|
Post by duwayne on Jan 6, 2013 12:04:33 GMT
Norpag, I enjoyed those posts. Have you made a forecast of global temperatures through the end of this century?
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Jan 6, 2013 19:51:20 GMT
duwane - I dont think we know enough to say anything really useful yet about the end of the century.Looking at the last 15 years SSTs, the PDO. the Livingston and Penn data and the high Neutron count at the last minimum I would say,something like - its more likely than not ( 60 - 40) that the NH might be .5 - 1 degree cooler by 2035.) Beyond that it depends on exactly where we now are relative to the approximate 1000 year solar cycle and also the extent of any further decline in solar magnetic field strength . In my eyes the simplest clue will be the Neutron count at the next minimum due about 2020. We might have some idea of where that's headed by 2018 after that there will be enough data to have a meaningful idea of 2100. In all this the level of anthropogenic GHG is more or less irrelevant for forecasting purposes because until we know the scale and causes of natural variability much better than we now do , we can't even make any useful estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 other than to say it must be quite low otherwise we wouldn't be here to discuss it at all.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 7, 2013 12:16:02 GMT
Yet another paper being rushed out to get into AR5... Mass extinction forecast with 6C temperature riseHobbit-sized humans, able to exist on less nourishing food, will have the best chance of survival in a warmer world, scientists say.
LONDON, 7 January – Animals, including humans, will shrink in size to survive in a warming world, according to scientists studying the last time the planet’s temperature rose rapidly by 6°C. What scientists call dwarfism was the successful strategy to avoid starvation for a large range of species including horses, many insects and even earthworms. The widespread response was partly to do with the heat but mostly because many plants became less nutritious, forcing mammals and insects to eat far more to survive.www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2013/01/mass-extinction-forecast-with-6c-temperature-rise/Apart from the fact that the Earth appears to have stopped its warming trend out of the Little Ice Age and has been effectively the same temperatures for 15 years. A brief look at other papers shows that their claims don't appear to hold and that crocodiles and elephants living in the hotter periods 55 million years ago were not dwarfs.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Jan 7, 2013 16:20:02 GMT
Dinosaurs, for instance, did they ever lived in frozen, polar or extreme cold high lands? Wouldn´t a warmer world sustain more tropical and green areas? Doesn´t make much sense to me...
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jan 7, 2013 19:24:48 GMT
Apparently karlox, due to high CO2 levels (and accompanying high temperatures) dinosaurs either a) could not exist or b) if they could exist, they were the size of Hobbits.
Please ignore or forget everything else you've read about dinosaurs.
What about fossils, you say? Planted by skeptics and deniers. There is no other possible explanation.
The next "Jurassic Park" movie will feature true-to-science Hobbit-sized dinos with roars like parakeets. Filming has been delayed while they search for enough midget humans to act in the film.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Jan 8, 2013 5:40:51 GMT
Apparently karlox, due to high CO2 levels (and accompanying high temperatures) dinosaurs either a) could not exist or b) if they could exist, they were the size of Hobbits.
Please ignore or forget everything else you've read about dinosaurs.
What about fossils, you say? Planted by skeptics and deniers. There is no other possible explanation.
The next "Jurassic Park" movie will feature true-to-science Hobbit-sized dinos with roars like parakeets. Filming has been delayed while they search for enough midget humans to act in the film. I like Danny de Vitto indeed! I´ll buy that movie! ;D
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jan 8, 2013 12:52:20 GMT
Apparently karlox, due to high CO2 levels (and accompanying high temperatures) dinosaurs either a) could not exist or b) if they could exist, they were the size of Hobbits.
Please ignore or forget everything else you've read about dinosaurs.
What about fossils, you say? Planted by skeptics and deniers. There is no other possible explanation.
The next "Jurassic Park" movie will feature true-to-science Hobbit-sized dinos with roars like parakeets. Filming has been delayed while they search for enough midget humans to act in the film. I like Danny de Vitto indeed! I´ll buy that movie! ;D You're in luck, karlox! I believe Danny DeVito has been signed to play the part of a crazed Apatosaurus...
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 9, 2013 3:26:29 GMT
Apparently karlox, due to high CO2 levels (and accompanying high temperatures) dinosaurs either a) could not exist or b) if they could exist, they were the size of Hobbits.
Please ignore or forget everything else you've read about dinosaurs.
What about fossils, you say? Planted by skeptics and deniers. There is no other possible explanation.
The next "Jurassic Park" movie will feature true-to-science Hobbit-sized dinos with roars like parakeets. Filming has been delayed while they search for enough midget humans to act in the film. is.gd/7pUMFDWe know this is true, because people of African descent are extremely short and scrawny.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Jan 9, 2013 6:05:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 9, 2013 6:16:28 GMT
I think everyone can agree now that after years of debate on this forum, Met O is officially undeniably a laughing stock. This does does not include their seasonal forecast debacles. It has been posted by someone already, but bears repeating: UK Met Office cuts projected 2017 temperature by 38% The big story of the day is that the UK Met Office has cut its projection for global temperature in 2017 by "20 percent." However, graphs supplied by the UK Met Office actually show a 38% cut in projected 2017 temperature anomaly, from a ~ 0.7C anomaly projected last year, to the new projection of 0.43C. Hello socold and steve, where are you? And not to beat a dead horse but notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/met-office-arctic-sea-ice-loss-linked-to-colder-drier-uk-wintersslingo-march-2009/Last March, the Met’s “Chief Scientist”, Julia Slingo, told the Parliamentary Environmental Committee ,
“decreasing amounts of ice in the far north was contributing to colder winters in the UK and northern Europe as well as to drought. “
Apparently when she said drought, she meant floods.
Meanwhile, in other news last year, the Met Office announced that a “J Slingo” had been paid a bonus of between £25000 and £30000, on top of her basic salary of £135000.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 9, 2013 17:48:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 9, 2013 19:16:13 GMT
And a happy new year to you too magellan.
I'm not sure what message you think the Met Office prediction is giving.
Apart from this run, nobody has run this model with CO2 forcing included. Even if the forecast is correct, it is correct because of ocean/solar cycles in the ocean model, not because CO2 forcing has been tuned to be ineffective. If or when the model is run into the further future, it will likely show similar warming to previous versions.
If this forecast turns out to be successful (ie. correct for the right reasons), its success will be related to its ability to correctly predict natural variability, not for its ability to deny CO2 induced warming!
Maybe one could claim it shows up scientists for ignoring natural variability too much. Well that might be true or it might be false. But laughing at people for doing so is not too different from laughing at the people who didn't predict you'd throw three double sixes in a row after you've thrown them.
BTW I don't think the forecast is at all linked to the article you linked. I doubt global warming is driven purely by north atlantic heat content!!!
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Jan 9, 2013 21:56:29 GMT
Happy new year to you Steve.
So, um, Steve... Maybe one could claim that the Met office has zero credibility, as the top graph clearly demonstrates a less then zero percent chance that the model has anything to do with reality. Based upon this graph and others like it Your country and mine have spent billions of dollars (pounds) building giant bird shredders and other wasteful green projects that will never, ever come close to supplying the energy our countries need to keep our citizens healthy and living comfortably into their 80s and 90s. What say you?
Are you serious? The only reason this forecast might be right is by accident. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and the Met model is demonstrably broken. When all of your predictions fail, when your forecast is so wrong, that policy makers are trying to pass drought legislation in the middle of a flood. When your best defense is to pretend that none of your past predictions exist. Why should anyone do anything except wonder why the folks at the Met still have jobs?
Steve, what message do you think the Met office is giving? Can the Met predict the sign of the next ENSO event? Can the Met predict what the AO will look like in 3 weeks? If you cannot predict these things, you cannot predict the climate, and they need to stop trying. Otherwise people are going to point and laugh. Seriously, this needs to stop. Giant bird shredders are not the answer. Making energy cost more is not the answer. More government is not the answer. Catastrophic Global Warming Theory is all about the left grabbing money and power. Everything else is just window dressing.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 10, 2013 0:27:59 GMT
And a happy new year to you too magellan. I'm not sure what message you think the Met Office prediction is giving. Apart from this run, nobody has run this model with CO2 forcing included. Even if the forecast is correct, it is correct because of ocean/solar cycles in the ocean model, not because CO2 forcing has been tuned to be ineffective. If or when the model is run into the further future, it will likely show similar warming to previous versions. If this forecast turns out to be successful (ie. correct for the right reasons), its success will be related to its ability to correctly predict natural variability, not for its ability to deny CO2 induced warming! Maybe one could claim it shows up scientists for ignoring natural variability too much. Well that might be true or it might be false. But laughing at people for doing so is not too different from laughing at the people who didn't predict you'd throw three double sixes in a row after you've thrown them. BTW I don't think the forecast is at all linked to the article you linked. I doubt global warming is driven purely by north atlantic heat content!!! First, show me where climate models include AMO or ENSO. Have you checked the North and South Pacific/Atlantic OHC lately? I've said numerous times how important the AMO is (more so than PDO) to the global warming issue, but did not realize the correlation was that good. Come on steve, you know I've been keeping track of Met O's predictions over the years. They've deleted pages and pages of previous failed predictions and replaced with new ones, altered graphs and flat out lied (which I'm not going to bother tracking back, so don't ask). Met O is famous for their AGW dogma, deceiving the public with their exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims, like most government agencies do; that's what they get paid to do, and there's no penalty for being wrong. In fact they get bonuses and promoted. Met O also stated (deleted now of course) CO2 has overcome natural variation and it was all onward and upward to infinity. There may be a few groupies left, not unlike worshiping a Hollywood actor or rock star, that believe anything coming out of Met O, but by now I suspect a large percentage across the pond do in fact laugh at them. I don't think pissing billions down a rat hole is very funny though. So, how many decades years before it can be said the "consensus" got it wrong and they really don't know as much as they've been telling the world? I remember going on 5 years now in this very forum the assurances from our AGW friends that global warming would commence any day. Really though, if for the least 20 years the scientists pushing AGW were right, don't you think it would be hard to argue against it? Yet they have been demonstrably wrong and instead of manning up, we get all sorts of twisting, flipping and flopping, excuse making etc. to the point of absurdity. That's why I show no mercy for these people. It has gotten so bad, now we have self-described cartoonist John Cook pumping this junk: Just how gullible does he think people are?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 10, 2013 0:45:52 GMT
Read it here first.... It's possible that I may well have been first to post comments about the Met Office forecast on any blogsite. This article www.thegwpf.org/met-office-warming-2017-media-do/ credits Tallbloke with posting it on January 5 and shows how that has lead to an explosion of discussions of the forecast. Apparently the Met Office made no effort to publicize the forecast. I learned of the forecast when my wife asked me a question about global warming and I went to the Met Office site to find their old forecast which has been so wrong. I was shocked to see their new forecast. The chances of my finding something first is pretty slim since I spend only a couple of minutes a day on this subject.
|
|