|
Post by magellan on Feb 13, 2009 12:57:04 GMT
What I find remarkable is in the midst of so much doom saying we found an 11 year period with no new record warm year. We haven't seen anything like that for 30 yearsThis has more to do with the magnitude of the warming during the 1998 El Nino year. The global temp anomaly for 1998 far exceeded anything that had gone before. It was a bit like the Bob Beamon long jump record in 1968 which beat the previous world record by ~2 feet and wasn't surpassed until the 1990s. But it would be nonsense to suggest that later long jumpers such as Carl Lewis were not as good as Beamon simply because of this one jump. I cherry picked nothing GLC. I took the most recent three years of cooling (and your prognostications on the implications of a possible fourth year with some warming); Ok - what about 1998-2000? A much greater cooling trend which was interpreted at the time - mistakenly as it happens - that warming had stopped and cooling was now underway. Funnily enough - exactly the same interpretation you're making now. and compared that to the first 3 years of the warming trend in 1978 heralding the "accelerated" warm phase. . . .it was followed by two years of cooling during an El Nino that started in the last year of a very high solar max.....and a volcanic eruption. Ok - what about 1998-2000? A much greater cooling trend which was interpreted at the time - mistakenly as it happens - that warming had stopped and cooling was now underway. Funnily enough - exactly the same interpretation you're making now. And of course nobody interpreted 1997-1998 as being confirmation of AGW Has there been a year exceeding 1998 since? There should have been by now. Please answer the following. It is a simple yes or no: Are the oceans gaining heat?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 13, 2009 13:13:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 13, 2009 15:40:59 GMT
Wonder how much longer that'll be true for. "We observe a net loss of 3.2 (± 1.1) × 1022 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005. Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area)" "The cooling event persisted with removal of all Argo data from the OHCA estimate, albeit more weakly and with much larger error bars. This result suggests that the cooling event is real and not related to any potential bias introduced by the large changes in the characteristics of the ocean observing system during the advent of the Argo Project. Estimates of OHCA made using only data from profiling floats (not shown) also yielded a recent cooling of similar magnitude." None of this data squares with Hansen's model Steve. What's gone wrong?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 13, 2009 18:44:46 GMT
What I find remarkable is in the midst of so much doom saying we found an 11 year period with no new record warm year. We haven't seen anything like that for 30 yearsThis has more to do with the magnitude of the warming during the 1998 El Nino year. The global temp anomaly for 1998 far exceeded anything that had gone before. It was a bit like the Bob Beamon long jump record in 1968 which beat the previous world record by ~2 feet and wasn't surpassed until the 1990s. But it would be nonsense to suggest that later long jumpers such as Carl Lewis were not as good as Beamon simply because of this one jump. Only problem with that argument is it has a bogus premise. The 1998 peak was not unusual. On a decadal scale the 1930's temperature rise was stronger than the 1990's temperature rise. And on a short term basis, the 1876 to 1878 rise was .426 compared to the 1996 to 1998 rise of .409. That 19th century peak capped off a postive PDO. The PDO shifts tend to be greater than .6 degrees, the only exception being the 1960 negative one that got hammered by record solar cycle 19. Unfortunately your arguments just don't stand up to scrutiny. As much as you want to argue hockey stick type rhetoric (meteoric temperature rises) the fact is they are an illusion. Further its interesting you used Bob Beamon. Just goes to show such stuff can be 100% natural. You are beginning to sound like a denier, running contrary to the facts. I can agree though we are not outside the range of possibilities. If you look at it the other way, e.g. search for false trends you can find a couple. But they are in the minority. So you have an outside chance of being right. . . .but don't go to Las Vegas. . . .those guys will see you coming.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 14, 2009 0:37:41 GMT
Only problem with that argument is it has a bogus premise. The 1998 peak was not unusual. The 1998 peak was very unusual. On a decadal scale the 1930's temperature rise was stronger than the 1990's temperature rise. Have you got proof of this? And on a short term basis, the 1876 to 1878 rise was .426 compared to the 1996 to 1998 rise of .409. That 19th century peak capped off a postive PDO. There might be several short-term periods which have had similar temperature increases but none which started from such a high starting point The PDO shifts tend to be greater than .6 degrees, the only exception being the 1960 negative one that got hammered by record solar cycle 19. A) there wasn't a -ve PDO shift in 1960 - it was in the 1940s. B) I'm not sure where you get the data which shows that PDO shifts "tend to be greater than 0.6 deg". Unfortunately your arguments just don't stand up to scrutiny. As much as you want to argue hockey stick type rhetoric (meteoric temperature rises) the fact is they are an illusion. I've no idea what this means. You are beginning to sound like a denier, running contrary to the facts. The facts are that you are using a short term drop in global temperatures to make the case that we've entered a long term cooling phase. There is not the slightest shred of evidence for this. And a "denier" of what, by the way? I can agree though we are not outside the range of possibilities. If you look at it the other way, e.g. search for false trends you can find a couple. But they are in the minority.
So you have an outside chance of being right. . . .but don't go to Las Vegas. . . .those guys will see you coming. As I'm so obviously gullible, why don't you suggest a bet and try to win some easy money. Remember, according to you, temps have dropped and are continuing to drop - so bring it on.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 14, 2009 1:32:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 14, 2009 2:27:36 GMT
Only problem with that argument is it has a bogus premise. The 1998 peak was not unusual. The 1998 peak was very unusual. On a decadal scale the 1930's temperature rise was stronger than the 1990's temperature rise. Have you got proof of this? And on a short term basis, the 1876 to 1878 rise was .426 compared to the 1996 to 1998 rise of .409. That 19th century peak capped off a postive PDO. There might be several short-term periods which have had similar temperature increases but none which started from such a high starting point The PDO shifts tend to be greater than .6 degrees, the only exception being the 1960 negative one that got hammered by record solar cycle 19. A) there wasn't a -ve PDO shift in 1960 - it was in the 1940s. B) I'm not sure where you get the data which shows that PDO shifts "tend to be greater than 0.6 deg". Unfortunately your arguments just don't stand up to scrutiny. As much as you want to argue hockey stick type rhetoric (meteoric temperature rises) the fact is they are an illusion. I've no idea what this means. You are beginning to sound like a denier, running contrary to the facts. The facts are that you are using a short term drop in global temperatures to make the case that we've entered a long term cooling phase. There is not the slightest shred of evidence for this. And a "denier" of what, by the way? I can agree though we are not outside the range of possibilities. If you look at it the other way, e.g. search for false trends you can find a couple. But they are in the minority.
So you have an outside chance of being right. . . .but don't go to Las Vegas. . . .those guys will see you coming. As I'm so obviously gullible, why don't you suggest a bet and try to win some easy money. Remember, according to you, temps have dropped and are continuing to drop - so bring it on. The temperature shift in the recent warming phase has been a strong one (about 16% stronger than the last one). But thats not a big change because you are talking less than .15 degree over the cycle of 60 years ago. That difference could well be attributable to the approximate 30% increase in amplitude of the solar cycles pushing it. However, you continue to dodge the question that started this thread. Why would you call something a trend if you get just one year of data favoring your position but when you don't favor what the data is saying 3 years of data is not good enough?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 14, 2009 2:46:04 GMT
Magellan I asked for data to support certain statements and the answer is clearly "No". Your first graph shows a temperature spike in the stratosphere above the arctic. There is, however, nothing in the AMSU satellite record which shows that the stratosphere as a whole has been warmer than normal in January (but I'll check again). On the contrary, it appears to be somewhat cooler than recent years. The troposphere, on the other hand, is considerably warmer. The 2nd graph is simply a plot of SSTs - and it's quite apparent that even during the recent La Nina, SSTs were still above what they were for most of the 1980s and 1990s. Sticking in a trend line from 2001 is just desperate cherry picking. Why 2001? Why not 1999 or 2000 - the last time there was a significant La Nina. What part of this don't you understand? pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdfand www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Imbalance_20050415.pdfExplain how six years with 0 joules being added to the system is insignificant. This is not an argument about trends, it is about heat content that should be increasing year after year. No volcanoes or aerosols to blame it on. How many mulligans is CO2 AGW allowed? You stated as having arguing vigorously with an AGW'r. It appears that must be with yourself because I've seen nothing that separates you from the main tenets of AGW. There is no "heat in the pipeline" or "masking" of heat. The oceans tell the story, and the surface will reflect that, but is more variable and hence not a good metric to measure global warming. With each blast of released heat from the oceans, it is that much less heat in the system. That you have no argument to counter with is revealing, and your main premise is to assume La Nina (another AGW mantra) and El Nino drive global warming or cooling, when it is the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 14, 2009 10:06:34 GMT
However, you continue to dodge the question that started this thread.
The question wich started the thread was Could Hadley be right about 2009 being warm? I think they could be right. I've said that 2009 could be a top 5 year - just ahead of 2004. I've also said I think the recent dip is very likely a short term ENSO effect. Have I not been clear enough?
Why would you call something a trend if you get just one year of data favoring your position but when you don't favor what the data is saying 3 years of data is not good enough?
I don't call anything less than 3 years a trend. By using recent data I was demonstrating that your 3 year trend is not a trend at all but a short term fluctuation. Since the 2007/08 La Nina faded temperatures have increased, which tends to suggest it was the La Nina (and not the solar minimum or anything else) which caused the cooling between Jan 2007 and the middle of 2008.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 14, 2009 10:29:43 GMT
It's true that global temperatures have increased since the trough at the start of 2007, but they haven't recovered to pre 2007 levels. According to the new american ENSO alerts site, we are in a la nina now, albeit a weaker one than the 2007-2008. If this is a seperate la nina to the 2007-2008 la nina, we should expect to see global average temperature dropping from around now. If Hadley is also right about the coming winters being cold ones, the short term trend will continue downwards even if 2009 is warmer than 2008.
glc wants it both ways, he talks about temps recovering from the last la nina but criticises icefisher and I for running a linear trend to this current peak temperature between two la ninas.
For glc, la nina is the magic bogeyman which hops around to support whichever argument he is currently dealing with.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 14, 2009 10:44:33 GMT
Explain how six years with 0 joules being added to the system is insignificant. This is not an argument about trends, it is about heat content that should be increasing year after year. No volcanoes or aerosols to blame it on.
I didn't say OHC wasn't important. I said nothing about OHC increasing or decreasing. Don't keep attributing comments to me that I never made. However can I make one point (Again!)
NOT WARMING is NOT THE SAME AS COOLING
You stated as having arguing vigorously with an AGW'r. It appears that must be with yourself because I've seen nothing that separates you from the main tenets of AGW.
I argued against the main weaknesses of AGW theory. By doing so does not mean I have to support some of the crackpot alternative theories that have been presented on this blog. One of the AGW issues I disagree with is one you brought up, i.e. ocean heating by increased ghg emissions. I explained what the AGWers position was on this
There is no "heat in the pipeline" or "masking" of heat.
Probably not.
The oceans tell the story, and the surface will reflect that, but is more variable and hence not a good metric to measure global warming.
But it's not clear yet what story is being told. You may ultimately be correct but there is a long way to run. Many posters on this blog (including yourself) have been predicting dramatic falls in temperature throughout the last few months. It hasn't happened. I said it wouldn't and I said quite clearly that that the recent short term fluctuations were diven by ENSO conditions (just as they were in 1999/2000). I was right. All those predicting big temperatue drops in October - then November - then December - then the next few months - were wrong!
That you have no argument to counter with is revealing, and your main premise is to assume La Nina (another AGW mantra) and El Nino drive global warming or cooling, when it is the other way around.
ENSO events drive short term fluctuations in surface and atmospheric temperatures. You appear to be suggesting that something else is going on. But your own data (from Pielke) shows there isn't. If Pielke's data is correct, the main message from it is - NO Change. Not cooling - or warming. If, in a few years time, OHC shows a clear and unambiguous cooling signal then I might change my mind about the long term temperature trend.
The only issue which might complicate the situation is the PDO. If (a big IF) the PDO has entered a long term negative phase then we may see more La Nina events and less El Ninos which will have an effect on the surface temperature trend. I don't believe anyone really knows whether this PDO switch is a 5 year or 25 year event.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 14, 2009 11:59:35 GMT
glc writes "But it's not clear yet what story is being told."
Let us assume you are correct. There is no experimental evidence to support AGW; the claims are based largely on the outputs of non-validated computer models. Could you answer these sorts of questions for me. Do you think that our politicians should base their decisions, and spend money, on the basis of the claims of the IPCC, that it is essential that we reduce the amount of CO2 being produced? In other words, should we be actively pursuing the aims of the UNFCCC at Copenhagen at the end of this year? Here in Ontario, Canada, our provincial government is hell bent of destroying our coal fired electricity generating stations, and replacing them with wind and solar, within the next 5 years. Would you support this if you lived here?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 14, 2009 12:37:27 GMT
Could you answer these sorts of questions for me. Do you think that our politicians should base their decisions, and spend money, on the basis of the claims of the IPCC, that it is essential that we reduce the amount of CO2 being produced? In other words, should we be actively pursuing the aims of the UNFCCC at Copenhagen at the end of this year? Here in Ontario, Canada, our provincial government is hell bent of destroying our coal fired electricity generating stations, and replacing them with wind and solar, within the next 5 years. Would you support this if you lived here?
No.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 14, 2009 13:00:52 GMT
It's true that global temperatures have increased since the trough at the start of 2007,
Do you mean 2008?
but they haven't recovered to pre 2007 levels.
What are pre-2007 levels. Although the 2007/08 La Nina has faded we've still had La Nina type conditions. It's also accepted that TSI drops ~0.1% from Solar Max to Solar Min so a UAH anomaly of ~0.3 deg seems about right for the past few years, i.e. maybe not warming but definitely not cooling.
For glc, la nina is the magic bogeyman which hops around to support whichever argument he is currently dealing with.
No idea what you're talking about. La Nina has a cooling effect on the atmosphere. El Nino - the opposite. We had a La NIna and temperatures dropped. The La Nina weakened and temperatures rose. If we have an El Nino temperatures will rise even further. In 1999/2000 temperatures fell very sharply during the La Nina. In 2001 they rose again.
What's the problem? My argument is simply that the recent fall in temperatures was La Nina (not solar) driven. How is this "hopping" around?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 14, 2009 13:05:02 GMT
glc wants it both ways, he talks about temps recovering from the last la nina but criticises icefisher and I for running a linear trend to this current peak temperature between two la ninas.
You didn't run the linear trend between "2 La Ninas". You'd better take a look again at what you and icefisher did. If you want to start in a La Nina period you need to go back to 1999 or 2000.
|
|