|
Post by glc on Mar 11, 2009 8:48:08 GMT
Here is a fun exercise. I took the Hadcrut ground temperature data and subjected it to 11 year smoothing to largely smooth out the 11 year solar cycle.
It appears the smoothed data shows a ground temperature increase of about .50 degreeC from approximately 1910 to 1940. Likewise the maximum smoothed data from a peak in 2003 back 30 years also shows virtually the same 30 year increase in temperature at about .55degreeC.
You appear to be putting forward an argument I've been making on pro-AGW blogs for a number of years. That is, that the warming trend between 1915-1944 is very similar to the recent warming trend. However it should be noted that there is still an underlying trend which needs to be explained.
So that leaves for 30 years about .05 degreeC unaccounted for. I think one could easily suggest that the difference is probably natural also.
No - more like 0.5 deg. If there were, for example, only a simple PDO cycle at play, current global temperatures would be about the same as those in ~1940. The fact that they are about 0.5 deg higher could be due to CO2 which, in the absence of anything more convincing, is the most plausible explanation. However this suggests gentle - rather than catastrophic - warming.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 11, 2009 11:05:56 GMT
The GISS data base is suspect.Why do you say that? What does it show? (annual averages) 1.Global SSTs rose about 1 degree during the 20th century 2. 1998 was the warmest year. 3. SSTs have been falling since 2003 . La Nina 4.2008 was cooler than 1997 - 11 years with CO2 up 6% and no net warming - completely at odds with the Al Gore-IPCC paradigm.Again La Nina. Apart from 2008, every year since 2001 (the so-called cooling period) was warmer than 1997. If 2009 ends up warmer than 2008 will this be completely at odds with the solar cooling claptrap. First a 'crock' and now "the solar cooling claptrap" It looks like your scientific impartiality is slipping And do please remember that La Nina isn't an external event its part of the same globe you say is suffering from anthropogenic global warming. If the ocean heat content is lower then the planet has lost a lot of heat.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 11, 2009 12:50:27 GMT
First a 'crock' and now "the solar cooling claptrap"
Ok - "totally unproven speculation" is that better? And that's not just my opinion it's the opinion of Leif Svalgaard who has probably the most impressive record of anyone in solar research over the past 30 years.
It looks like your scientific impartiality is slipping
My impartiality (or otherwise) is totally irrelevant.
And do please remember that La Nina isn't an external event its part of the same globe you say is suffering from anthropogenic global warming.
What are you saying? The presence of La Nina (or El Nino) doesn't tell us anything about whether or not global warming is taking place. La Nina just means we have cooler than normal surface waters across the Pacific which means that surface and satellite temperature measurements will be lower. But, in the case of 2008, not as low as those observed during previous La Nina (and even some El Nino) episodes.
If the ocean heat content is lower then the planet has lost a lot of heat.
Is it lower? La Nina doesn't mean OHC has changed. It's possibe that OHC hasn't risen since 2003 - but, even if, true that's not the same as "losing heat".
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 11, 2009 14:50:13 GMT
Follow up for GLC from WUWT Pamela Gray (06:05:06) :
RECORD REPORT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SPOKANE WA 617 AM PDT WED MAR 11 2009
THE HIGH TEMPERATURE AT RITZVILLE IN THE PAST 24 HOURS ENDING AT 600 AM WAS 27 DEGREES. THIS SETS THE RECORD FOR THE COLDEST HIGH TEMPERATURE FOR THIS PERIOD. THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 32 DEGREES WAS SET IN 1962. RECORDS HAVE BEEN KEPT AT THIS SITE SINCE 1899.
THE LOW TEMPERATURE AT RITZVILLE IN THE PAST 24 HOURS ENDING AT 600 AM WAS 12 DEGREES. THIS SETS THE RECORD FOR THE LOWEST TEMPERATURE FOR THIS PERIOD. THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 16 DEGREES WAS SET IN 1950. RECORDS HAVE BEEN KEPT AT THIS SITE SINCE 1899.
By the way gauges at airports, a notorious CO2 source, are also setting record cold daily high and low temps in Washington. I’m wondering if airports and the companies who fly planes will be willing to buy carbon credits when their own urban heat island gauges are setting record cold temps. Those credits are worthless and might (?) end up helping the stock market to stay crashed if they were to begin today.
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Mar 11, 2009 15:55:29 GMT
GLC - You are doing exactly what I said the Met Office always does re the last ten years. The last 5 years SSTs show the downtrend since 2003 when the warming trend peaked. Look at the Hadley graphs on their website ( Google Hadley CRU) Look at top right hand corner . Their own moving average curve turns over quite nicely at about 2003. 2008 is cooler than 1997 with 6% more CO2. How do you explain that with the Al Gore CO2 claptrap?
|
|
markd
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by markd on Mar 11, 2009 16:13:30 GMT
;D Wow! I don't often see a reference to Spokane at SC24!
RECORD REPORT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SPOKANE WA 617 AM PDT WED MAR 11 2009
Yes, it's cold - running about 24F below normal. This morning saw a new record of 5F (2.4F at my house).
We've had two really tough winters. Last year - 2nd snowiest on record (92.6"). This year - 4th snowiest on record (88.9") and we might not be done yet. Our norm is 43". We usually don't get rough winters back-to-back.
I'm looking forward to the 50s next week (starting to get tired of being cold!)
From the Winter Wonder Land of Eastern Washington
Mark
|
|
|
Post by w7psk on Mar 11, 2009 17:20:56 GMT
Puget Sound area Broke or Tied several records going back to the mid 50s this morning for Cold.
We have also had the 6th Snowiest Winter on record and have not had this much snow since the winter of 71/72.
I know it will get colder before it gets warmer.
|
|
|
Post by w7psk on Mar 11, 2009 17:43:30 GMT
MarkD
Western Washington set many many snowfall records also, in addition to yours. Yet NOAA reports us drier than normal. Do I see an Agenda in there ?
I grew up in Spokane and remember 67/68 winter, and my brother who still lives there said this winter was as bad if not worse than that.
|
|
markd
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by markd on Mar 11, 2009 17:59:31 GMT
W7PSK NOAA with an agenda??? Surely not.... I checked our climate data and we're about normal on moisture since Oct 1. I plugged in Seattle to check their climate data and it's not listed on the web site (at least not in the same location as Spokane's) so I don't know what that data looks like. I do enjoy reading about AGW while I sit here in my long johns! I even lost a part of my network overnight - the room got too cold and a wall wart died. Mark, AB7MP (if you hear me on the bands, give a shout) .... ..
|
|
|
Post by w7psk on Mar 11, 2009 19:11:02 GMT
|
|
markd
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by markd on Mar 11, 2009 20:05:55 GMT
I guess it depends on how you report your data. Eastern Washington is reported at below average for the month, but a longer range report could be different. Spokane (we are part of EWA) is above average since Oct. 1 (almost 6 months). I did notice that the info from the west side left out the Spokane report.... I'll refrain from reading anything into that!
Mark
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 11, 2009 20:23:37 GMT
Here is a fun exercise. I took the Hadcrut ground temperature data and subjected it to 11 year smoothing to largely smooth out the 11 year solar cycle.It appears the smoothed data shows a ground temperature increase of about .50 degreeC from approximately 1910 to 1940. Likewise the maximum smoothed data from a peak in 2003 back 30 years also shows virtually the same 30 year increase in temperature at about .55degreeC.You appear to be putting forward an argument I've been making on pro-AGW blogs for a number of years. That is, that the warming trend between 1915-1944 is very similar to the recent warming trend. However it should be noted that there is still an underlying trend which needs to be explained. So that leaves for 30 years about .05 degreeC unaccounted for. I think one could easily suggest that the difference is probably natural also. No - more like 0.5 deg. If there were, for example, only a simple PDO cycle at play, current global temperatures would be about the same as those in ~1940. The fact that they are about 0.5 deg higher could be due to CO2 which, in the absence of anything more convincing, is the most plausible explanation. However this suggests gentle - rather than catastrophic - warming. Gentle would seem to be maybe overstating the case. The issue is why with rapidly increasing CO2 is the most recent 30 years producing no significant more warming than 1910-1940 did. Further, the repetitive nature of those warming trends implies a cycle. You might want to argue the PDO should be shifting from a net .25C increase to a .25C decrease. But the problem with that theory is that a .25C temperature shift seems highly improbable as an explanation for the observed effects of such climatic events as the LIA or MWP. Seems the empirical record strongly implies a much stronger natural cycle that has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 11, 2009 21:37:44 GMT
The GISS data base is suspect.Why do you say that? What does it show? (annual averages) 1.Global SSTs rose about 1 degree during the 20th century 2. 1998 was the warmest year. 3. SSTs have been falling since 2003 . La Nina 4.2008 was cooler than 1997 - 11 years with CO2 up 6% and no net warming - completely at odds with the Al Gore-IPCC paradigm.Again La Nina. Apart from 2008, every year since 2001 (the so-called cooling period) was warmer than 1997. If 2009 ends up warmer than 2008 will this be completely at odds with the solar cooling claptrap. La Nina was certainly a big factor in the cooler temps of 2008...but it also certainly does not explain the 8-10 year, ongoing non-warming trend. If you haven't taken a look at ENSO-corrected temp graphs for the past 10 years, you should. They clearly show that ENSO is not responsible for the the recent lack of warming. Something else has caused temps to level off or even decline slightly the past 8-10 years.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 11, 2009 21:43:02 GMT
Here is a fun exercise. I took the Hadcrut ground temperature data and subjected it to 11 year smoothing to largely smooth out the 11 year solar cycle.It appears the smoothed data shows a ground temperature increase of about .50 degreeC from approximately 1910 to 1940. Likewise the maximum smoothed data from a peak in 2003 back 30 years also shows virtually the same 30 year increase in temperature at about .55degreeC.You appear to be putting forward an argument I've been making on pro-AGW blogs for a number of years. That is, that the warming trend between 1915-1944 is very similar to the recent warming trend. However it should be noted that there is still an underlying trend which needs to be explained. So that leaves for 30 years about .05 degreeC unaccounted for. I think one could easily suggest that the difference is probably natural also. No - more like 0.5 deg. If there were, for example, only a simple PDO cycle at play, current global temperatures would be about the same as those in ~1940. The fact that they are about 0.5 deg higher could be due to CO2 which, in the absence of anything more convincing, is the most plausible explanation. However this suggests gentle - rather than catastrophic - warming. If CO2 was the primary driver of temperature increases, why was there basically the same amount of warming from the 1910s to the 1940s as there was from the 1970s to the 2000s? Should the temperature increase have been greater, since the concentration of CO2 was considerably higher? Also, what caused the warming during the 19th century? CO2 increases were miniscule then compared to what they are today.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 11, 2009 23:07:42 GMT
If CO2 was the primary driver of temperature increases, why was there basically the same amount of warming from the 1910s to the 1940s as there was from the 1970s to the 2000s? Should the temperature increase have been greater, since the concentration of CO2 was considerably higher?Possibly - but that assumes all other factors (apart from CO2) are the same in the 2 periods. The way I see it, the 'ocean effect' provides the dominant signal, i.e. the cyclical pattern and it is this that dominates the warming trend. CO2 (or perhaps something else) just amplifies it a bit while damping the cooling trend during the cool phase(s) of the cycle. Also, what caused the warming during the 19th century? CO2 increases were miniscule then compared to what they are today. The oceans again. Look at the CET record here www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.htmlI know it's only a small region but it's not a bad proxy for the NH. Between 1780 and 1900 there are a number of warm peaks and cold troughs. Even the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820) doesn't disrupt this pattern to any great extent. I know I'm repeating myself but here goes again. While on a voyage in 1817, William Scoresby (Jnr), an English Arctic explorer, "noted a remarkable diminution of polar ice" (see www.whitby-yorkshire.co.uk/scoresby/scoresby.htm). Ok - you can argue that this is only a single piece of anecdotal evidence, but Scoresby (and his father) was a highly experienced sea captain. It's interesting to speculate why there was an apparent lack of polar ice in a period when the sun was in a deep minimum.
|
|