|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 27, 2010 16:35:14 GMT
OK - for the sake of this discussion let us take that hypothesis as absolutely true. We then are told that there can be twenty years - that is 20 years - of global temperatures falling or remaining constant but this would still be consistent with the AGW hypothesis. This leaves us with a conundrum. The energy must be going somewhere and (to use your argument) there must be a mechanism for the energy to get to wherever that is - AND - for it to remain there despite any imbalance all without being sensed. Linear trends taken over a short time period will be influenced more by the internal variation than by the actual underlying energy increase. Over longer time period the effect can be significant. For example over the period 1998-2008 internal variation drew energy away from the surface and deeper into the ocean which significantly reduces the linear trend over this period. A 15 year flat period (rather than 20) was shown in a model run for the period 2016-2031, despite that being a period in which "trapped" energy was increasing. You are waffling SoCold I appear to be in good company with my point.... "Global records of surface temperature over the last 100 years show a rise in global temperatures (about 0.5° C overall), but the rise is marked by periods when the temperature has dropped as well. If the models cannot explain these marked variations from the trend, then we cannot be completely certain that we can believe in their predictions of changes to come. For example, in the early 1970’s, because temperatures had been decreasing for about 25 to 30 years, people began predicting the approach of an ice age! For the last 15 to 20 years, we have been seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures, giving some assurance that we are now in a global warming phase."www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/eos/global_warming.pdf 'Model runs' can be made to do anything and you don't say what else the model showed like an ice free arctic perhaps. The question remaining to be asked - and Trenberth agrees - is WHERE IS THE HEAT _right now_ that should be showing in ocean heat content? This especially true this year where both poles show increase in ice cover. So there needs to be an EXPLANATION of where the heat is - a MECHANISM for it to get there and OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that it IS there. In other words scientific method.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 27, 2010 17:49:39 GMT
I don't see the relevance of an article from 1998
You also didn't really address what I said. You asked how mechanisms could explain a 20 year period of flat temperature despite increasing energy in the climate system. I pointed out that a model run has a 15 year flat period despite increasing energy in the climate system. Therefore you can hardly argue that AGW doesn't expect such periods to be possible.
p.s 'Model runs' cannot be made to do anything. As an extreme example you would not be able to get a model run to show temperatures of 100000C by 2100, for example.
Additionally the 15 year flat period was not planned, it was something that just happened as part of the model run and was spotted after.
Sure, but the question I answered was about how global surface temperature could exhibit a 20 year stasis. As I explained variation like ENSO and solar cycles has strong trend influence on surface temperature on short timescales.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Apr 28, 2010 1:13:39 GMT
A 15 year flat period (rather than 20) was shown in a model run for the period 2016-2031, despite that being a period in which "trapped" energy was increasing. In the model, where did the heat go? Was it 10^21 J/yr?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 28, 2010 11:24:24 GMT
I don't see the relevance of an article from 1998 You also didn't really address what I said. You asked how mechanisms could explain a 20 year period of flat temperature despite increasing energy in the climate system. I pointed out that a model run has a 15 year flat period despite increasing energy in the climate system. Therefore you can hardly argue that AGW doesn't expect such periods to be possible. p.s 'Model runs' cannot be made to do anything. As an extreme example you would not be able to get a model run to show temperatures of 100000C by 2100, for example. Additionally the 15 year flat period was not planned, it was something that just happened as part of the model run and was spotted after. Sure, but the question I answered was about how global surface temperature could exhibit a 20 year stasis. As I explained variation like ENSO and solar cycles has strong trend influence on surface temperature on short timescales. SoCold a model run is not a mechanism. Tell us how that occurred - did the model run include for example the polar ice extent reducing as somewhere the heat went? Was the flattening at 2C above current temperatures? And will that explain a temperature DROP as in the 1970's - the mechanism must show how this drop occurs while CO 2 is rising. You can also explain why if all the models are so accurate and the gold standard in application of immutable physical laws - that they have different results.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 28, 2010 12:02:50 GMT
I don't see the relevance of an article from 1998 You also didn't really address what I said. You asked how mechanisms could explain a 20 year period of flat temperature despite increasing energy in the climate system. I pointed out that a model run has a 15 year flat period despite increasing energy in the climate system. Therefore you can hardly argue that AGW doesn't expect such periods to be possible. p.s 'Model runs' cannot be made to do anything. As an extreme example you would not be able to get a model run to show temperatures of 100000C by 2100, for example. Additionally the 15 year flat period was not planned, it was something that just happened as part of the model run and was spotted after. Sure, but the question I answered was about how global surface temperature could exhibit a 20 year stasis. As I explained variation like ENSO and solar cycles has strong trend influence on surface temperature on short timescales. SoCold a model run is not a mechanism. Tell us how that occurred - did the model run include for example the polar ice extent reducing as somewhere the heat went? Was the flattening at 2C above current temperatures? The flattening was at around current temperatures, it was 2016-2031. I doubt it could happen at a later time because as warming slope increases and it will become more and more improbable to have a 15 year flat period. As for how it happened, it would be nice to know but that would require more output data for that particular run, something which I am not sure how to find. I don't think that model run can explain that. I didn't say they were all accurate, but notice they all have the same overall result - increasing greenhouse gas forcing (due to the sheer rate we are increasing it) dominates the temperature trends.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Apr 30, 2010 3:27:32 GMT
Socold over the years your arguments have become more and more baseless. Why the need to ignore reality? Why do you have to subscribe to a global warming view regardless of what the world does! You have a good brain - dont waste it. All the indicators are the current cold will deepen - shouldnt we more be putting our energies into making people aware of this so they can prepare and get leaders in who will help them.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 30, 2010 4:46:28 GMT
Speaking about heat in oceans, there was a documentary called Catalyst on ABC TV yesterday concerning the Antarctic. Maybe some readers could watch at this location: www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/556948 ... and comment? If you can't get there direct, maybe you can search for Catalyst on this page: www.abc.net.au/iview/#/search
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 30, 2010 7:59:51 GMT
Socold over the years your arguments have become more and more baseless. Why the need to ignore reality? Why do you have to subscribe to a global warming view regardless of what the world does! You have a good brain - dont waste it. All the indicators are the current cold will deepen - shouldnt we more be putting our energies into making people aware of this so they can prepare and get leaders in who will help them. Yes. Why the need to ignore reality? When all the temperature stats are at record levels - even the satellite ones, the only way is down surely Even when satellite temperatures dropped by "more than the whole of the 20th Century warming" at the beginning of 2008, socold and I "ignored reality" and predicted a top-ten warm 2008, a warmer 2009 and an even warmer 2010. Clearly "reality" is often a poor guide.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 30, 2010 12:23:42 GMT
Even when satellite temperatures dropped by "more than the whole of the 20th Century warming" at the beginning of 2008, socold and I "ignored reality" and predicted a top-ten warm 2008, a warmer 2009 and an even warmer 2010. Clearly "reality" is often a poor guide. Just goes to show the temperature is in a range of natural variation. Nothing whatsoever unusual about 2008/9 or your forecast for 2010. The temperature record shows a lot of 5 to 7 year variations and doubled peaks and decadal peaks in ENSO activity, every 10 to 15 years. Bottom line is it will take close to a record year in 2010 to just make the 10 year trend positive and for 2011 to also exceed 2009 to keep it there. The actual compared to the IPCC projection would have a trend line still outside of the IPCC error bars even with record years in 2010 and 2011. To hit the IPCC trend in 2010 you need an anomaly of 1.021 (hadcrut) almost double that of 1998. Clearly warmists have no reasonable argument in the next few years for action related to CO2 short of a shocking climate development that hardly anybody would have the stomach to predict.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Apr 30, 2010 13:35:47 GMT
Well Steve as you guys always cherry pick there are no surprises in what you say. It seems it wouldnt matter how cold the world got, how severe the winters, how much the polar ice caps grow you will always look for a reason to defend your green faith. My point is at what point do you go beyond that. A number of years ago socold (previously known as cth... ) was asked the same question and yet he still vehemently fights for global warming.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Apr 30, 2010 13:40:04 GMT
Top 17 Signs Your Belief In Catastrophical AGW Is Going The Way Of The Dodos omniclimate.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/top-17-signs-your-belief-in-catastrophical-agw-is-going-the-way-of-the-dodos/Main conversational topic among fellow believers are revolving around complaining the rest of the worls is made up of “deniers” The BBC Science and Environment page is ever more struggling to find any news to report, about “global warming” and “climate change”, as all the potential physical manifestations have been quickly dismissed as “it’s weather not climate” Miraculously, scientific papers have surfaced claiming the latest data support catastrophical global warming, despite the same latest data going the opposite way of previous data the same people claimed as supporting catastrophical AGW
|
|
|
Post by astroposer777 on Apr 30, 2010 17:28:39 GMT
Speaking about heat in oceans, there was a documentary called Catalyst on ABC TV yesterday concerning the Antarctic. Maybe some readers could watch at this location: www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/556948 ... and comment? If you can't get there direct, maybe you can search for Catalyst on this page: www.abc.net.au/iview/#/search
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 30, 2010 17:35:04 GMT
Speaking about heat in oceans, there was a documentary called Catalyst on ABC TV yesterday concerning the Antarctic. Maybe some readers could watch at this location: www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/556948 ... and comment? If you can't get there direct, maybe you can search for Catalyst on this page: www.abc.net.au/iview/#/searchRatty, You will have to tell us what it says as some of us don't live in Australia, and that seems to be a requirement to view. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by astroposer777 on Apr 30, 2010 18:52:32 GMT
Speaking about heat in oceans, there was a documentary called Catalyst on ABC TV yesterday concerning the Antarctic. Maybe some readers could watch at this location: www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/556948 ... and comment? If you can't get there direct, maybe you can search for Catalyst on this page: www.abc.net.au/iview/#/searchSorry about the double post. I am still learning how to navigate the message board. Ratty, thank you for the link. The views of Antarctica are breathtaking. I did have to navigate to a different site to view the video. www.abc.net.au/catalyst/antarctica/My question is whether or not increased run off from melting ice on the land mass would not also contribute to a reduced alkalinity of the Southern Ocean? Since the first half of the documentary deals with melting continental ice, which should be freshwater and have a lower PH, wouldn't the second half, which deals with the acidification of the Southern ocean, be explained by the first half.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 1, 2010 0:03:41 GMT
Speaking about heat in oceans, there was a documentary called Catalyst on ABC TV yesterday concerning the Antarctic. Maybe some readers could watch at this location: www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/556948 ... and comment? If you can't get there direct, maybe you can search for Catalyst on this page: www.abc.net.au/iview/#/searchRatty, You will have to tell us what it says as some of us don't live in Australia, and that seems to be a requirement to view. Thanks Sigurdur, robham777 found this link .... see if you can make it work www.abc.net.au/catalyst/antarctica/
|
|