|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 18, 2009 17:49:41 GMT
Using UAH data there are still only 3 years colder than 2009 first quarter So? We have a "lingering La Nina" I'd expect temperatures to be a bit below normal Sorry GLC you have suggested 2009 shows an increasing temperature trend when a careful check of EACH INDIVIDUAL year so far this century confirms the downward trend associatied with the on going solar minimum. Sorry, Neilhamp, but I've just done a Least Sq linear regression on the the UAH data you provided and it shows a warming trend of 0.12 deg over the decade. There most certainly isn't a downward trend. No doubt the Met Office will seek your advice when presenting their data for 2009 "warming" They won't need to - temperatures are still clearly on the up. It's simple. If you start from 2000, a strong La Nina year, you will get a positive linear trend through 2009. If you start with 2001, it will be nearly flat. And if you start from 2002, it will be quite negative. ENSO-wise, the most comparable year to 2009 is 2006, and we are running easily cooler than 2006 so far by every temperature source.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Apr 18, 2009 18:33:23 GMT
Thanks, tacoman. I couldn't have put it clearer myself
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 18, 2009 19:10:38 GMT
It's simple. If you start from 2000, a strong La Nina year, you will get a positive linear trend through 2009. But the 2000-2009 (up to march) starts with a La Nina year and ends with a la Nina year (2008). Late 2008 and early 2009 have been borderline La Nina. Also - it wasn't me who selected the time period. If you start with 2001, it will be nearly flat. And if you start from 2002, it will be quite negative. You'll have to take the start year up with Neilhamp and tell him in no uncertain terms that he didn't cherrypick the right year. Whatever its's too short a period. Anything less than 20 years can be disproportionatley affected by short tern 'weather' events. ENSO-wise, the most comparable year to 2009 is 2006, and we are running easily cooler than 2006 so far by every temperature source. So proof of cooling is now reliant on the fact that the first 3 months of 2009 are cooler than the first 3 months of 2006. I'd wait until the end of the year before placing too much importance on 2009. The 2007/08 La Nina meant that 2009 started from a much lower level than 2006.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 18, 2009 19:24:01 GMT
Ross McKitrick: April 15th, 2009 at 7:54 am Re: Edouard (#3), Yes but the reason the tropics matters is that the models say the rising CO2 levels should have the maximum effect in the tropical troposphere. As for the NOAA graph, the period prior to 1980 is hardly a convincing fit, and in the period after 1980 the satellite data provide a better-quality sample. Are you sure you want to go there? Yes fine by me. I know the models predict maximum effect in the tropical troposphere, but that has nothing to do with the consistency or otherwise of the trends which is the point you seem to be trying to make. But, by all means, correct me if I've misunderstood you.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 18, 2009 19:38:31 GMT
But the 2000-2009 (up to march) starts with a La Nina year and ends with a la Nina year (2008). Late 2008 and early 2009 have been borderline La Nina. Also - it wasn't me who selected the time period.
2000 remained La Nina all the way through. In 2008, the ONI (measure of ENSO) went positive/neutral in May and stayed that way through the summer.
You'll have to take the start year up with Neilhamp and tell him in no uncertain terms that he didn't cherrypick the right year. Whatever its's too short a period. Anything less than 20 years can be disproportionatley affected by short tern 'weather' events.
On climactic scales, there really is very little difference between 20 years and 10 years. And again, many AGW claims have been made on the basis of the 20 years from 1978-98...
So proof of cooling is now reliant on the fact that the first 3 months of 2009 are cooler than the first 3 months of 2006. I'd wait until the end of the year before placing too much importance on 2009. The 2007/08 La Nina meant that 2009 started from a much lower level than 2006.
I'm not saying it's proof of anything. Just that from August onwards, 2005-06 ENSO progression is the closest to 2008-09. And ENSO had already recovered to neutral/slightly positive levels in mid-2008, which is why we saw temperatures return to non-Nina levels later in 2008 and early 2009.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 18, 2009 19:56:50 GMT
On climactic scales, there really is very little difference between 20 years and 10 years. There is a big difference. The effects of an El Nino or La Nina (in particular) can last up to 18 months. This is a big chunk out of a 10 year period. And again, many AGW claims have been made on the basis of the 20 years from 1978-98... No - you are making that claim. You are using the anomalous El 1998 Nino as a climate shift point but it wasn't. Leave out the 1998 El Nino and there is a continuous rise in temperature up to ~2005 at least. 2004-2008 were the warmest 5 years on record (UAH, RSS, etc) 1999-2003 were the second warmest 5 years on record 1994-1998 were the third warmest 5 years on record If 2009-2013 turns out to be cooler than 2004-2008 and 1999-2003 then we can probably say a downturn is underway, but at the moment global temperatures remain at elevated levels.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 18, 2009 20:29:21 GMT
2004-2008 were the warmest 5 years on record (UAH, RSS, etc) 1999-2003 were the second warmest 5 years on record 1994-1998 were the third warmest 5 years on record That is incorrect GLC! Using Hadcrut: 2002-2006 was the warmest 5 years on record. 2001-2005 was the 2nd 2003-2007 was the 3rd, and 2004-2008 was the 4th by a slim margin (.016) over 2000-2004 If 2009 doesn't increase to at least +.353 (+.028) 2005-2009 will end up 7th warmest. It would require a record temperature (+.596) for the 2005-2009 average temperature to move into the top 3) Things are looking really BLEAK for AGW. You are relying on the climate models to produce an El Nino to produce some warming. This is just an epicycle recently appended to the AGW models. But the problem may be the assumption that CO2 drives all this. Meanwhile, ocean dynamic indicators are suggesting La Nina is reloading. In order for the atmospheric-driven models to be accurate they have to ignore all that is known about the oceans and these ENSO events. They can't incorporate it because they would come up with different results so all they can do is pretend those ENSO theories are invalid. . . .which isn't at all surprising since they ignored them from the start. In other words they have not yet properly accounted for this "ocean effect" we have been seeing. What we are dealing with now is human nature with regards to the depths the AGW theory is falling and not science. The real denialists are the ones who have not taken the best of the ocean models and fully incorporated them. Don Easterbrook has. Folks can disagree with what he did, but based upon recent history it appears to be solid work. It appears to be especially solid in that it appears all he did was incorporate the ocean dynamic information and did not speculate about solar activity. That could be the next shoe to drop. Like a company that is just realizing its assets are eroding in value. . . .its a long term realization project. . . .in my experience it should take several more years for human nature to accept fully the implications of what has happened recently.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 18, 2009 21:27:52 GMT
"We haven't just had the coldest winter in 20 years"
Oh sorry, that was how the BBC described it to cover up the fact that we were totally unprepared. You can all argue about which set of upwardly adjusted (corrected) values best match the models but at the end of the day, you do need to look out of the window occasionally. Most ordinary people have no in interest in models but travel to work every day. You can tell them it's the 5th hottest month ever but if all the trains are cancelled and the motorways closed due to snow, expect them to realize that you are talking rubbish. All we need now is one more hottest winter since 19?? with all the roads closed etc due to snow and it's all over for AGW and the myth will be exposed to the masses.
Personally I skip articles comparing temperature measurement systems because none of them are trustworthy any more. Just open the window and put your hand out. It's far more accurate and can't be faked.
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Apr 18, 2009 22:53:26 GMT
Of the four sources of temperature data - the two satellites don't measure surface temps and because of the inherent variability of NH land surface temps and the questionable GISS database and averaging alogrithms, I believe that the Hadcrut SSTs give the best smoothed indication of what is actually happening because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.These show that the earth has been cooling since 2003, 1998 was the warmest year, 2008 was cooler than 1997 - 11 years with CO2 up 6% and no net warming contrary to the IPCC models and the AL gore nonsense.. The Hadley moving average curves on their website clearly turnover at about 2003. With Solar cycle 23 increasingly likely to be equivalent to cycle 4 a Dalton minimum looks more and more likely. Obama and the Democrats have blindly bought into the mass media delusions on AGW - we will need more CO2 not less in the next 20 - 30 years to try to maintain crop production . The lunatics have taken over the asylum. - I don't see any good way of stopping them since actual data doesn't seem to effect their nightmare dreams and messianic need to Save the Planet.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 18, 2009 23:34:43 GMT
That is incorrect GLC! Using Hadcrut:
2002-2006 was the warmest 5 years on record. 2001-2005 was the 2nd 2003-2007 was the 3rd, and 2004-2008 was the 4th by a slim margin (.016) over 2000-2004 But these are overlapping periods. If we look at distinct 5 year periods then the most recent 5-year period is the warmest. If you are convinced about the "cooling" trend then you need to wait a few more years. But your post clearly shows that all the warmest periods, whatever start/end point you use, occurred since 2000. In fact, it's quite astonishing. There have only been five 5-year periods since 2000 - yet they are the top 5 warmest periods by some distance. Even periods which include 1998 can't get close to the top 5. And do you know what? I reckon 2005-2009 will make it 6 out of 6!!
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Apr 18, 2009 23:42:26 GMT
GLC -when you cross a summit the last 5 steps up and the first five down are obviously the highest. I believe the Hadcrut SST's are the best indication of the current trend. No doubt individual years will fluctuate but it looks reasonably likely - looking at the SUn and the PDO that 20 - 30 years of cooling is more likely than not.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 19, 2009 0:01:42 GMT
Of the four sources of temperature data - the two satellites don't measure surface temps and because of the inherent variability of NH land surface temps and the questionable GISS database and averaging alogirithms, Could you elaborate? I'm not sure why the GISS database is questionable. I believe that the Hadcrut SSTs give the best smoothed indication of what is actually happening because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. I see. So it seems UAH is no longer reliable - Why is that? Why do you think SSTs give a better "indication of what's happening". SSTs can be quite variable I would have thought ocean heat content would be a better measure. These show that the earth has been cooling since 2003, Aah - I'm beginning to see the attraction. But be careful there have been temporary blips before. I'd check things out a bit more thoroughly before you nail your colours to the mast. 1998 was the warmest year, 2008 was cooler than 1997 - 11 years with CO2 up 6% Well 2008 was certainly cooler than 1997, but there was a fairly intense La Nina in 2008, whereas the massive 1998 El Nino actually kicked off in 1997. The Hadley moving average curves on their website clearly turnover at about 2003. As I say be careful. I'm sure you're not the sort of person who just picks whatever data happens to suit their argument, but things do change. With Solar cycle 23 increasingly likely to be equivalent to cycle 4 a Dalton minimum looks more and more likely. Since no correlation has been established between sunspot activity and global temperature, I'm not sure this is relevant. But perhaps you have a SST record going back 200-300 years. After all, you wouldn't want to rely on surface thermometer records would you?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 19, 2009 0:23:22 GMT
That is incorrect GLC! Using Hadcrut:
2002-2006 was the warmest 5 years on record. 2001-2005 was the 2nd 2003-2007 was the 3rd, and 2004-2008 was the 4th by a slim margin (.016) over 2000-2004 But these are overlapping periods. If we look at distinct 5 year periods then the most recent 5-year period is the warmest. If you are convinced about the "cooling" trend then you need to wait a few more years. I have to deal with that kind of stuff all the time. Clients will say "oh look at the history, this thing is going to turn around". I have to give them the bad news. If I were to wait based on your analysis I wouldn't stay in business long. . . .and every client has your story. . . .one can always model something to say what you want it to say. Bottom line so far your argument has gone 1) coming solar maximum, 2) coming El Nino, and 3) CO2 forcing. I have to inform you that 1) is completely unsupportable and almost certainly wrong (the argument for the opposite is 4 times stronger); 2) is probably wrong (mostly because its based on #3 rather than ocean models); and 3) is much less powerful than previously assumed if not non-existant. It would take much more complete analysis to measure performance here and determine what I would make you write off but right now its looking like a big number, and thats if it holds the line and doesn't get cooler. Roughly if you bought in at 6c per century you will have an asset worth something around 10% of what you paid for it. I am not sure if there is a market on this though, markets act a little different than analysis but if there is a market then that would prevail. But your post clearly shows that all the warmest periods, whatever start/end point you use, occurred since 2000. In fact, it's quite astonishing. There have only been five 5-year periods since 2000 - yet they are the top 5 warmest periods by some distance. Even periods which include 1998 can't get close to the top 5. And do you know what? I reckon 2005-2009 will make it 6 out of 6!! It may well end up 6 out of 6 but when the 6th one is the last one you have a huge trend. You can go screaming into the 19th century using your form of argument. If CPAs bought that stuff the corporations they audit would never write anything off.
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Apr 19, 2009 1:45:15 GMT
GLC Because you post frequently here - I thought you might be generally familiar with a fair amount of the data,scientific literature,web postings etc on these matters.I see I was wrong. GISS data bases : there are many postings on their shortcomings on Watts up With that - and Climate Audit. Take a look. UAH I never said that UAH was not reliable - I said it doesn't measure surface temperature. Do you think it does? I said SST gives a better indication of the trend because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, What don,t you understand about that? Your cute "Aah " gotcha shows you are more interested in making some fancied debating point than a serious dicussion. I'm gratified that you acknowledge that 2008 was cooler than 1997. ( With CO2 climbing steadily) Sunspot activity and temperature - your assertion that their is no correlation between sunspot activity and temperature is simply ludicrous. Take the Little Ice age and the Maunder Minimum as the most simple minded example. Sunspot activity and TSI are only proxies for the total Solar activity variability which includes changes in UV radiation ,the suns magnetic field strength, the CR background - global cloud cover etc. There is a vast literature on these subjects which a little time on Google can start to scratch at. The Hadley SST database goes back to 1850 - not too bad for starters. My basic position is: 1. That except for occasional catastrophes - asteroids - massive volcanic outpourings etc the geological record shows that sun is clearly the main climate driver. See the C14 and Be 10 record for starters, 2. We are only beginning to understand the Sun - earth climate interaction. 3 Until we know the Sun - Climate system better we cant even begin to assess the effect of the piddlimg amount of Anthropogenic CO2 we are putting out with any accuracy. 4. The fairly obvious mundane conclusions of my first post are about as good as we can do at this time. 5.The dire speculations of the climate modellers merely reflect the personal prejudices of the people making the inputs. Garbage in garbage out. Have a nice day - Norman.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 19, 2009 3:05:51 GMT
There is a big difference. The effects of an El Nino or La Nina (in particular) can last up to 18 months. This is a big chunk out of a 10 year period.
And PDO and AMO variations can effect multidecadal periods...look, the lack of warming the past ten years cannot be blamed on ENSO variation. I have already told you, when ENSO is factored out of the last 30 years, temps clearly flatten off in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
No - you are making that claim. You are using the anomalous El 1998 Nino as a climate shift point but it wasn't. Leave out the 1998 El Nino and there is a continuous rise in temperature up to ~2005 at least.
Do not call me a liar. If you honestly haven't seen the claims from Hansen, Gore, Mann, and others that clearly cite the rise in temperatures from 1978-98 as evidence of AGW, then I will be more than happy to share them with you. 2004-2008 were the warmest 5 years on record (UAH, RSS, etc) 1999-2003 were the second warmest 5 years on record 1994-1998 were the third warmest 5 years on record
2004-2008 featured two El Nino years and one La Nina. 1999-2003 featured two La Nina years and one El Nino.
|
|