|
|
Post by magellan on May 22, 2010 19:50:51 GMT
Funny socold, you've been insisting data prior to 2005 was unreliable, yet now we have a "new and improved" uncertain analysis of uncertain uncertainties, and that's just great. Has your faith been restored? In the abstract, it appears to be more about fitting the data to match models rather than "robustness".
Can we now then place the previous uncertain analysis on the hidden heat below 700m in file 13?
The first question is, why doesn't SST correlate with this new Willis et al finding?
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 22, 2010 21:14:16 GMT
If ocean heat content is rising because of increasing greenhouse gases you wouldn't expect the ocean heat content rise to be a perfect line. Because of measurement error alone. Also year to year variation. Don't give me that garbage. We're talking about the opposite end of that part of the spectrum...rising in one, gigantic burst. If it was caused by CO2 and the data was noisy you might be able to play off multiple step changes as simply being the result of noise...not one, giant one. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 23, 2010 4:08:13 GMT
"Considering Nino3.4 has a 20 year record of cooling" Which is irrelevant Good answer! I knew your global analysis was full of it. . . .good of you to admit it. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 24, 2010 14:49:54 GMT
Observation: the "change" evidenced by the ocean-atmosphere system, over the course of the last generation, has been so minimal that a moderate La Nina or El Nino is enough to "empower" one side of the AGW debate for up to a year. That is why last year around this time when it became evident that a good-size Nino was on the way I have to admit that I was agitated: I knew that AGW opportunists would make hay from the spike in global mean temperature (as they will do regarding the forthcoming sea ice melt in the Arctic this summer). So, brothers and sisters on the other side of the divide, enjoy your last several months of doomsday glory, and I mean that. The pendulum is swinging away from you even now, although its effects won't be felt for a little while: "Although many models predict ENSO-neutral conditions, there is a growing possibility of La Niña developing during the second half of 2010." www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdfAgain, if you really believed that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming were taking place would you need an El Nino to give you something to point to as "evidence" of climate change? Your whole world rests on the step-change that Bob Tisdale likes to point to in the form of the 1998 El Nino. You can tell yourselves that that particular ENSO event was caused by co2, but I for one will not join you in that belief. I reiterate my view that few who proclaim the Age of Terrifying Warmth have walked, bicycled, or even driven through snow and ice to any significant extent. Ask the children of Europe and Northern Asia who walked to school during the winter just passed whether we need to get the world's thermostat turned down, somehow. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 25, 2010 5:47:37 GMT
Yep, woodstove. Not only do they use the El Nino to show "warming", the El Nino didn't REALLY raise temperatures by any important amount. The only way they could set the bar any lower is to call cooling...warming.
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 25, 2010 5:50:56 GMT
Yep, woodstove. Not only do they use the El Nino to show "warming", the El Nino didn't REALLY raise temperatures by any important amount. The only way they could set the bar any lower is to call cooling...warming. I thought that was what they were doing? |
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 25, 2010 19:57:53 GMT
Bob Tisdale has an update on Nino 3.4, temperature there has dropped from -0.075 to -0.21C in a week. Here's the April 3month running mean predictions from Woodstove's reply at #187 above (April averaged +0.68C): 
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 26, 2010 4:26:27 GMT
I'd guestimate that will put it at around .6 for MAM...in line with the colder models (not that models mean jack squat)
|
|
|
|
Post by twawki on May 26, 2010 8:13:16 GMT
aaah well when you take out the UHI, the drop out in stations etc then the fabricated warming trend goes in reverse even with an el nino.
here in Sydney cold and wet around 14 all day and its still autumn. Getting to be a trend here and building on previous years
how low will La Nina go?
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 26, 2010 8:19:45 GMT
aaah well when you take out the UHI, the drop out in stations etc ....
Neither which applies to the satellite readings.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 26, 2010 8:38:42 GMT
aaah well when you take out the UHI, the drop out in stations etc ....Neither which applies to the satellite readings. There were no satellites in 1944. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 27, 2010 7:57:21 GMT
aaah well when you take out the UHI, the drop out in stations etc ....Neither which applies to the satellite readings. There were no satellites in 1944. Satellite temperatures are increasing broadly in line with surface temperatures which suggests neither of the 2 factors mentioned has had an appreciable effect on the surface trend. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 27, 2010 13:06:25 GMT
There were no satellites in 1944. Satellite temperatures are increasing broadly in line with surface temperatures which suggests neither of the 2 factors mentioned has had an appreciable effect on the surface trend. Satellite temperatures should be increasing at a higher rate than the surface according to greenhouse "theory". Warmologists seem to want that inconvenient "fact" to be forgotten. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 27, 2010 16:08:27 GMT
There were no satellites in 1944. Satellite temperatures are increasing broadly in line with surface temperatures which suggests neither of the 2 factors mentioned has had an appreciable effect on the surface trend. Besides Magellans suggestion that the satellites should be showing the mid tropospheric acceleration over and above the surface record. . . .the satellites suggest less warming than the surface record as it is now monitored. But that has nothing to with validation of the "value added" adjustments applied by Phil Jones et al to the lowering of the 1940's peak, thus adding more warming trend in the wake of value added adjustments by Tom Wigley, Jones' predecessor and mentor. The warmist argument of course is that the flat north United States temperature record post 1940's is the anomaly despite being the most comprehensive temperature record in the world! We also see flatness in NH SSTs. This is also probably the best of the SSTs in the world being provided primarily by the British and US Navies. Warming has been largely constructed via value added work in less well monitored areas of the world. Small areas in western Europe are used to dispute this but that likely was the regional oddity with the gateway to the Arctic and WWII data consistency problems and Svalbard's airport messing with the temperature record. So with 3/4ths of the world to thingy around with that became the dominant message via confirmation bias and CRU. Now that is about as good of a scientific answer as CRU can come up with since the dog ate their original temperature record. The bottom line of this sordid tale is that ocean oscillations can explain the satellite record. Somebody needs to actually support additional warming via the surface record as the underlying work done on this stuff is unreliable and inconveniently the satellite record started with the warm PDO shifts of the 1980's and can't be used to make a case for a warming over the second half the 20th century. heck even Briffa's Yamal trees suggest on warming in the second half of the 20th century. They had to replace the tree record with CRUs instrument data set in the biggest political deception case of all time orchestrated by "guess who" the guy whose value-added work created the instrument record. I mean this is 007 territory you couldn't write a better movie script. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 27, 2010 21:59:58 GMT
The bottom line of this sordid tale is that ocean oscillations can explain the satellite record.
ocean oscillations? Not Svensmark's cosmic rays then? Is the solar/climate link still a factor?
|
|
