|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 8, 2013 1:13:18 GMT
Scratch that - I've now read what the post is saying. Bob is looking for a signal in a very short period of observations. Obviously, the difference in the trend in the obs and the model mean is nowhere near statistically significant, so the models are doing acceptably, and it is you who doesn't seem to have a clue - sorry about that, but you were rather blunt yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 8, 2013 1:18:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 8, 2013 10:58:44 GMT
science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/"It's not even 11 years," says Guhathakurtha. "The cycle ranges in length from 9 to 12 years. Some cycles are intense, with many sunspots and solar flares; others are mild, with relatively little solar activity. In the 17th century, during a period called the 'Maunder Minimum,' the cycle appeared to stop altogether for about 70 years and no one knows why."
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 8, 2013 11:00:17 GMT
Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere. science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/ |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 8, 2013 11:03:18 GMT
" "What is really going on here is that their sophisticated climate models are being continuously tuned so as to “backcast” and agree with past temperature data. There has been no warming for 17 years. As a result the parameters are now showing little AGW at all for the next 10 years. A scientist should ask the following question. If predictions of global climate models from just 2 years ago have now been invalidated by the data, how can we now have any faith in new predictions made with the same models but with various fudge factors added?"" hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/uk-met-office-cuts-projected-2017.html |
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Apr 8, 2013 12:22:07 GMT
science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/"It's not even 11 years," says Guhathakurtha. "The cycle ranges in length from 9 to 12 years. Some cycles are intense, with many sunspots and solar flares; others are mild, with relatively little solar activity. In the 17th century, during a period called the 'Maunder Minimum,' the cycle appeared to stop altogether for about 70 years and no one knows why." Quotation from the Nasa article: There is no need to go so far back in time, however, to find an example of the cycle's unpredictability. Right now the sun is climbing out of a century-class solar minimum that almost no one anticipated.Shouldn't that read "the sun is slipping into a century-class solar minimum" ?  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 8, 2013 12:27:45 GMT
Cutty: As Dr. Svalgaard has indicated........who knows?
|
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Apr 8, 2013 12:51:54 GMT
Cutty: As Dr. Svalgaard has indicated........who knows? Sig, What's your take on Dr Abdussamatov's work (Director of the International Space Station and Director of Space Physics at the Polkovo Observatory St Petersburg): Measure temporary variations of shape and diameter of the Sun, as well as fine structure and dynamics of the granulation on the Service module of the Russian segment of the International Space Stationwww.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 8, 2013 14:47:39 GMT
Cutty:
To me, he is asking all of the correct questions. We know that the earth rotates around the sun and has orbital characteristics.
When you look closely at Mil cycles, there are gaps that are not explainable.
When you look at past climate variation during the Holocene, it is not explainable.
There is just so much that we truly do not know.
What we do know is that CO2 is a greenhouse type of gas, but is only effective at very high altitudes because of the radiation band overlap with H2O vapor.
Can CO2 explain all of the current warming? Only if you do a lot of dreaming.
So, hopefully, the hunt continues for knowledge, and to gain that knowledge you have to ask the correct questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Apr 9, 2013 23:01:27 GMT
Cutty: To me, he is asking all of the correct questions. We know that the earth rotates around the sun and has orbital characteristics. When you look closely at Mil cycles, there are gaps that are not explainable. When you look at past climate variation during the Holocene, it is not explainable. There is just so much that we truly do not know. What we do know is that CO2 is a greenhouse type of gas, but is only effective at very high altitudes because of the radiation band overlap with H2O vapor. Can CO2 explain all of the current warming? Only if you do a lot of dreaming. So, hopefully, the hunt continues for knowledge, and to gain that knowledge you have to ask the correct questions.
Absolutely correct! I would also add that, after having asked the correct questions, one has to go where the data takes them.
Data trumps models any day.
Well, there ARE always exceptions... Wait! I think the globe is warming! |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 11, 2013 19:31:27 GMT
" "What is really going on here is that their sophisticated climate models are being continuously tuned so as to “backcast” and agree with past temperature data. There has been no warming for 17 years. As a result the parameters are now showing little AGW at all for the next 10 years. A scientist should ask the following question. If predictions of global climate models from just 2 years ago have now been invalidated by the data, how can we now have any faith in new predictions made with the same models but with various fudge factors added?"" hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/uk-met-office-cuts-projected-2017.htmlThe answer could be that the previous model was 15 years' old and ran at a low resolution. The newer model is current and runs at a higher resolution. The idea that the Met Office would allow the decadal forecasters to fiddle with the model to fix the decadal forecast, when the fiddling could impact on the Met Office's bread-and-butter short term forecasts, is inane. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 11, 2013 19:55:15 GMT
" "What is really going on here is that their sophisticated climate models are being continuously tuned so as to “backcast” and agree with past temperature data. There has been no warming for 17 years. As a result the parameters are now showing little AGW at all for the next 10 years. A scientist should ask the following question. If predictions of global climate models from just 2 years ago have now been invalidated by the data, how can we now have any faith in new predictions made with the same models but with various fudge factors added?"" hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/uk-met-office-cuts-projected-2017.htmlThe answer could be that the previous model was 15 years' old and ran at a low resolution. The newer model is current and runs at a higher resolution. The idea that the Met Office would allow the decadal forecasters to fiddle with the model to fix the decadal forecast, when the fiddling could impact on the Met Office's bread-and-butter short term forecasts, is inane. You're funny steve. FOIA obtained Met Office document shows them to be clueless about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual weather last yearLet's guess; the public shouldn't know how much their tax dollars are being wasted or how ignorant full of crap scientists really are. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 11, 2013 22:01:38 GMT
magellan,
You are making my point magellan. The document referred to the seasonal forecast. Both the decadal and seasonal forecasts are somewhat experimental. That said, the seasonal forecast does have some skill.
The idea that the Met Office would allow the seasonal forecasters to fiddle with the model to fix the seasonal forecast, when the fiddling could impact on the Met Office's bread-and-butter short term forecasts, is inane.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 11, 2013 23:27:16 GMT
magellan, You are making my point magellan. The document referred to the seasonal forecast. Both the decadal and seasonal forecasts are somewhat experimental. That said, the seasonal forecast does have some skill. The idea that the Met Office would allow the seasonal forecasters to fiddle with the model to fix the seasonal forecast, when the fiddling could impact on the Met Office's bread-and-butter short term forecasts, is inane. To say Met O doesn't fiddle with their models is completely laughable. What you're saying is their forecasts will continue to be wrong forever. Why do they continually need larger computers if they don't change anything? Stop being an apologist for Met O. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 12, 2013 3:13:14 GMT
magellan, You are making my point magellan. The document referred to the seasonal forecast. Both the decadal and seasonal forecasts are somewhat experimental. That said, the seasonal forecast does have some skill. The idea that the Met Office would allow the seasonal forecasters to fiddle with the model to fix the seasonal forecast, when the fiddling could impact on the Met Office's bread-and-butter short term forecasts, is inane. The majority of you do not know what you are talking about, that's the truth. Until you learn and accept that our planet's climate and its resultant weather is forced from space, you are just spinning your wheels with a lot of hot air talk that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The reason why the MET office continues to not be able to forecast is because they do not accept the laws of physics that force the climate and weather. Opinion, careerism and ideology does not make for accurate forecasts, much less monthly, and we cannot even mention seasonal and decadal since the MET Office cannot accomplish that skill at the level that they are at in the present. They depend on models that I regularly outperform using the basics principles of astrometeorology. Moreover, the attitudes of those who claim to possess knowledge of the Earth's climate and weather, but who are unable to practice what they preach when it comes to testing that in the real world, proves my point about the value of uninformed opinions, ego and ideology, which, by the way, cannot and does NOT forecast. And, while this has been going on, some of you are witnessing (ignorantly enough) the onset of something far worse than global warming could ever be - and that's global cooling. If I were any of you, I'd be making preparations for that long climate haul, because your lives will be seriously affected by this coming new climate regime. That's a fact. |
|
