Post by icefisher on Jul 17, 2010 15:35:21 GMT
Jul 17, 2010 11:51:18 GMT glc said:
yabutt yabutten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology
Well glc, according to the "theory" the trend should be accelerating, it is slowing. That is the bottom line.
What "theory" would this be? You are presumably referring to that part of the AGW theory which suggests that sensitivity to climate forcing is relatively high (~0.7 deg per w/m2). Since, as I've made clear countless times, I don't necessarily agree with the "high sensitivity" argument then temperatures are still increasing pretty much in line with MY expectations.
What are you yammering about? What the heck does sensitivity have to which way a line is curving? Nothing at all! The trend is towards cooler.
Jul 17, 2010 11:51:18 GMT glc said:
However, even if the trend was accelerating, we would not expect to see a uniform accleration. Factors such as ENSO, solar cycles and even the PDO can amplify or dampen the trend. For example over the last decade we have had a solar maximum in 2000 and a deep solar minimum from ~2005 onwards. From the drop in TSI alone we should get a cooling of ~0.1 deg. The fact that the trend is still upward suggests something else is at play.
And you don't think that because this is an El Nino year has anything to do with keeping it an upward trend?
I suggest a closer look at the data. Since 1998 a strong cooling trend has been developing. Hadcrut shows a cooling trend no matter if you make the starting point 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, or 2005. Only the recent domination of a La Nina followed by an El Nino can produce a warming trend for time shorter (2006 onward)
The average of the extremes of the 2008 La Nina and 2009 El Nino shows an average anomaly of about .325 which is .085 off the average of the past decade. If you switched the position of those two anomalies or average them then every year since 2001 shows a cooling trend except the last two if you average them, by method.
And a La Nina is in the works so it is likely every year will be showing a negative trend extending this to a full decade.
As Hansen predicted (probably more because of dire need of a trend recovery vs ENSO skills) warmists needed a super El Nino for 2009 but the decadal minimum associated El Nino came and went as was a dud.
You though point to that as an excuse for your trend not continuing when all evidence suggests the intensity of El Ninos is associated with the background warming patterns. Thus the fizzled El Nino is just another victim of the actual temperature trend.
So you jump in and claim solar is too weak to account for the generalized background warming of the past 30 years (.14/decade) which you hang your hat on. At one point in another thread you even suggest a "return" to .2 degC per decade warming but when challenged you couldn't make a case any such warming amounted to any kind of reasonable argument for being caused by AGW.
So you talk of a trend GLC but I can't figure out what trend you are talking about.
The only real trend I am aware of is the .5degC/century as outlined by Easterbrook and Akasofu.
It seems other trends are manufactured off of identified global internal variations. . . .
or more precisely recent warming which happens to be almost entirely associated with a warm PDO like the early 20th century warming was. (your .14 or .20 trend which ever it is)
Yes you can stomp your feet and claim solar amounts to nothing but what you can't do is rewrite history. History suggests an underlying warming that seems insensitive over time to a 10 times increase in CO2 emissions without playing off yet another PDO/ENSO something or the other. That by itself has make somebody take pause.
I think history strongly suggests whether you are solar oriented to changes in the sun or you are sensitive to changes in the Pacific Ocean that basically all the AGW stuff has fizzled. . . .very near on the verge of falsification. The AGW team themselves a decade ago declared natural variation overwhelmed by what they were seeing then.
Today it has been demonstrated loudly and clearly they were not looking nearly close enough.
Jul 17, 2010 11:51:18 GMT glc said:
Finally I'm not sure what your point is about "Numerology". I was simply using the methods put forward by David Archibald et al on WUWT to show that their conclusions were flawed.
One can never tell with you GLC what trend you are supporting as the AGW trend. One week it is .2degC per decade. Another week it is .14degC per decade. Yet another its .5degC for a century of warming (1/3 the doubling of CO2 which should produce half of the warming of a doubling and you have said one time maybe 1 degC per doubling).
So what is it GLC? What numerology game are you hanging your hat on today? I don't care if your trend matches every decade I just want to drag out of you what you expect and get you to stop playing number games by switcherooing numbers at will.
Do you even think you know?