|
Post by duwayne on Jan 14, 2013 18:39:55 GMT
Agreed, nautonnier! I have always felt that an honest audit would result in a finding that there is no energy advantage in these mercury capsules once production and recycling energy costs are taken in to account. Plus the cost of scrapping stocks of incandescent bulbs and their manufacturing plant. Meanwhile, here is a discussion on a Guardian Online page which may be worth a look with regard to the Met Office graphs: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/jan/09/global-warming-met-office-pausedZaphod, thanks for posting the link.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 14, 2013 19:09:25 GMT
duwayne, You may pick the gold star of your choice! You've earned it! All right throttleup!! Notice my new avatar. I hope there's no royalty involved. And thanks to all of you who have commented on my notoriety. I'll try to keep this from going to my head. But that will be difficult.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jan 14, 2013 20:07:49 GMT
Apart from the "duwayne lives!" graffiti all over town I haven't noticed much regarding your well-earned notoriety.
I like your avatar... although I would've gone for the beer myself.
The great thing, duwayne, is you noticed something and noted it -- questioned it. Sometimes, that's all it takes to make a difference. In today's groupthink society that's a rare trait.
I haven't noticed any signs of your recent notoriety going to your head, although for some odd reason I can only read your posts on my largest monitor...
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2013 8:03:19 GMT
duwayne, good spot in seeing the updated prediction. But you must have noticed that the very first sentence of the release states that both the forecast and the hindcasts have been rerun with the new system. [/url]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc[/url] I am quite sure that the Met Office folk are mightily relieved that the new model shows a lot more of the right sort of natural variability. Otherwise the 15 years of research that has gone on between the old model and the new model would have been wasted. [/quote] So Steve you will want to correct the statement made in www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc by the Met Office? "Figure 1: Observed (black, from Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1971-2000. Previous predictions starting from June 1960, 1965, ..., 2005 are shown as white curves, with red shading representing their probable range, such that the observations are expected to lie within the shading 90% of the time. The most recent forecast (thick blue curve with thin blue curves showing range) starts from November 2012. All data are rolling annual mean values. The gap between the black and blue curves arises because the last observed value represents the period November 2011 to October 2012 whereas the first forecast period is November 2012 to October 2013."It might be me - but 'previous predictions' means 'predictions that the Met Office made previously' - not - hindcasts using a different model. They have altered history _again_ record rain - means record rain (in name a suitable time period) - now previous predictions - means predictions hindcast with a new model. Met Office newspeak I remember working with them while they were still at Bracknell, they were scientists in those days. Now they are lobbyists. [/quote] nautonnier, The initial sentence makes it clear that the hindcasts and forecasts have both been updated. The later sentences use the phrase "previous predictions" presumably because the normal word "hindcast" is jargon which, perhaps, the publicity officer modified. Given that the "previous predictions" start from the 1960s noone should be confused because everyone knows that the Met Office was not doing decadal predictions in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 15, 2013 11:27:48 GMT
So Steve you will want to correct the statement made in www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc by the Met Office? "Figure 1: Observed (black, from Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1971-2000. Previous predictions starting from June 1960, 1965, ..., 2005 are shown as white curves, with red shading representing their probable range, such that the observations are expected to lie within the shading 90% of the time. The most recent forecast (thick blue curve with thin blue curves showing range) starts from November 2012. All data are rolling annual mean values. The gap between the black and blue curves arises because the last observed value represents the period November 2011 to October 2012 whereas the first forecast period is November 2012 to October 2013."It might be me - but 'previous predictions' means 'predictions that the Met Office made previously' - not - hindcasts using a different model. They have altered history _again_ record rain - means record rain (in name a suitable time period) - now previous predictions - means predictions hindcast with a new model. Met Office newspeak I remember working with them while they were still at Bracknell, they were scientists in those days. Now they are lobbyists. nautonnier, The initial sentence makes it clear that the hindcasts and forecasts have both been updated. The later sentences use the phrase "previous predictions" presumably because the normal word "hindcast" is jargon which, perhaps, the publicity officer modified. Given that the "previous predictions" start from the 1960s noone should be confused because everyone knows that the Met Office was not doing decadal predictions in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. There was a time when science used terms very carefully it seems that climate 'science' prefers ambiguity; I suppose it does help when people are starting to point out the mismatch between reality and previous forecasts to obfuscate the words with newspeak. So now we even get the asinine - ' you are a climate denier' So nice try steve. But that is stretching things a little. If that is what was meant they would have said the while line shows predictions by this model with start dates of ... Or the white line shows a series of decadal predictions. But "Previous predictions" means just that. But I suppose that we can expect anything from people that claim that when they forecast drought they meant floods.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2013 21:55:32 GMT
nautonnier, it's not really stretching things a bit when the first line of the article states that the hindcasts have been updated with the new model, is it. Being all holier than though about how science used to be more careful doesn't help your argument, as you are therefore accepting that they could have just been a bit sloppy with their language.
Where did they claim that when they forecast drought they meant floods? They said (back in April) there was around a 20% chance of being very dry and a 10% chance of being very wet for the following period. Which was obviously not terribly helpful! Such is the difficulty of forecasting for the UK.
Now they have released some research identifying a rising trend in extreme rainfall which they think is in line with AGW. They have also noted that a notable number of the wetter years since 1910 have occurred recently, but they have said there is no known link with warming for this statistic.
I think you are mixing and confusing all these things in your simple message that they "claim that when they forecast drought they meant floods. " The trouble with mixing and confusing things is that you end up spreading misinformation and undermining any claims you have to be rational, fair and objective.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 15, 2013 23:35:06 GMT
nautonnier, it's not really stretching things a bit when the first line of the article states that the hindcasts have been updated with the new model, is it. Being all holier than though about how science used to be more careful doesn't help your argument, as you are therefore accepting that they could have just been a bit sloppy with their language. Where did they claim that when they forecast drought they meant floods? They said (back in April) there was around a 20% chance of being very dry and a 10% chance of being very wet for the following period. Which was obviously not terribly helpful! Such is the difficulty of forecasting for the UK. Now they have released some research identifying a rising trend in extreme rainfall which they think is in line with AGW. They have also noted that a notable number of the wetter years since 1910 have occurred recently, but they have said there is no known link with warming for this statistic. I think you are mixing and confusing all these things in your simple message that they "claim that when they forecast drought they meant floods. " The trouble with mixing and confusing things is that you end up spreading misinformation and undermining any claims you have to be rational, fair and objective. Steve Obviously without talking to the people involved we are not going to get an answer - but I read 'previous predictions' as previous predictions. I didn't realize that was being a pedant. I must get with the more flexible approach to language Which brings me to this: Can you list ANY weather that has not been 'thought to be in line with AGW'? It was drought that was in line with AGW, now its heavy rain. Although if you were to read about the year 1315 and the Great Famine, you will find that they had seven years of heavy rain. I would put that down to the change in jetstreams as the world cooled out of the medieval warm period, you would probably blame it on flatulent cows? And Dr. Slingo would say..... it was a sign of AGW. The weather has been like this before it is recorded in the Met Office's own library - but then it is de-rigeur to not include anything 'before the satellite period'. I used to work with the people at the Met Office quite closely - in the days when it was at Bracknell with the too small car park, and the meteorologists were scientists. Around the time Dr Lamb the first director of CRU was writing his book which detailed the Medieval Warm Period which his successor Phil Jones said they had to get rid of - why? Politicization? Anything for 'The Team'? Funding? all of the above? I find it disappointing - it's like seeing an old friend lapse into dementia.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 16, 2013 1:08:28 GMT
nautonnier: The whole of AGW, at present, is like watching a friend lapse into dementia. Maybe I am too old.......I don't know. But when I 1st learned the scientific method, documentation, results etc, let's say that the parameters required for achieving a passing mark were not even close to present parameters.
I remember a class about developing "risk assessment" in regards to Ag. We spent a whole qtr learning the paleo history of ND, with the understanding that what had happened in the past was most likely to be repeated.
Only going back to 1910 when looking at climate concerning the UK is foolish. I have to believe that they have precip records that are much older. I know in the USA we do, and I am sure that Britian had paper and pencil way back then.
I have lived where I live for approx 60 years. My memory is not perfect, but it isn't too bad and I always check in case I think I remember something dramatic.
I know for a fact that our last frost free day has not changed nor has our 1st frost of fall changed. May 21st is still the average last frost free day of the growing season. Some years it is earlier, some it is later. But the average has remained firmly entrenchted as the 21st of May.
Fall frost, first killing frost is still Sept 21st. Some years later, some years it has happened in August. But in all this time, the date has not changed when averaging.
I know that a full moon can signal a temperature shift. I don't know why, but I most certainly know it happens. In the fall, if one can gets past the full moon, when it is in early Sept, one can usually count on another 28 days of frost free, or close to it lows.
That is climate, those long term trends.
We are told that our heat units have also remained pretty flat. Another indication of climate.
We are also told that where I live, being as far north as I am, we are suppose to benefit from AGW with wamer temps. Well, it hasn't happened.
The paleo data from the MWP indicates that the upper Great Plains dries out. The droughts can last for decades.
The paleo data from the LIA shows wild temp and precip patterns.
That is paleo fact, and why one of my worries is colder trends. Food production does NOT do well in a cooling environment. It does do well in a warming trend environment. One only has to look at the huge increase in productivity of the past 40 years. Some is genetic, but a lot of it is in the fact that we have had only one drought of significance prior to 2012. That happened in 1988. As a rule, they happen every 19 years or so.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 16, 2013 7:16:37 GMT
nautonnier, are you saying that Hubert Lamb was able to settle the science by writing a couple of books? Harking back to the old days when all was well in the science doesn't really cut it. Your association with the Met Office would have given you a far more rounded view as compared with now when from the outside it is very easy to find oneself assaulted from all sides with things allegedly said by Phil Jones (who doesn't work at the Met Office) or Julia Slingo, usually with a dose of misquoting and obfuscation added in.
Part of the role of the Met Office is to try and identify the risks to the UK caused by global warming. That is why the Met Office gets its funding for the Hadley Centre. If you are asked to identify risks you are always going to identify possibilities that will or may never happen. That applies to weather as well as climate. I'm told by my Met Office App that it may snow on Friday, but it says it is a low probability. Is that scare-mongering or is it the best advice given that many of us need to plan for the possibility of snow?
I suspect that if you increase your engagement with the Met Office (reading papers and reports and reading transcripts of statements rather than relying on what you read in the Grauniad, Express or Telegraph) you may realise that your current perceptions are overly coloured.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 16, 2013 7:27:24 GMT
Sigurdur
A statement that the year is the wettest since 1910 is just that - a statement. The wettest year in a hundred is an interesting fact. As you go further back, the data is more sketchy so the uncertainties rise. What looks like a very wet year in the 1700s may have been down to a few heavy showers that happened to hit a few places where rain was being measured. But I don't believe anyone has drawn any conclusions about this factoid.
For serious analysis of wind (eg. when assessing potential of wind energy) data back to 1870 is used. Nobody thinks that that means that it will never be more, or less, windy than it has been in the last 143 years. But you have to work with the data you've got. BTW as I found out from hearing about this analysis, it hasn't got any windier in the past 143 years and it is not expected to get more windy (looking at daily averages in the UK).
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2013 8:13:45 GMT
The problem with the wettest or the warmest or the coldest since records began is that if the climate was stable without forcings, if you had longer records then it must be the case that it is very very highly likely it will be wetter warmer colder either at some point in the past or in the future.
Therefore saying it is now the wettest or the warmest over such a tiny number of years is not saying much.
However we know that the maths is irrelevant when the government wants to tax us more.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jan 16, 2013 13:13:22 GMT
A statement that the year is the wettest since 1910 is just that - a statement. The wettest year in a hundred is an interesting fact. As you go further back, the data is more sketchy so the uncertainties rise. What looks like a very wet year in the 1700s may have been down to a few heavy showers that happened to hit a few places where rain was being measured. But I don't believe anyone has drawn any conclusions about this factoid. But the Met didn't have to go back to the 18th Century to find a wetter period, they could have mentioned in 1873 (that's just 37 years before 1910) the UK & Northern Hemisphere flooding was far more severe than what we have just experienced. If the Met Office are going to brand weather events as climatic events they should really widen their time frame beyond 100 years. Ohio USA 1873: Gympie ca 1873: Prague 1873: Oxford 1873:
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 16, 2013 14:51:11 GMT
Sigurdur A statement that the year is the wettest since 1910 is just that - a statement. The wettest year in a hundred is an interesting fact. As you go further back, the data is more sketchy so the uncertainties rise. What looks like a very wet year in the 1700s may have been down to a few heavy showers that happened to hit a few places where rain was being measured. But I don't believe anyone has drawn any conclusions about this factoid. For serious analysis of wind (eg. when assessing potential of wind energy) data back to 1870 is used. Nobody thinks that that means that it will never be more, or less, windy than it has been in the last 143 years. But you have to work with the data you've got. BTW as I found out from hearing about this analysis, it hasn't got any windier in the past 143 years and it is not expected to get more windy (looking at daily averages in the UK). Thank you Steve. The same can be said about the current , last 16 years, in regards to temperature increase. It is the period that is measured. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 16, 2013 17:05:56 GMT
The new Met Office forecast and the standstill in global temperatures seems to have generated some movement towards my long-standing forecast for flat global temperatures for 2007-2037. And the reasons I’ve given are showing up more and more. For example, here are comments from 3 different people on a recent post by Judith Curry on her Blog. James Hansen - “The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements.”duwayne :In other words there’s real doubt about whether aerosols actually caused the flat temperatures from 1940-1975. It was just a guess which fit the tale being spun. Judith Curry – "JC’s (Judith Curry's) ‘forecast’ for the next 5 years: It looks like the AMO may have peaked, and we remain in the cool phase of the PDO with a predominance of La Nina events expected (unlikely to see a return to El Nino dominance in the next decade). I predict we will see continuation of the ‘standstill’ in global average temperature for the next decade, with solar playing a role in this as well."duwayne: That’s my forecast except I extend it another decade and a half. David Springer – Yup. Approximate 60 year cycle sticks out of the past 150 year temp record like a sore thumb.
duwayne: I predicted in an earlier post that the 60-year cycle will start to be noticed more as time goes by because it will be a reason why the past forecasts have been wrong and why global temperatures will rise again down the road. judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#more-10934
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 16, 2013 18:17:09 GMT
duwayne: We share the same thoughts, in ref to your initial two comments.
I do not think we are in for much warming further down the road. The energy imbalance, as last stated in the literature, is approx .5Wm2. The error bars show it could be currently as low as .1Wm2.
With this in mind, the modeled imbalance was .9Wm2, the observed imbalance is .5Wm2. The OHC, via ARGO data is not rising presently. The ocean is still the "metric" that drives observed air temperatures.
With the summer Arctic ice becoming lower and lower, this allows more heat to leave. The "air conditioneer" is on medium at present, and potentially will be turned up to full blast. IF it becomes full blast, I think the latter 21st century will see a dramatic cooling period, rather than one of continue slow rise in air temperature.
|
|