|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 11, 2020 21:51:30 GMT
Flow seems to be consistently westerly for last few days. Lot of colder than normal water in that swath.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 15, 2020 17:36:04 GMT
duwayne, I was looking for your 2007 forecast and couldn't find it. Can you direct me to it? Neilhamp, I think you asked this question before. In 2008 the Cycle24 Board deleted all the posts before September 2008. Thus my original 2007 post was deleted. This thread was started at that time and I posted a reference to my 2007 post on the first page of this thread and here is the link. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/1209/quote/95?page=136The prediction was (is) for an average UAH anomaly of 0.3C for 2007 to 2037. However, UAH later changed the base years for calculating the anomaly which is now called UAH6. This new base was 0.1C higher than the old base which reduced the anomalies by 0.1C. Thus my prediction measured by UAH6 is 0.2C. This is all covered in a new thread I made here called the MaxCon 1.0 Model. I called it MaxCon 1.0 because I expected a revision might be required but so far that hasn't been necessary. The prediction was based on the premise that atmospheric CO2 would grow at the same rate as it was growing back in 2007. In fact, it has grown at a faster rate in recent years. If CO2 continues to grow at the now current rate, I'll need to issue version 1.1 and adjust the prediction accordingly. I've added this post as an update to my July post at Neilhamp's request on another thread. As discussed above my prediction based on a post from nearly 14 years ago was that the average UAH anomaly would be 0.2C for the 2007-2037 period. Through November 2020, the average for the period since 2007 has been exactly that, 0.2C. The original prediction was based on a continuation of growth in the atmospheric CO2 at the 2007 rate. Since then the CO2 rate has increased significantly, so I now expect the average anomaly to be a little higher. Sometime after year-end (if I remember), I'll make an addendum to the MaxCon 1.0 Model to compensate for faster growing atmospheric CO2.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Dec 15, 2020 17:47:01 GMT
climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anomWe are back at the 0.2C and given the El Nino is gone this may be the future. One point Duwayne its a logarithmic impact from CO2 and as Happer noted we have a saturated situation already largely, so the CO2 impacts where the LWR is absorbed only, that is, on the way out. I struggle with this a little because the incoming radiation has a higher frequency average but also includes LWR so that portion should be absorbed higher but will accept the fact that Happer ignores this so it must be a non issue.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 17, 2020 0:53:11 GMT
climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anomWe are back at the 0.2C and given the El Nino is gone this may be the future. One point Duwayne its a logarithmic impact from CO2 and as Happer noted we have a saturated situation already largely, so the CO2 impacts where the LWR is absorbed only, that is, on the way out. I struggle with this a little because the incoming radiation has a higher frequency average but also includes LWR so that portion should be absorbed higher but will accept the fact that Happer ignores this so it must be a non issue. Nonetropic, the logarithmic effect is pretty clear. The myriad of other variables are extremely complex and I don’t trust the weather/climate people to forecast these for 30 years into the future since they can’t get next week right. So what I did was conclude that the earth itself was able to figure all these things out and the historical temperatures reflect the perfect application of all scientific principals and I based my prediction on that history rather than incorrect models. I did find there were a lot of small events which affected day-to-day temperatures, but those events seem to smooth out. I found ENSO regularly deflects temperatures from the norm, but these also seem to even out with 7-year smoothing. After that smoothing there is still a very obvious 60-year cycle which correlates with long term ocean cycle fluctuations. I’ve counted the ocean fluctuation as a separate event and am left with a fairly steady growth which I believe is due in part to greenhouse gases. My climate forecast is a continuation of the steady warming and the 60-year ocean current cycle. Individual years will be subject to many events including ENSO. Since the logarithmic effect was in the history, it’s in the projection. The 30-year cooling phase of the 60-year ocean cycle seems to be running a little behind. But fear not since Missouriboy’s following it closely and assures me it’s soon going to fall back more in line with history.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 17, 2020 1:15:19 GMT
climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anomWe are back at the 0.2C and given the El Nino is gone this may be the future. One point Duwayne its a logarithmic impact from CO2 and as Happer noted we have a saturated situation already largely, so the CO2 impacts where the LWR is absorbed only, that is, on the way out. I struggle with this a little because the incoming radiation has a higher frequency average but also includes LWR so that portion should be absorbed higher but will accept the fact that Happer ignores this so it must be a non issue. Nonetropic, the logarithmic effect is pretty clear. The myriad of other variables are extremely complex and I don’t trust the weather/climate people to forecast these for 30 years into the future since they can’t get next week right. So what I did was conclude that the earth itself was able to figure all these things out and the historical temperatures reflect the perfect application of all scientific principals and I based my prediction on that history rather than incorrect models. I did find there were a lot of small events which affected day-to-day temperatures, but those events seem to smooth out. I found ENSO regularly deflects temperatures from the norm, but these also seem to even out with 7-year smoothing. After that smoothing there is still a very obvious 60-year cycle which correlates with long term ocean cycle fluctuations. I’ve counted the ocean fluctuation as a separate event and am left with a fairly steady growth which I believe is due in part to greenhouse gases. My climate forecast is a continuation of the steady warming and the 60-year ocean current cycle. Individual years will be subject to many events including ENSO. Since the logarithmic effect was in the history, it’s in the projection. The 30-year cooling phase of the 60-year ocean cycle seems to be running a little behind. But fear not since Missouriboy’s following it closely and assures me it’s soon going to fall back more in line with history. IF its warrenty is still valid.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Dec 17, 2020 3:43:32 GMT
the 60 years is approx. 60 years is a round number so I would suggest with an uncertain start year, fuzzy data, and a 60+/- 5yr cycle length you are still clear MB.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Dec 17, 2020 4:07:32 GMT
www.karstenhaustein.com/climateIf I read the entrails correctly, the NH has so far this month dropped from about +1.1 degC anomaly to about +0.4 degC. The SH has also fallen slightly. Bearing in mind that NH is about half the planet, this would imply that the global temp anomaly will show about a 0.4 degC drop at the end of December if this pattern continues. This would be an awful drop in one month. I fervently hope the trend does not continue in January.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 17, 2020 10:51:12 GMT
www.karstenhaustein.com/climateIf I read the entrails correctly, the NH has so far this month dropped from about +1.1 degC anomaly to about +0.4 degC. The SH has also fallen slightly. Bearing in mind that NH is about half the planet, this would imply that the global temp anomaly will show about a 0.4 degC drop at the end of December if this pattern continues. This would be an awful drop in one month. I fervently hope the trend does not continue in January. It does make one wonder when panic about cooling would break out with all the met offices and associated research centers betting the farm on warming and the Greta driven politicians going all in on ensuring there is insufficient power to keep warm.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 17, 2020 15:25:36 GMT
www.karstenhaustein.com/climateIf I read the entrails correctly, the NH has so far this month dropped from about +1.1 degC anomaly to about +0.4 degC. The SH has also fallen slightly. Bearing in mind that NH is about half the planet, this would imply that the global temp anomaly will show about a 0.4 degC drop at the end of December if this pattern continues. This would be an awful drop in one month. I fervently hope the trend does not continue in January. Douglavers, those are interesting charts. Does the website update automatically as time passes?
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Dec 17, 2020 20:31:52 GMT
Duwayne, Thank you once again for advising me of your original forecast. I see back in July I said:- "Thanks again Dwayne. Found it at last. Hope I don't forget again.I am approaching octogenarian status. I notice the new models are predicting yet higher temperatures The AMO impact is of greatest interest to me." I am surprised that the above chart averages to a 0.2 increase since 2007. The current anomaly is running at 0.5. I, like misouriboy, think the AMO will start to fall soon However, if my estimates are correct, we wont see any serious drop until 2030 Does anyone have any estimates when the AMO is going to start falling?
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Dec 17, 2020 21:23:34 GMT
"Douglavers, those are interesting charts. Does the website update automatically as time passes?"
I think so
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 18, 2020 0:50:49 GMT
Duwayne, Thank you once again for advising me of your original forecast. I see back in July I said:- "Thanks again Dwayne. Found it at last. Hope I don't forget again.I am approaching octogenarian status. I notice the new models are predicting yet higher temperatures The AMO impact is of greatest interest to me." I am surprised that the above chart averages to a 0.2 increase since 2007. The current anomaly is running at 0.5. I, like misouriboy, think the AMO will start to fall soon However, if my estimates are correct, we wont see any serious drop until 2030 Does anyone have any estimates when the AMO is going to start falling? Douglavers, it would be appreciated if you would check my calculation. The raw data is available. Do you have any scientific basis for saying we won't see any serious drop in the AMO until 2030? I've been commenting for several months about the AMO staying elevated. Remember it is a detrended value which means the average should be zero over the longer time frame. Why would a detrended value stay above zero for so long?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 18, 2020 4:28:13 GMT
These are the summer and winter not-detrended AMO series overlaid with CET annual and 5-year trends. Note that summer drops on the downward slope of the 60-year cycle (1902-1962) drop very quickly, while the winter drop in the early 60s seemed to lag. Thus 2022 or 2023 look like a good timeframe for a sudden summer drop. If 2022, this would correspond with Astro's forecasted Gawd awful terrible winter of 2021-22. Sorry cousins.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Dec 18, 2020 8:18:56 GMT
Oops! Sorry Duwayne. There was nothing sophisticated about my claim of 2030 for a negative AMO I was simply working on a 60 year cycle, but I was "eye-balling" the AMO charts. Just been back to the actual data at:- psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.long.dataI see that AMO last dropped below zero in 1963/64 and before that in 1901/2 (62year interval) If the 60/62 cycle is true to form we should expect AMO to drop below zero some time in 2023/24 or 2025/26
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 22, 2020 22:12:23 GMT
|
|