|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 30, 2010 3:47:13 GMT
they are instead wasting billions on green bureaucracy and climate communism. I like it! |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 30, 2010 4:16:55 GMT
Actually La Ninas do not change the absorption rate in the ocean except maybe as a function of negative feedback (reduction of cloud cover allowing more sunlight to hit the surface). Won't the cooler SSTs mean the oceans will be radiating less heat? It does result in less radiation...but the colder water from deeper (or more) convection results in the oceans absorbing some of the energy...while the higher rate of mixing within the atmosphere also helps to compensate for the losses in surface radiation. |
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Jun 30, 2010 5:28:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 30, 2010 6:35:14 GMT
Won't the cooler SSTs mean the oceans will be radiating less heat? Since according to Trenberth the atmosphere captures almost 90% of that surface radiation. . . .less SST radiation means colder temperatures, not the dramatically warmer that you need to catch up with your predictions. We will get colder air temperatures with a La Nina. I know this. I tried to explain this to many of you when I first began posting here in 2008. You might remember that there was a general acceptance that the deep solar minimum was responsible for the "low" (or near average) temperatures in 2008. But a La Nina also gives the oceans chance to "re-charge" since there is less heat loss. This seemed to happen between 1998 and 2001 when there was a long deep La Nina phase but temperatures bounced back strongly after that. If this happens again then we'll see a new (higher) background level and a new warmest decade. You might also note that during recent La Nina events (e.g. 2008) global temperatures have remained almost as high as during El Nino events 20+ years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 30, 2010 11:59:42 GMT
Whistling in the dark gives comfort to some  Using the word "ever," by the way, in climate analysis is a dodgy practice. I suspect that not even you, glc, would bet your home, let alone your life, that the last ten years were warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Holocene Optimum. Knowing that the ocean-atmosphere system has frequently contained more heat during the geologic past, and has done so at least once and probably several times during even the very brief Holocene, don't you think that this word "ever" makes AGWers seem insincere? Don't answer that. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jun 30, 2010 12:51:01 GMT
A year ago I noted that if the CFS El Nino forecast was accurate, we were going to see several months with UAH anomalies of 0.5C and above in the latter part of 2009 and the first half of 2010 and several record monthly highs. This has happened.
I also indicated that we would not see a record annual temperature anomaly for 2010. This also seems like a near certainty. And I indicated that all this would be consistent with my prediction that global temperatures will be flat for 30 years (2007-2037) and the 1998 UAH record high will not be broken during this 30-year period.
Looking ahead to the next 12 months, If the current CFS forecast of a significant La Nina in 2010 and early 2011 turns out to be accurate, there will be several months with UAH anomalies below 0.0C . The annual UAH anomaly for 2011 could be around 0C. Note that the CFS forecasts sometimes have been off considerably in the past but there are a lot of forecasters predicting a fairly strong La Nina.
It's becoming more evident that global temperatures are not following the mid-range prediction of the IPCC models. And it's also becoming more clear that "natural" climate change contributed significantly to the global temperature increases in the last 20 years of the 20th century.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 30, 2010 13:28:03 GMT
Using the word "ever," by the way, in climate analysis is a dodgy practice. I suspect that not even you, glc, would bet your home,.....
I didn't use the word "ever".
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 30, 2010 18:06:58 GMT
You might also note that during recent La Nina events (e.g. 2008) global temperatures have remained almost as high as during El Nino events 20+ years ago. I don't expect that 20 years of warming would be made up by the first La Nina to come down the pike. Neither should you. We will see if that relationship holds. My experience on these matters is a lot like Leifs over there on the solar board where he constantly is preaching patience to all the hot bloods. Trends are evil they always go longer than expected or at least they seem to. Fact is the past warming trend from 1976 should be scheduled to end in 2008 or 2009 (32 to 33 years) as foretold by each cycle prior back to the one starting in 1878 at 33, 33, 32, and now. This cycle is immune to CO2 forcing because the index is arrived at by subtracting global SSTs from north Pacific ocean (+20degrees) temperatures. So its the next major La Nina likely the one coming you should be looking for a step down from the 2008 one and the next decadal one for each solar cycle hence. Say 2021, 32, with maybe the cycle nadir in 2040 to 43. Then a warming trend to 2072-75. So a 1999 or 2000 value out of this La Nina would be a shocker to CO2 evangelism with the liklihood that you are going to get more in the three subsequent decades. You are banking on level temps even at your greatly reduced prediction. I don't have much trouble with that as an outside position and I have no trouble with the result you are predicting which I don't see that to be the equivalent of AGW in the political sense of AGW. But you lack a mechanism for these flat spells and you can't explain any of them. AGW warmist scientists have not so happily embraced flat spells of any duration just simply trying to blow them off as one gets longer and longer. You have presumed that AGW has overridden them. But the recent warming oscillation . . . .oscillation plus AGW was only about .14/decade which in terms of an oscillation is anemic in and of itself without AGW. And it really doesn't matter if you shorten it to pump the rate. The PDO which appears to be the biggest meanest dog on the block just keeps plugging along at its usual pace. And of course global OHC dropping throws in yet another gauntlet. Thats not good for any AGW! Its an uncontrolled uncertainty posing out of control risk for the modelers. Drop dead silence from the modeling community tells me they are just spinning like tops and have no idea where to go next. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 30, 2010 22:05:01 GMT
What if we have a major La Nina? it will affect global temperature for a year or two at most and not much more. Such a short impact won't affect our ability to spot the longterm trend. But even if the major La Nina lasted forever, it still wouldn't make much difference. You need a dropping ENSO to counter background warming. If ENSO goes flat, you no longer counter the warming:  Projection out to 2050. ENSO MEI index is set permanently to -2 (purple flat line) after the present day. Future sunspot cycles are also set very weak (orange oscillation). HadCRUT3 to date is in red. The blue line is the projected temperature (the sum of MEI and sunspot lines and the green background warming trend).The La Nina masks the warming for a decade or more, but even a permanent large La Nina cannot mask it forever. Of course the La Nina will not last for decades. Here is something more realistic in regards to ENSO:  A major La Nina begins in 2010 and lasts until 2012. After that is a minor el nino and after that La Ninas become more common than El Ninos. Solar cycle 24 and 25 are small but cycle 26 around 2040 is large. The 2010-2012 La Nina has no impact on the ongoing warm trend.Finally a projection out to 2100:  All solar cycles in the 21st century are kept low. Same major La Nina occurs in 2010-2012 |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 1, 2010 0:22:15 GMT
Finally a projection out to 2100: All solar cycles in the 21st century are kept low. Same major La Nina occurs in 2010-2012Why not plot the PDO there and take it back to 1920? After all you proposed that in the other thread. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 1, 2010 5:02:34 GMT
Yeah, socold...the .4C of warming since the 40s or the .6C increase since the 1880s kind of kills your projection. Given the number of times this has been pointed out to you...you MUST be trying to be intentionally misleading (possibly as a joke). Its either that...or you're just plain stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jul 1, 2010 11:37:05 GMT
not stupid, just blinded by faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jul 1, 2010 13:51:49 GMT
Using the word "ever," by the way, in climate analysis is a dodgy practice. I suspect that not even you, glc, would bet your home,.....I didn't use the word "ever". It was implied: You write: "But a La Nina also gives the oceans chance to 're-charge' since there is less heat loss. This seemed to happen between 1998 and 2001 when there was a long deep La Nina phase but temperatures bounced back strongly after that. If this happens again then we'll see a new (higher) background level and a new warmest decade." Do you see how it is implied? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 1, 2010 18:38:54 GMT
Using the word "ever," by the way, in climate analysis is a dodgy practice. I suspect that not even you, glc, would bet your home,.....I didn't use the word "ever". It was implied: You write: "But a La Nina also gives the oceans chance to 're-charge' since there is less heat loss. This seemed to happen between 1998 and 2001 when there was a long deep La Nina phase but temperatures bounced back strongly after that. If this happens again then we'll see a new (higher) background level and a new warmest decade." Do you see how it is implied? Not really. If I'd read my post I'd assume it was referring to the thermometer record. One reason being it's not really possible to determine a "warmest decade" from proxy data. However I do normally specify the source for any figures I quote, so I accept I was a bit lazy. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 1, 2010 20:15:54 GMT
"But a La Nina also gives the oceans chance to 're-charge' since there is less heat loss. This seemed to happen between 1998 and 2001 when there was a long deep La Nina phase but temperatures bounced back strongly after that. If this happens again then we'll see a new (higher) background level and a new warmest decade." Well since it appears that: A: The solar minimum La Ninas in 2008 was deeper than, stronger than, and resulted in an equivalent global temperature as low as the solar minimum La Nina of 1996. and, B: The "super" El Nino associated with the awakening sun in 2009/10 was shallower, weaker, and did not reach the global temperature heights of the "super" El Nino associated with the awakening sun in 1998. And, C: The projections of the coming post super El Nino La Nina of 2010 is expected to exceed the post super El Nino La Nina of 1998/9/, should not the conclusion be that the temperature step would also be a negative step? Seems to me the projected strength of the coming La Nina in no way suggests anything more than a recovery to a step at the midpoint between the El Nino and the La Ninas. If so based upon the La Nina of 2008 and the projection of the La Nina of 2010 not only showing propensity to be more common and deeper along with the stunted El Nino of 2009 suggests a midpoint recovery at some lower level than in the last decade. I would suggest somewhere in the range .5 to .10 less than the step of the 2000 decade short of a La Nina surprise. Perhaps you could explain your logic because I just don't see it in the data since you essentially used the same explanation. At the very minimum I would think you would be projecting that the coming La Nina needs to fizzle to make up for the fizzled 2009 El Nino to get your projection say a La Nina that falls well short of 2008 because that analysis (above) when applied to the 5 wood for trees data sets suggests that the next step will be equal to or below by about a tenth degree the 2000's step. The only temp dataset that supports equal to is GISS. So I would think you should start seeing it immediately in the coming La Nina if you are going to see it at all as the consensus is a step down not even figuring the coming La Nina. Your best hope just maybe Katla blowing its top to provide some cover so you guys can sing songs and do the volcano dance (choreographed by Gavin Schmidt) |
|
