|
Post by icefisher on Dec 22, 2009 16:21:53 GMT
Methinks there is a bias in your reading of posts. Sceptics always predict the start of global cooling during cool months, and always prefer the temperature statistic with the lowest anomaly. But it's usually only a month or two before the cooling blip turns out to be weather, which is what glc was saying. So your approach here is to in effect build a stupid strawman and then imitate it?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 4, 2010 18:03:08 GMT
SOI index was down since 12/26 and finally is updated. Since then, SOI has moved strongly positive. Unless it takes a new turn negative, hopes of 2010 being the "hottest year in history" aren't looking good for warmologists. www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/As it stands, IMO the numbers are adding up to 2010 being anything but a scorcher, and will once again result in a miserable failure for AGW prognosticators relying on one year "weather is not climate" (unless it warms) substantiation for the magical powers of CO2. Someone posted this picture in another thread recently, but note the strong cool pools of water surrounding NINO 3.4. Holy mackerel!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 5, 2010 4:20:06 GMT
UAH in at .28 for December, dropping from November as expected. www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/december-2009-uah-global-temperature-update-0-28-deg-c/For those interested, Dr. Spencer adds this note: [NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers carried on the satellite radiometers.] Looking at the tropical ocean data it had stabilized, although has bumped up .16 this month; it should max out in Jan/Feb. Seeing how SOI has taken a sharp turn positive, unless both move in their respective direction which generally indicate from historical patterns what the following 12 months will bring, personally I don't see how 2010 will even come close to 1998. It looks more like a repeat of 2002/2003 at best as the El Nino timing was late and persistence is questionable (see SST pic above). Exceed 1998? NO WAY. January and February will be the telltale and we should see the maximum global anomaly in one of those two months. As SST can change rapidly, if NINO 3.4 begins falling apart in the next month, the probability of a 2010 being "off the chart" will evaporate all hopes for Met O to redeem their dismal reputation. I'm still not convinced 2010 will be much warmer than 2009, but am not too thin skinned to be wrong. Comments and views of others welcomed.
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Jan 5, 2010 11:31:05 GMT
From Science Daily it seems that satellite temps are calibrated from radiosonde balloons at the same time, altitude and location of the target of the satellite, and are accurate to within 3 one hundredth of a degree, and another NASA satellite, no details given. As they reckon there has been no significant warming over the last 30 years my guess is that 2010 will not change much either. All the graphs at RSS show 1998 to be by far the warmest so I doubt 2009 is the warmest in fact, but who knows with the poacher in charge of the game with the terrestrial series! www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971006085918.htm.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 5, 2010 12:28:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 5, 2010 12:34:24 GMT
Actually Steve: There was minor warming prior to 2002. Since then flat temps with a declining bias.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 5, 2010 12:48:27 GMT
Looks like another year without a Chinook in North America. This will make 4 in a row. A Chinook used to be a common event every early Jan.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 5, 2010 14:00:52 GMT
Very clever steve. Lucia's graph is for purposes of testing IPCC predictions since 2001. For a thorough analysis of the period, Christy explains it thoroughly and also notes no warming through 1997. What warming that has occurred is a result of a step change resulting from the 97/98 El Nino. Whatever CO2 contributed is hardly detectable and insignificant. Constructing a trend line between end points using 30 years of data, assuming a linear relationship from non-linear data and ignoring what's between the end points is really quite meaningless. The trend! The trend! cried the True Believers. The same game is played when claims are made concerning the stratospheric cooling, but notice even AGW promoters don't include graphs for that as a 5th grader can easily spot the deception. Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of EarthI created a graph some time ago illustrating this Supported by this as well ThereWasNoGlobalWarmingBefore1997(February15th2009)Consider as well there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 as demonstrated by Lubos Motl. You are welcome to refute his math. No statistically significant warming since 1995: a quick mathematical proofCraig Loehle shows significant cooling for 12 years. Again, feel free to point out the mathematical error. TREND ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DATABTW, UAH does not calibrate to weather balloons. Comparing and calibrating are apples and oranges.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 5, 2010 15:33:00 GMT
Not really. I did a google image search and Lucia's was the image I could find with the latest data. And as you ought to know the IPCC didn't do any "predictions since 2001".
Did Christy *really* put his name to this? I'd always assumed that while he was genuinely sceptical and had a different ideological viewpoint, he was a reasonable scientist.
1. The paper says that the theory says T should go up linearly with temperature. That is not what is projected by the models or expected by prior observations of climate variability. 2. The paper says that since CO2 forcing is equal over the whole earth, the temperature rise should also be equal over the whole earth. Again, that is not what is expected or predicted.
These are beginners errors!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 5, 2010 17:25:38 GMT
Not really. I did a google image search and Lucia's was the image I could find with the latest data. And as you ought to know the IPCC didn't do any "predictions since 2001". Did Christy *really* put his name to this? I'd always assumed that while he was genuinely sceptical and had a different ideological viewpoint, he was a reasonable scientist. 1. The paper says that the theory says T should go up linearly with temperature. That is not what is projected by the models or expected by prior observations of climate variability. 2. The paper says that since CO2 forcing is equal over the whole earth, the temperature rise should also be equal over the whole earth. Again, that is not what is expected or predicted. These are beginners errors! I'm not much for lectures, and it is customary to provide references. OTOH, you can probably find a model that fits any argument you wish to make. Not really. I did a google image search and Lucia's was the image I could find with the latest data. And as you ought to know the IPCC didn't do any "predictions since 2001
I don't care to mine for Lucia's purpose for starting in 2001, but since you obviously don't read her blog, it is in fact because IPCC did make predictions (oh I'm sorry, should have I called them scenarios?) in 2001 TAR, making them testable. Are you now going to claim they are successful? RC of course can provide you with fuzzy math and bastardized statistics, but that is for the gullible. Are you gullible? Lastly, you cannot read. The CO2 warming signal in the noise should be linear, not global temperature. The formula is given straight from IPCC AR4. Sheesh. In a previous thread you said (paraphrased) "AGW will march on....". Tell us steve, what does that mean? More/less snow, more/less floods and drought, higher lower food production etc. etc. etc.? Or should we just assume everything is consistent with AGW no matter what happens?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 5, 2010 19:05:02 GMT
Not really. I did a google image search and Lucia's was the image I could find with the latest data. And as you ought to know the IPCC didn't do any "predictions since 2001". Did Christy *really* put his name to this? I'd always assumed that while he was genuinely sceptical and had a different ideological viewpoint, he was a reasonable scientist. 1. The paper says that the theory says T should go up linearly with temperature. That is not what is projected by the models or expected by prior observations of climate variability. 2. The paper says that since CO2 forcing is equal over the whole earth, the temperature rise should also be equal over the whole earth. Again, that is not what is expected or predicted. These are beginners errors! I'm not much for lectures, and it is customary to provide references. OTOH, you can probably find a model that fits any argument you wish to make. Not really. I did a google image search and Lucia's was the image I could find with the latest data. And as you ought to know the IPCC didn't do any "predictions since 2001
I don't care to mine for Lucia's purpose for starting in 2001, but since you obviously don't read her blog, it is in fact because IPCC did make predictions (oh I'm sorry, should have I called them scenarios?) in 2001 TAR, making them testable. Are you now going to claim they are successful? RC of course can provide you with fuzzy math and bastardized statistics, but that is for the gullible. Are you gullible? You don't really need fuzzy maths. Models forced by rising CO2 seem to spend about 5% of their decades displaying stubborn lack of warming. The earth seems to warm and cool over periods of a few years in a way that would hide a "CO2 signal". Specific decadal forecasts (Smith et al and Keenleyside et al) with models that are known to be sensitive to CO2 show periods of little warming. The fact that we are currently in a slow-warming period does not conflict with the current expectation that it will warm 1.5-4.5C this century. I did read lucia for a bit, but I got bored with her fixation on 2001. The model runs *are* scenarios. They didn't use the 2001 boundary conditions and they weren't good enough to do a decadal forecast. They are answering the question about how warm it is likely to get in the long run. Sheesh indeed. They are assuming that the earth's temperature will be determined from a small selection of variables. But as I said, that rules out the possibility of much of past climate variability as well. How did that happen? And why can't it be happening again now, hiding the CO2 signal?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 6, 2010 7:55:06 GMT
You don't really need fuzzy maths. Models forced by rising CO2 seem to spend about 5% of their decades displaying stubborn lack of warming. The earth seems to warm and cool over periods of a few years in a way that would hide a "CO2 signal". Specific decadal forecasts (Smith et al and Keenleyside et al) with models that are known to be sensitive to CO2 show periods of little warming. The fact that we are currently in a slow-warming period does not conflict with the current expectation that it will warm 1.5-4.5C this century. Heck yeah Steve!!! Along with randomly having a volcano blow its top at some random level of emission on some probability curve along with a few other known possibilities similarly encoded in the models. . . .I suppose a model could put in a random "I don't know what the f--k happened" event spaced with a "I don't have a f--king clue how often" randomly selected spacing interval between 5 seconds and a thousand millenia; along with a "who in the f--k has any idea how big of an emission" variable worked up between a "human burp" and a friggin planet exploding. Certainly sounds entertaining but I am not sure how useful it is as it does seem a bit fuzzy.
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Jan 6, 2010 10:30:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 6, 2010 11:06:24 GMT
Julian, Why do you say a warming trend of 0.153C per decade is not significant?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 6, 2010 12:59:05 GMT
Julian, Why do you say a warming trend of 0.153C per decade is not significant? Steve Why do you think a 'warming trend' for a couple of decades is important in a climate system that runs in up and down cycles sometimes centuries long and is still below this interglacial average?
|
|