|
Post by icefisher on Jan 13, 2017 6:57:10 GMT
My crystal ball is always calibrated direct from the Interweb: Wow I have to have one of those!
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 13, 2017 10:11:10 GMT
PDO stayed positive in December so that's 3 years of PDO positives now? The blurb tells us we can see counter periods of sign within a phase but that these generally are 6 months or less with 18 months being the extreme . As such i think it safe to call PDO positive now ...3 years down the line! PDO positive does favour Nino and the full 3 years have seen Nino or near nino conditions apart from this recent fade from a fully fledged nino but ever this 'near Nina' ( according to B.O.M.) did not pan out as was forecast as Nino was ending.... Should we see a shift to near Nino what will that mean for global temps in 2017? 2nd highest? I think what you have done is take one El Nino in a row and are using it to predict more El Ninos. The PDO pattern is defined by multiple cycles. One El Nino in a row does not make even one cycle. If indeed you are correct that the cool phase of the PDO is gone either we have no pattern for prediction or the PDO index is not properly defined. That would mean Greywolf that your crystal ball lacks a bit of documentation. The few years of PDO negative did provide us with more Nina's than Nino's so I do not know why you are questioning the relationship that appears accepted by the agencies who study such events? We also saw the papers , last year, looking at the impacts of reducing 'dimming' over the pacific basin and the impacts that such warming will have on both ENSO and PDO? The extreme growth of Asian 'dimming' , over the late nineties/noughties, is now seeing an equally rapid reduction which will take global dimming down below 1940's levels ( due to the way the Asian dimming 'slotted in' to the west's reduction in dimming over the 80's/90's?) so we will be seeing more solar entering the climate system than we have been able to in decades. So even with Solar output dropping into low solar the amount now reaching the planets surface ( and so absorption and re radiation at the infra red frequency)is increasing year on year. Let's wait until the sun is over in our hemisphere and see what sst's do? if we see strong positives develop then we might expect to see ENSO regions polluted with warmth bleeding into them from the wider ocean?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 13, 2017 15:30:06 GMT
I think what you have done is take one El Nino in a row and are using it to predict more El Ninos. The PDO pattern is defined by multiple cycles. One El Nino in a row does not make even one cycle. If indeed you are correct that the cool phase of the PDO is gone either we have no pattern for prediction or the PDO index is not properly defined. That would mean Greywolf that your crystal ball lacks a bit of documentation. The few years of PDO negative did provide us with more Nina's than Nino's so I do not know why you are questioning the relationship that appears accepted by the agencies who study such events? We also saw the papers , last year, looking at the impacts of reducing 'dimming' over the pacific basin and the impacts that such warming will have on both ENSO and PDO? The extreme growth of Asian 'dimming' , over the late nineties/noughties, is now seeing an equally rapid reduction which will take global dimming down below 1940's levels ( due to the way the Asian dimming 'slotted in' to the west's reduction in dimming over the 80's/90's?) so we will be seeing more solar entering the climate system than we have been able to in decades. So even with Solar output dropping into low solar the amount now reaching the planets surface ( and so absorption and re radiation at the infra red frequency)is increasing year on year. Let's wait until the sun is over in our hemisphere and see what sst's do? if we see strong positives develop then we might expect to see ENSO regions polluted with warmth bleeding into them from the wider ocean? Well its a bit of a reach to say "accepted by the agencies" Greywolf. Its called a multi-decadal oscillation and it seems to be mostly studied by one individual at Univ of Washington who calculates the index, named it, and wrote the first paper discovering it. Perhaps rather than starting your own "agency" you might want to give the guy a call or email him and ask him what his take is as his paper on this topic primarily identified the oscillation from the movements of Pacific salmon and secondarily other species. I think since he provides the numbers for the index he is working on defining a model for it. Since this model is about 20 years behind the development of a model for ENSO and ENSO was completely defined and redefined about 4 or 5 times you might also want to ask how that is coming. What we are looking at is some rather massive internal variability that probably is responsible for more than half the warming we saw during the "fingerprinting" of global warming when the fingerprinter, Ben Santer, was apparently completely ignorant of this hypothesized oscillation. A few years ago I estimated the flip from warm to cold not on the 2008 La Nina but instead upon a regular signal in global temperatures that oscillated once every 66 years. That put that estimate for the flip to cold at 2010. It certainly was not before 2008 and our local astrometeorologist is likely putting it as this year when it flips to cold. So any way you want to look at it the only possible multidecadal phase is still a warm one. As to dimming. I know nothing about that. Since reportedly global warming or cooling is removed from the PDO model index how would in your mind dimming have an impact on the oscillation? Do you have evidence of a change in a pattern of dimming over the north Pacific? The index has been sliding toward a neutral level since probably 1993, though Astromet or the guy that calculates the index might have a different date on that as that appears to be approximately the date that the multiple peaks seemed to visually peak out. Now this oscillation is probably good for at most about 8/10ths of a degree of global temperatures based upon the 1944 and recent peaks. Thus when near neutral its effects on global temperature is probably minimal and not cooling because of massive ocean momentum overall. So before inventing a new less than decadal oscillation I would tend to hold on to the waistband of your pants so as to not lose them and brace yourself to the possibility that Astromet is correct and the cold phase is just about to start because unlike you he has a method that has been tested for a few hundred years. . . .similarly Dr Mantau has been studying it for over 20 years, and the temperature oscillation mostly in time with it goes back to the beginning of the temperature record but the modeled SSTs appear unreliable before the 1920's and the establishment of the Pacific fleet when regular SST records began.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 14, 2017 13:30:00 GMT
I think Astro will be about 180 degrees out on the temp direction over the next decade with a continuation of the accelerated warming driven by the Arctic Amplification , reduced dimming and Natural warm phase cycles combining ( along with the impacts of a bloated GHG cargo in the atmosphere?)that we have been seeing over recent years.
The 1980's/90's warming spike did not have a pronounced A.A. forcing and it was seeing the reduction in dimming falter and then head back up as Asia's reliance on dirty brown coal increased.
As such we have a new source of heating, a reduction in energy losses from the atmosphere and an increased GHG forcing to add on top of the the 'natural' forcings we saw over the late 70's/80's /90's?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2017 18:46:08 GMT
I think Astro will be about 180 degrees out on the temp direction over the next decade with a continuation of the accelerated warming driven by the Arctic Amplification , reduced dimming and Natural warm phase cycles combining ( along with the impacts of a bloated GHG cargo in the atmosphere?)that we have been seeing over recent years. The 1980's/90's warming spike did not have a pronounced A.A. forcing and it was seeing the reduction in dimming falter and then head back up as Asia's reliance on dirty brown coal increased. As such we have a new source of heating, a reduction in energy losses from the atmosphere and an increased GHG forcing to add on top of the the 'natural' forcings we saw over the late 70's/80's /90's? Well you basically bought into the farm on the issue of Arctic amplification. Originally the theory was for equatorial heating and the tropical mid troposheric hot spot. But when warming was not occurring as predicted it set of a search for the cause. Warming in the arctic was spotted and with the help of models to fill in historic temperatures some of the warming was found. My opinion is the arctic warming is a sign of enhanced global heat loss than global warming consistent with the original theory which considered arctic warming part of the feedback cycle, meaning its feedback from warming from any source. And yes it had warmed! So the arctic feedback was expected no matter the source of warming. Reduced dimming I think can create some minor warming but the estimates of how much is around a tenth of a degree, it may be responsible for all the warming we have seen in the last 20 years, with the Arctic feedback the primary forcing might be negative. Add in ocean momentum and you get more negative for the primary forcing. All these factors suggest there is no forcing from increasing CO2 because they being either decoupled from primary forcing or feedbacks estimated to play out over a thousand years or more after the problem was fixed. We are repairing observation records to add to it and still falling short! I think all one needs to do is open their eyes. Then as we have discussed here natural variation is the wild card. I go along with Dr. Syun Akasofu on the issue of natural variation is that until we understand that we cannot attribute anything to anthropogenic warming. We have all the feedbacks listed above plus our scrubbing of coal burning emissions reducing dimming to explain probably more than we need to explain, which means under it all cooling is probably occurring and its mostly a matter of time before that is realized by actual measurements. As an auditor I have a lot of experience in dealing with projections (financial results) and the same identical issues only with different variables exists in the climate change debate. So evidence becomes the key. With evidence one can begin to attribute the changes we have seen and begin to develop a "best method" of projections. But the evidence is lacking. Dr Curry properly itemized what we know in here Dec 3 post on Climate Etc. What are the facts in the climate science debate? 1) Average global surface temperatures have overall increased for the past 100+ years 2) Carbon dioxide has an infrared emission spectra 3) Humans have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That is pretty much it, in terms of verifiable, generally agreed upon scientific facts surrounding the major elements of the primary forcing in the climate change debate. Obama says we should be accepting evidence of climate change. But there is no evidence there other than climate change so that's what I do. I agree with Dr. Curry and note that climate scientists like anybody else always have opinions but have no other evidence. I have learned as an auditor a true expert has evidence, always has evidence. If he has no evidence he is an expert at nothing but instead he is a pundit. It doesn't matter how well someone is educated if he lacks evidence he is not an expert. An auditor learns this very quickly who the experts are. He learns it because he can go ask whoever was "identified" as an expert for the necessary evidence. If its forthcoming it often proves you found the right expert. If its not forthcoming you have to start over again to find the correct expert. Auditors cannot rely on what somebody says they must create some documentation of evidence and they drill down until they find it or they go do their own tests. 10 years ago I started looking for evidence in the climate debate. To this day I have not found any at all that is not on Dr Curry's list and in the feedbacks and clean air efforts list. Sure we can speculate but thats not evidence. In fact just a few months ago the NASA page entitled "The Evidence" only had a footnote to "Arhennius speculated. . . .". I emailed the author and said that speculating hardly amounts to evidence. I never got a reply but they edited the page within a week to change the word "speculated" to "suggested". They never thanked me. . . .no doubt because they were too embarrassed to engage in the discussion at hand. I have searched and debated high and wide for evidence. I have concluded there is none. So yeah you think its going to warm and Astromet thinks its going to cool. I think Astromet is right at least over the next 5 years. I worry more about agreeing how it should be measured than I do about what is likely to happen.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 14, 2017 20:26:25 GMT
I think Astro will be about 180 degrees out on the temp direction over the next decade with a continuation of the accelerated warming driven by the Arctic Amplification , reduced dimming and Natural warm phase cycles combining ( along with the impacts of a bloated GHG cargo in the atmosphere?)that we have been seeing over recent years. The 1980's/90's warming spike did not have a pronounced A.A. forcing and it was seeing the reduction in dimming falter and then head back up as Asia's reliance on dirty brown coal increased. As such we have a new source of heating, a reduction in energy losses from the atmosphere and an increased GHG forcing to add on top of the the 'natural' forcings we saw over the late 70's/80's /90's? I think the same natural forces that have been driving the climate both warmer and cooler for millennia will continue to do so. I'm leaning towards global cooling over the next 30 years or so depending on just how quite our sun is and for how long. Our sun's output varies and I just think it's influence on our climate has been minimized by the AGW crowd.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 14, 2017 20:35:42 GMT
I agree with you Glenn.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 14, 2017 20:56:24 GMT
Well there we have it.
If by 2020 its cooler GW has agreed he's wrong and I think Astro will need to explain his position very persuasively if its warmer.
In the interim the Donald will get some balance into the debate and the madness of diverting money from environmental issue to reduce CO2 when it is not clear that it's a pollutant will make the world a lot cleaner. If GW is correct and we are on fire by 2020 then a sane conversion from Coal to Gas will take the world to a good place. QED
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Jan 15, 2017 0:04:36 GMT
Well there we have it. If by 2020 its cooler GW has agreed he's wrong and I think Astro will need to explain his position very persuasively if its warmer. In the interim the Donald will get some balance... If he survives...
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 15, 2017 12:31:39 GMT
If 2017 does not slip down the rankings for yearly global temps we are in more trouble than even I think we are!!
By 2019 we should be seeing another record year ( even without the nino I think will form up that year?) and from there on in, until the next Nino , we will see pretty close year on year temps with 'records' being common.
At some point over the coming period the Arctic will see its first Blue Ocean Event and so from there on in global temps will begin to accelerate upwards further due to the 'new energy' flooding into the system?
Should Asia succeed in cleaning up their pollution across the major cities we will also feel the impacts of more of the energy , already reaching the top of the atmosphere, making to the surface.
As you can see these two 'extra' energies will more than compensate for any drop off in Solar we might see through cycle 25.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2017 14:56:07 GMT
If 2017 does not slip down the rankings for yearly global temps we are in more trouble than even I think we are!! By 2019 we should be seeing another record year ( even without the nino I think will form up that year?) and from there on in, until the next Nino , we will see pretty close year on year temps with 'records' being common. At some point over the coming period the Arctic will see its first Blue Ocean Event and so from there on in global temps will begin to accelerate upwards further due to the 'new energy' flooding into the system? Should Asia succeed in cleaning up their pollution across the major cities we will also feel the impacts of more of the energy , already reaching the top of the atmosphere, making to the surface. As you can see these two 'extra' energies will more than compensate for any drop off in Solar we might see through cycle 25. I am sure there will be somebody somewhere to oblige you Graywolf. No way do they want you to not think you are in trouble.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 15, 2017 15:24:27 GMT
And the stage is set for a grand 'toast-off' / 'freeze-off'.
May the best thesis win! The real question is ... will the partisan camps recognize the results? I'm with Icefisher. We need an agreement on what represents evidence. Or look forward to an IS/PIS contest, with the true believers dying in their trenches surrounded by their God.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 15, 2017 17:48:38 GMT
Well I see no problem here GW has defined success of his prediction being a continuing lift in annual temperatures and an ice free Arctic.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 15, 2017 18:47:08 GMT
Let me tie that down to the next 5 years of global temperature trend ( I think there will be another Nino over the next 5 years and that will 'spike' the trend making it difficult for the few years after to better that temp?) and an Arctic 'Blue Ocean' event being a sub 1 Million pack at ice min?
I do not see 2017 bettering the nino influenced 2016 global record temp but I do feel , if things trundle on as they have the last 3 years, that 2018 will put up a fight for the crown of global temp king. Arctic ice may hang on the outcome of the next weeks storms and whether we see an SSW in late Jan that turns into a 'final Warming'.
Looking at the current southern hemisphere sst's maybe Antarctica has more Sea ice to lose...... that would keep us setting day to day records for lowest global sea ice for a while longer?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 15, 2017 18:50:29 GMT
Well I see no problem here GW has defined success of his prediction being a continuing lift in annual temperatures and an ice free Arctic. I really like his prediction and hope that his writings are spot on!!!! An ice free Arctic will result in a boon for mankind. What is not to like!
|
|