ‘hiatus’ in global warming. 2) The ‘hiatus’ will continue at least another decade. (if you believe in the importance of natural internal variability as Dr. Curry does.) That makes a minimum total hiatus of more than 25+ years in her view. She believes 30 years is likely. She also makes the point that the hiatus to date pretty much wrecks the idea that the IPCC models are accurate. A 20 year hiatus certainly would clearly destroy the credibility of the models. Her exact statements are: 1) Only 2% of climate model simulations produce trends within the observational uncertainty. 2) Modeled pauses longer than 15 years are rare; the probability of a modeled pause exceeding 20 yrs is vanishing small.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 5, 2015 21:26:43 GMT
Graywolf, did you read the transcript you referenced? Could you provide the quote from Ms. Curry which says "any 'hiatus' cannot last 20yrs or more" or a quote similar to that?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 4, 2015 14:54:18 GMT
The January 1 Antarctic sea ice area is 37% greater than the 1980's average for that date? Why is the ice increasing so much? Duwayne get with the program - - The ice is increasing so much in the Antarctic because of the warming
- The ice was decreasing so much in the Arctic because of the warming
- There is more ice now in the Arctic because of the warming
It is called an unfalsifyable hypothesis So there is some truth to the notion that things are upside down in the southern hemisphere.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 3, 2015 18:31:38 GMT
The January 1 Antarctic sea ice area is 37% greater than the 1980's average for that date? Why is the ice increasing so much?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 29, 2014 15:04:10 GMT
I think the PDO does bear watching here. The historical data are limited and are of questionable accuracy prior to the 1970's, but for what it's worth.....
During the last cool Ocean Current cycle (1947-1977), the average PDO was 0.6 which is the same as the current cool cycle (2007-2014) average so far.
But the maximum monthly value over the 1947-1977 period was 1.8 and that has been matched twice this year.
Moreover, the highest PDO average for a year in the 1947-1977 period was 0.6 and this year the average is significantly above that number at 1.0.
It is notable that even with the high PDO's and with many of the preconditions in place, there was no El Nino this year. And more importantly, the satellite-based RSS global temperature this year will be about 0.3C below the 1997 temperature adding to the 18-year temperature plateau.
It's worth noting that while the PDO is high, the AMO has peaked on schedule and is declining consistent with the cool Ocean Current phase.
But, if the PDO doesn't drop back into the negative readings soon (next year?), I think we could see global temperatures start to climb.
My prediction continues to be that global temperatures will remain flat through 2037.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 26, 2014 19:57:35 GMT
Sub surface anom now tracking at a record breaking 7c above average and about a week from surfacing? We also have the spectre of a strong cyclone, near the equator, forming next week? This will give one hell of a WWB to the KW as it begins to surface! The BOM are now starting to put out data showing the coupling of atmosphere and ocean has begun so I'm expecting a very rapid descent into Nino conditions through April? I think there must be a lot of pots of crow stew on the back burner around here? Maybe we could quote mine some of the best denials of the upcoming Nino event ( against all the evidence we have been seeing since before Jan) once we see it burst into life over the coming weeks? Back to that 7c anom. That's a bigger anom than we saw before the 97' Super and that Nino was given a boost into life by a low lat. Cyclone in April. See any parallels? I still can't help but think that the spectre of a 97'esque 0.8c surge in global temps is something a number of posters on here are actively fearing? A Super Nino will impact both this ,and next, years global temps and , should we use the misleaders trick of linking an anomalous low temp year in the noughties to the peak of the Nino Surge then we'll see one hell of an increase in global temps over that period? ( not that any serious person would stoop so low?) Was this a case of "crying wolf" ?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 24, 2014 14:57:19 GMT
Mathematically it is simple to create an average with a few thousand places of decimals. However realistically,it is impossible to measure the temperature of the small room I am sitting in to an accuracy of a hundredth of a degree, let alone the entire globe. The error bars are probably of the order of more than a degree +/-. To claim that meanders within their error bars are reason to shut down industry and condemn thousands a month to die in fuel poverty is insane. I checked the temperature in Tucson, AZ just now using the link below. The link shows readings from 3 Tucson locations. These temperatures were only a few seconds old and the locations had similar elevations. The temperatures at 7:26 am were 34.8,30.6 and 29.2 Fahrenheit. So I calculate the Tucson temperature at 31.53 degrees based on an average of these 3 temperatures. Can you imagine the consequences if the average temperature had been 31.54? Tucson temperature
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 23, 2014 21:11:29 GMT
As noted previously, my forecast made in 2007 was for global temperatures to remain flat over the 2007-2037 period at the 1977-2007 least squares trend temperature for 2007. The 2007 trend temperature was 0.52C for Hadcrut4.
So far, the 2007-2014 average temperature has been 0.48C for Hadcrut4 or 0.04C below the predicted flat temperature. If the year 2015 averages 0.64C then the 2002-2015 average would become 0.50C, still 0.02C below the predicted average flat temperature of 0.52C for 2007-2037. El Nino or near El Ninos are expected every so often. A super La Nina is also very possible in the next few years if, as expected based on history, the ocean currents remain in their cool phase for another 22 years.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 28, 2014 15:38:41 GMT
As Sigurdur noted I was asking for someone to check my calculation based on the assumption that CO2 effect on temperature declines in a logarithmic fashion. I was pretty sure that if that assumption was correct my calculation was correct and I appreciate Sigurdur independently verifying that calculation.
As to whether that logarithmic assumption is correct, I know it is stated as fact by warmists and skeptics alike. But I've always had a question whether that assumption is true for all cases. If there were 1 molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere, a second molecule would seem to be likely to have almost the same effect as the first molecule since because of the curvature of the earth it will rarely be in position to suffer any interference from or interfere with molecule number 1. Certainly, in my mind it wouldn't take 2 molecules to have the same effect as the first molecule.
on the other end of the scale, if enough CO2 is added to the atmosphere, say enough that 3/4 of the radiation is trapped, then no matter how much CO2 is added it can't have the same effect as the the preceeding CO2 had. The maximum effect is to trap all the remaining radiation or 1/4 of the original radiation.
If the logarithmic assumption is not true for all cases, is it true for the current case?
|
|