|
Post by notconvinced on Mar 16, 2010 8:17:01 GMT
Uh, why ruin a good party......... As my name suggests I watch the sparring between Warmists and "Deniers" without taking sides, but leaning more and more towards rejecting the Warmist position, which starts to feel like a political scam. If something looks like a scam, feels like a scam and starts to smell like a scam is it a duck Socold? Your graph Sentient, makes recent warming look like background noise, nothing more. If the Warmists can't explain these frequent and dramatic climate swings, with some remarkable warmer periods industrial pre-CO2 release, then their theory looks dead to me. Socold - I'd like to see your rebuttle. Your graphs always seem to be so short term. Please fit your theory within a much longer time-scale........... It seems to me that Climate Change is an enduring feature of our world: we just have to live with it not make it a worldwide political tax heist.......
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 17, 2010 0:15:13 GMT
If you look back long enough, you will always find a period when it was warmer or colder. If you want a balanced view, read skeptic websites like these, but also pro-AGW sites (I especially (again) recommend www.skepticalscience.com.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 17, 2010 0:18:23 GMT
Well you obviously do not know what YOU are talking about.I think I have a reasonable knowledge of Statistics. As a little primer on Climatological Averages and their problems I suggest that you read (I know that you won't but it would be good) :
"Does a Global Temperature Exist?"
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdfRead it. The skew in data is the huge variation in OATs that are being used as inputs into the unspecified 'averaging' . The errors and assumptions are to do with choice of averaging methods, choice of inputs into the methods etc etc.Your explanation is starting to get a bit vague again. Give me an example of skewed data and how it might arise in a dataset. And does this apply to all datasets? Mapping algorithms are a continual source of error in assessment of 'area' and 'distance' and as we have all seen fundamental erros being made by 'experts' (even as basic as mixing metric and imperial units when calculating trajectories) these supposedly simplistic areas bear being examined.Whatever. ESPECIALLY as we are now in the rather paradoxical state of unexpected snow fall and cold weather in many areas of the NH that 'never' get snow simultaneous with being told that this is the warmest average global temperature period on record. Ok I get it now - because its cold where you are it must be cold throughout the NH Lower Trop. Also which places never get snow and have had it recently? How many? How widespread is this phenomenon? When such mismatches occur scientists go back and check assumptions and methods and whether the process being used to generate metrics is actually appropriate or useful. There aren't any mismatches. The anomaly maps (surface and LT) show which regions of the world have been warm and which have been cold. There is no inconsistency with what the maps show and what we've been experiencing in our tiny areas of the world. There aren't any mismatches. The anomaly maps (surface and LT) show which regions of the world have been warm and which have been cold. There is no inconsistency with what the maps show and what we've been experiencing in our tiny areas of the world. glc is trying to convince us the parrot is not dead again. Building Climate Datasets for Testing Claims of Human Impacts from Climate*--------------------------------------------------- You don't need to tell me about ENSO, Magellan. I made the point that ENSO (La Nina) was the reason for the 2008 'cooling' when everyone else on this blog was waffling on about the solar minimum nonsense (Have you deleted your posts where you were predicting plummeting temperatures at the end of 2008?) Parsing it further, which is always a necessity with your posts: I made the point that ENSO (La Nina) was the reason for the 2008 'cooling' La Nina caused 2008 'cooling'? Oh well, so you're still in the dark. ------------------------------------------------------ everyone else on this blog was waffling on about the solar minimum nonsense (Have you deleted your posts where you were predicting plummeting temperatures at the end of 2008?) Everyone? That's a lot of people. Ah, note the specificity in that statement. Who predicted plummeting temperatures at the end of 2008 resulting from the solar minimum? Find one post where I predicted anything based on the solar minimum. I don't know enough about it to draw conclusions about when such influences are manifested in earth's weather/climate. However to say the sun has no affect on weather/climate is hubris and an unwillingness to look at the evidence. Even Roy Spencer has taken notice of the GCR connection to cloud cover. Sometime in late summer 2008 I thought temps would begin to drop starting in Oct as I knew that UAH TLT very rarely goes in any one direction more than 3 months in a row, but was off a month or so because it wasn't clear which way it was moving for a few months. Then things changed with the sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event that occurred in December/January and I said based on my research (with provided links) a large enough SSW could very well have a profound effect on surface temperatures in the NH, even globally. With every spike, there is a fall. You said it was a bunch of hooey and only a "local event". Oh, you remember that discussion now, or should I go dredge it up? This is what happened globally through June of 2009, the year without a summer in much of the NH. No bugger off and learn what La Nina really does. BTW, did I already mention Met O has thrown in towel for seasonal forecasts because of their dismal record of failure? Wasn't their super multi-million $$$ (i.e. taxpayer funded) GCM they rolled out in 2007 supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread? Where did you get the figure with "LINE 1" and global satellite land temperatures. I'm sure it's fake. Check www.climate4you.com for a (skeptical but honest) comparison of the satellite and surface temperatures.
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 17, 2010 3:00:52 GMT
Here is the conclusion of my borrowed bits of ideas here and there. Obviously I like the barycentric solar tide theory as in NASA scientist, Hung's, 2007 paper ... relating it to solar activity. My favourite is a paper by Paul Jose. Although Geoff Sharp extrapolated this to a complex tidal description and modified the Jose cycle to 172 years (2x Gleissberg, 8x Hale, 16x Schwabe) ... I keep going back to simply looking at the interval and relating it to historical events. It is a work in progress and I tweak and add to it every once in a while. Trash it, thrash it, borrow it ... I don't care. Had one 'expert' say it wasn't BS so far and that someone is working on fleshing out these very principles in a paper. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 17, 2010 11:57:36 GMT
So I see you all are still expecting global cooling or a "little ice age" event. I am at 53 degrees north, in Europe, where the little ice age signal was largest. Should I buy an extra jacket? How much cooling am I going to get here? How much cooling do you forecast for the next 30 years globally? Specific statements are welcome. (I hope this board, and most of you, are still around over 30 years, so we can check the forecasts...)
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 17, 2010 14:55:20 GMT
So I see you all are still expecting global cooling or a "little ice age" event. I am at 53 degrees north, in Europe, where the little ice age signal was largest. Should I buy an extra jacket? How much cooling am I going to get here? How much cooling do you forecast for the next 30 years globally? Specific statements are welcome. (I hope this board, and most of you, are still around over 30 years, so we can check the forecasts...) AJ, the Little Ice Age was not restricted to Europe. The effort to "regionalize" it was politically driven, and it failed. You have an odd habit of parroting AGW dogma for someone who is, I admit, quite intelligent. Another example of the dogma: that this winter was cold principally in the United States and Europe. In fact, this was one of the snowiest and coldest winters in decades from Ireland to East China -- a vast swath of territory. And, yeah, an impressive winter in the majority of the United States. As for predictions, here are mine: 1. The claim of 1998's global mean temperature being eclipsed on a regular basis in the next several years is falsified. 2. Arctic sea ice rebounds to 1970s levels during the next two decades. 3. This winter won't seem at all unusual within a decade. You'll get to participate in the Elfstedentocht at least twice in that time. 4. My 30-year idea: No rise in the global mean temperature from today. (In all honesty, I foresee moderate cooling of ~0.5C, but I don't "need" that to falsify AGW.) My reasoning isn't very complex: negative PDO gets coupled with negative AMO (four or five years from now) and a prolonged period of low solar activity lets us see the Svensmark effect proven. A side bet: When will the U.S. beat its 1934 record-warm year? --Harold
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2010 17:32:26 GMT
Uh, why ruin a good party......... 6000 years ago, Northern latitudes would have received up to 20-40W/m^2 more sunshine during June and July because the earth was closer to the Sun during the Northern Hemisphere summer than it is now. Could the warmer Greenland temperatures as determined by Alley's analysis be due that, perhaps, and have nothing to do with Solar cycles.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 17, 2010 19:26:00 GMT
Uh, why ruin a good party......... 6000 years ago, Northern latitudes would have received up to 20-40W/m^2 more sunshine during June and July because the earth was closer to the Sun during the Northern Hemisphere summer than it is now. Could the warmer Greenland temperatures as determined by Alley's analysis be due that, perhaps, and have nothing to do with Solar cycles. I accept the mainstream view that the Holocene Optimum was principally caused by orbital variation. That does little to disprove the role of the Sun during other Holocene variations, including the Maunder Minimum, named by Jack Eddy. Eddy, prior to his passing, was kind enough to put me on a list of people to receive his final book, published by NASA, "The Sun, The Earth, and Near-Earth Space." Here are a handful of paragraphs from it: "The impact of variations [of 0.1% in TSI] of this amplitude on surface temperature depends on the persistence of an increase or decrease, and the sensitivity of the climate system to solar forcing. In theory, and were nothing else at work, a sustained increase of 0.1% in total solar irradiance can be expected to warm the surface temperature of the Earth by about 0.1°F. "And indeed, changes of this amount have since been found in averaged regional and global weather records, extending back for fifty years or more, in both the temperature of the air and in surface and subsurface temperatures of the oceans. These could easily be attributed to changes in total solar irradiance, since the amplitudes and phase of the temperature anomalies are consistent with the observed 11-year variation in the radiative output of the Sun. "But the remarkably close agreement with the ocean data, in particular, is in some ways enigmatic, for the thermal inertia of the oceans should more heavily damp the climate system's response to 'rapid' fluctuations in solar energy. "It takes about three years for the upper, mixed layer of the ocean to fully respond to heat added at the surface. This means that unlike the air, its temperature at any time tells not so much about today as about the past, and more precisely of what it remembers of conditions during the last several years. Yet the Sun's 11-year cyclic forcing persists for only a few years in one direction before reversing itself: three years to rise from minimum to maximum, two or three years there, then a slower fall of five or six to the next minimum. "The effect of the oceans' three-year memory in responding to short-duration changes of about the same length should significantly reduce its theoretical sensitivity to imposed solar forcing. Yet the 11-year variation found in ocean temperature data is not less but more than what is expected. "What seems likely is that other climatic processes are indeed at work, including possible feedbacks that tend to amplify the response of the Earth's climate system to subtle solar forcing." [colored type and itals carried are Eddy's] I'll just remark on a few things, as this is already a long post: 1. Eddy describes something similar to what Shaviv has noted in his "Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing" paper. 2. Any effect of the recent solar minimum on ocean temps may still be "in the pipeline." 3. If Solanki is correct that the solar activity of the latter half of the 20th century was the greatest in many thousands of years, one could fairly expect the oceans to need some time to let go of any gained heat. 4. Abdussamatov has told me that he is predicting a Maunder-level grand solar minimum: "The prolonged scientific research conducted by us predicts that the levels of the approaching 3 cycles will show a steep descent. Then a deep minimum of the Maunder type will take place in approx. 2042+-11." -- Harold
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 17, 2010 20:20:59 GMT
So I see you all are still expecting global cooling or a "little ice age" event. I am at 53 degrees north, in Europe, where the little ice age signal was largest. Should I buy an extra jacket? How much cooling am I going to get here? How much cooling do you forecast for the next 30 years globally? Specific statements are welcome. (I hope this board, and most of you, are still around over 30 years, so we can check the forecasts...) AJ, the Little Ice Age was not restricted to Europe. The effort to "regionalize" it was politically driven, and it failed. You have an odd habit of parroting AGW dogma for someone who is, I admit, quite intelligent. Another example of the dogma: that this winter was cold principally in the United States and Europe. In fact, this was one of the snowiest and coldest winters in decades from Ireland to East China -- a vast swath of territory. And, yeah, an impressive winter in the majority of the United States. As for predictions, here are mine: 1. The claim of 1998's global mean temperature being eclipsed on a regular basis in the next several years is falsified. 2. Arctic sea ice rebounds to 1970s levels during the next two decades. 3. This winter won't seem at all unusual within a decade. You'll get to participate in the Elfstedentocht at least twice in that time. 4. My 30-year idea: No rise in the global mean temperature from today. (In all honesty, I foresee moderate cooling of ~0.5C, but I don't "need" that to falsify AGW.) My reasoning isn't very complex: negative PDO gets coupled with negative AMO (four or five years from now) and a prolonged period of low solar activity lets us see the Svensmark effect proven. A side bet: When will the U.S. beat its 1934 record-warm year? --Harold Thanks for your detailed response! 2 Elfstedentochten in one decade would certainly be surprizing. Forecasts based on AGW guestimate that there will be about 9 Elfstedentochten this century (none so far, but there have been longer periods without an Elfstedentocht last century). Maybe if we will continu to see strongly negative AO and NAO we might get one soon. I would agree with your forecast (slight cooling), if I would not think AGW is plausible. However, as a real believer I think we will see lots of wiggles, but with a general upward trend, so that in 30 years it will be about 0.4 C (+/- 0.2 C) warmer than now globally. My personal bet .
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 18, 2010 3:17:50 GMT
I have found papers where the signature of the LIA was sought out in the Rockies and Andes. It was found in both. In the Rockies I remember it was determined the tree line dropped a few feet. And this was just me using google so all I can say is there is a lot of information confirming the LIA was a global event.
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 18, 2010 3:45:55 GMT
I think we are already 1/3 of the way through the cooling. There are a few who pick 2030 as the bottom and others who point to 1998 as the start of the cooling. Outside Siberia, I wouldn't say we've returned to the even the 70's yet. It's nothing new for most of us. Before it is over though I do think the Thames will freeze over.
I think the next 'grand minimum' will be stronger as the minimum 2 'Jose' cycles before the MWP. I've also seen some similar discussion from others more informed than myself.
The big thing is although the Modern Solar Maximum wasn't a show stopper since we are at the end of the part of the Milankovitch Cycle associated with the interglacial events, it was still significant over the background of the previous 1000 years. Coming out of that blast will take a bit of doing ... and we are well on the way back to the Thames freezing over in winter.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 18, 2010 13:14:32 GMT
I think we are already 1/3 of the way through the cooling. There are a few who pick 2030 as the bottom and others who point to 1998 as the start of the cooling. Outside Siberia, I wouldn't say we've returned to the even the 70's yet. It's nothing new for most of us. Before it is over though I do think the Thames will freeze over.
According to the UAH satellite record the trend since 1998 is flat. In the last 6 months UAH has recorded the warmest ever January, the warmest ever November and at least 2 months which were runners-up. The last 8 months has been the warmest (by far) July-Feb period in the satellite record.
If this 1/3 of the way through the cooling period I'm a tad concerned about what the next warm period might bring
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 18, 2010 13:21:16 GMT
I have found papers where the signature of the LIA was sought out in the Rockies and Andes. It was found in both. In the Rockies I remember it was determined the tree line dropped a few feet. And this was just me using google so all I can say is there is a lot of information confirming the LIA was a global event. I said that the LIA signal was LARGEST here, not that it was confined to Western Europe only! LIA was probably predominately a mid latitude NH event.
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 19, 2010 5:41:40 GMT
I see. I guess I'm not the only one guilty of shouting across the bow. glc ... I've listened to that BS for 20 years and at one point in my laziness gave up on the issue until this chunk of ice in Antarctica tweaked something in my brain. It was like when one Canadian dollar could buy $1.10 US a couple years back ... I thought "this is BS" and paid off my US denominated car loan for my Prius. That overhyped chunk of ice in Antarctica did the same thing for me. I fully expect the Thames to freeze over, Niagra Falls to freeze solid, and every electric train in Europe to be stalled in the warmest month of 'x' of the year. At least you are not quoting GIS composite junk disquised as satelite data but really the satelite record only shows one thing ... Antarctica expanding during the whole of its existance. I prefer physical landmark events at this point with possible climate proxy's ... unedited and fully disclosed second ... as in my little climate model I posted Where I am we set a historical record cold in late November and I experienced it first hand. It was a record electrical consumption day for my jurisdiction. The gas bubble is gone in the US this winter and we'd be looking at a shortage now if it wasn't for the prolific 'shale gas' finds on the Eastern Seaboard of the US. I admit I enjoyed the El Nino when it finally broke through this March after sputtering pitifully against a cold PDO until 'just in time for the Olympics'. And then there is Siberia this winter. How can anyone stand to live in 5 months where steel breaks like glass? ... let alone a normal year there ...
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 19, 2010 6:11:14 GMT
UAH wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/05/february-uah-global-temperature-anomaly-little-change/Another reason why I distrust simple temperature measurements. I like paleo proxies and historical references. We simply don't know what much of this raw data means in terms reference to the past. So the best thing is to take paleo data to the present instead of trying to say some 30 year data set has something to do with some awkwardly composite crude surface temperature data set has something to do with tree rings and then take your french curve and link all the points together. That is not science or cognition ... it is politcial philisophical zeitgeist. Telling stories is all fun and good but these people are telling me to act on that stuff.
|
|