|
|
Post by socold on Jul 11, 2010 1:05:15 GMT
What's the logic behind the kelvin pancake idea? That any temperature rise or fall that looks like a pancake in kelvin is unremarkable and therefore has no effect?
What would the Medieval Warm Period and little ice age look like in kelvin I wonder...and how would that fit into the skeptic narrative that these periods are known best because of the temperature impact on humans...
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 11, 2010 1:11:47 GMT
What's the logic behind the kelvin pancake idea? That any temperature rise or fall that looks like a pancake in kelvin is unremarkable and therefore has no effect? What would the Medieval Warm Period and little ice age look like in kelvin I wonder...and how would that fit into the skeptic narrative that these periods are known best because of the temperature impact on humans... Well at least you acknowledge the existence of the MWP and LIA. I would think that regardless of whether in Kelvin or Centigrade or even Fahrenheit a scale that ran for the entire Holocene would be more meaningful than a brief snapshot with such small variance in temperatures. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jul 11, 2010 1:21:04 GMT
What's the logic behind the kelvin pancake idea? That any temperature rise or fall that looks like a pancake in kelvin is unremarkable and therefore has no effect? What would the Medieval Warm Period and little ice age look like in kelvin I wonder...and how would that fit into the skeptic narrative that these periods are known best because of the temperature impact on humans... Both the MWP and the LIA -- until radicalized, reaching cliques of scientists fought to undermine their signifiance -- were known to have been more significant in amplitude and duration than the recent one degree Celsius of warming during the past century and a half. The point of looking at things in Kelvins, and over a longer time scale, is that the y-axis of anomaly graphs showing the last 150 years only gives a distorted view of Earth's climate history. Yes, the MWP was a heyday and the LIA in many respects a time of famine and difficulty, nonetheless they do both fall within the bounds of Holocene "norms." And this is something that both periods have in common with the last 150 years. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 11, 2010 4:34:14 GMT
The ocean data shows warming too. Your argument that an El Nino means a release of heat as if that means the warming trend doesn't exist is pretty absurd, it's like saying if it's hot therefore it's cold.  Once again you are confusing heat with temperature. How many times must we go through this? Also, global SST has been flat since 2000 (acknowledged by Willis et al) and OHC is not replenishing the heat lost. So why do you suppose SST are rising yet reflected SW is also increasing? Oceans are warming? No, they are cooling.  and  One more clue, then you'll need to do your own homework: Recent Variations In Upper Ocean Heat Content – Information From Phil Klotzbach“The Climate Prediction Center recently released its equatorial upper ocean heat content for April 2010. One of the primary areas that they focus on is the equatorial heat content averaged over the area from 180-100W. The decrease in upper ocean heat content from March to April was 1C, which is the largest decrease in equatorial upper ocean heat content in this area since the CPC began keeping records of this in 1979. The upwelling phase of a Kelvin wave was likely somewhat responsible for this significant cooling. It seems like just about every statistical and dynamical model is calling for ENSO to dissipate over the next month or two as well, so it’s probable that we will see a transition to neutral conditions shortly. I have attached a spreadsheet showing upper ocean heat content data from CPC since 1979. In case you’re interested, the correlation between April upper ocean heat content from 180-100W and August-October Nino 3.4 is an impressive 0.75 over the years from 1979-2009. Based on just the data provided above, how are you going to explain the oceans are still warming? That you apparently don't even know that El Nino is in fact both a transport of heat to higher Pacific latitudes (which are cooling) and a release of heat via evaporation speaks volumes. Disconnect the CO2 breathing mask and come back to reality; it has made you punch drunk. Early in this thread I said (paraphrased) 2010 El Nino being the "Big Warm" didn't add up, would not exceed 1998, would fade fast and would be virtually wiped out with the final result being a zero net affect on any trend. I look at patterns and past ocean behavior (recall charts). Within 12 months, in essence, the 'no statistically significant warming since 1995' will by 2011 end extend to 17 years. Sorry glc, you still don't understand 'statistical significance'. As I've tried (unsuccessfully) to get touko to reply to the Arctic OHC dropping, mark it down. Both poles are going to be cold in 6-8 months, and we'll see touko, graywolf and the rest of Arctic doomsdayers mysteriously fade away. Did you even bother watching the Bastardi video? As with your tunnel vision knee jerk statements about the Menne paper and Watts post that you obviously did not read, you have no argument here because you don't appear to understand what's going on with the oceans. So let's hear your best argument as to how an El Nino 2010 SST anomaly translates into accelerated global warming. This should be good. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 11, 2010 14:28:11 GMT
The point of looking at things in Kelvins, and over a longer time scale, is that the y-axis of anomaly graphs showing the last 150 years only gives a distorted view of Earth's climate history. The Earth hasn't gone below 150K so using the full kelvin scale from 0K gives a distorted view of Earth's climate history. You turn meaningful changes into pancakes. You flaten and hide changes such as the change in the past few decades. That's all it achieves. It's a nice obfuscation tactic and was in response to the ocean dataset showing warming. Step 1) Claim that the oceans are not warming Step 2) If that fails use a kelvin scale to hide the warming and pretend it doesn't exist Very nice. Yet if we use the Kelvin Scale the MWP and LIA would appear as a pancake. If the Kelvin scale Trick doesn't in fact distort climate change then why does it turn events which you claim led to famine and heyday into a flatline non-event? It certainly painted the kelvin scale Trick in it's true colors doesn't it? Which all comes back to the initial shallow pathetic invokation of this "kelvin trick" on this thread to hide and deny data you didn't like. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 11, 2010 14:46:26 GMT
The ocean data shows warming too. Your argument that an El Nino means a release of heat as if that means the warming trend doesn't exist is pretty absurd, it's like saying if it's hot therefore it's cold. Once again you are confusing heat with temperature. How many times must we go through this? There's no confusion. As the upper ocean heat content increases in the longterm the sea surface temperature will increase too. SST has a warming trend since 2000. OHC since 2000 is more uncertain but also shows a warm trends. In both cases however a 10 year period is not sufficient. I would go with a 20 year period at least. Ie since 1990. Or even further back, since 1980. Over the longterm they will be warming. Increased backradiation. You are also confusing short-term trends. The oceans warming over the longterm doesn't mean they must warm over a short period like 2009-2010. I think you are talking about a short period of time. For short periods of time the instrument uncertainties are greater and the climate random variability dominates. I am talking about a longterm warming over decades, not warming that must happen in 2009-2010. 2009-2010 could cool and there could still be warming from 2000-2020. We had a La Nina in 2008 it caused a drop in the global surface temperature. That then reversed and we had an El Nino in 2010 which caused an increase. We will have a La Nina in 2011 which will cause a decrease then an El Nino that will cause another increase. This is just an oscillation, a noisy osciallation over a longterm warming trend. This decade will be warmer than the last. We will still have El Nino and La Nina events. They just add noise to the longterm trend. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jul 11, 2010 19:17:43 GMT
The original premise of this thread is dead. The "astromets" lengthy, regionally specific, forecast of weather events, years in advance, and centered on a prognostication of ENSO lasting into 2012 has collapsed proven itself to be flat out wrong. Quote-" For over two years, I continued to forecast that a new El Nino was on the way from my astronomic calculations. This ENSO will dominate the world's weather events through all of 2010, into 2011 and 2012, via very strong teleconnections when the world can expect increased flooding from powerful storms with resulting mudslides from torrential rains to the coasts of Ecuador and Peru and to the coasts of southern California. Droughts can spread through the countries of Australia, China, India, Indonesia, India, Philippines, and Africa. One region of the world - South Asia - will see an powerful series of climate-related disasters as a result from the Sun's activity and effects on the world's coverall climate. It is calculated that world's population at risk from ENSO-related disasters is somewhere between 187 to 250 million people globally. Forecasters, climatologists, meteorologists, and those who are weather and climate spotters and watchers will have their hands very full dealing with ENSO-related weather patterns from now through to June 2012, according to my forecast. Another example of junk science. You probably would like that dartman, but seeing that 2010 is still here, and 2011, and 2012 has not yet arrived, I would like to know just how the "original premise of this thread forecast is dead?" How is that possible? I forecasted El Nino for the end of 2009, and 2010, and that is exactly what we have had. We have seen raging floods in Europe, South America, and the United States, as forecasted for 2010. You call it "junk science" because you have no knowledge of astronomical long-range forecasting, and, since you've been here on SolarCycle, I have not seen you forecast a single event, even a month in advance, so your opinion is not only invalid, but has no basis in what is really happening globally, regionally, or locally - even in your own particular region. Try actually seeing what the weather has been doing - here in the real world - and keep your uninformed opinions to yourself why don't you? Ideology and silly opinions have no place in forecasting. I've also forecasted La Nina for 2011 - and did so years ago for this time just ahead - for the winter season, which, for North America, will begin in earnest in late January, early February 2011, as winter will extend through March, and April 2011 with colder than normal climate conditions. The extreme heat being experienced over 50% of the globe in the northern hemisphere has been a result of El Nino, and the Sun, a major player in all climate and resultant weather events. The coming La Nina, which I forecasted long in advance, is on the way, and will impact the winter of 2011 in the northern hemisphere. Meanwhile, the fall season in the U.S., for instance, will see warmer than normal conditions, will be wetter than normal at times, with odd cooling anomalies mixed in, which is a feature of the building La Nina on the way. There is also drought on the way as well for the regions in my forecast for much of the 2010s. This La Nina will be strong for winter 2011, as astronomical transits clearly show in my calculations. We can expect winter to dominate mainly in February, March, and April 2011 with colder-than-normal temperatures reminiscent of the early 1980s in the United States. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jul 11, 2010 23:12:47 GMT
The original premise of this thread is dead. The "astromets" lengthy, regionally specific, forecast of weather events, years in advance, and centered on a prognostication of ENSO lasting into 2012 has collapsed proven itself to be flat out wrong. Quote-" For over two years, I continued to forecast that a new El Nino was on the way from my astronomic calculations. This ENSO will dominate the world's weather events through all of 2010, into 2011 and 2012, via very strong teleconnections when the world can expect increased flooding from powerful storms with resulting mudslides from torrential rains to the coasts of Ecuador and Peru and to the coasts of southern California. Droughts can spread through the countries of Australia, China, India, Indonesia, India, Philippines, and Africa. One region of the world - South Asia - will see an powerful series of climate-related disasters as a result from the Sun's activity and effects on the world's coverall climate. It is calculated that world's population at risk from ENSO-related disasters is somewhere between 187 to 250 million people globally. Forecasters, climatologists, meteorologists, and those who are weather and climate spotters and watchers will have their hands very full dealing with ENSO-related weather patterns from now through to June 2012, according to my forecast. Another example of junk science. You probably would like that dartman, but your dog just does not hunt. Seeing that 2010 is still here, and 2011, and 2012 has not yet arrived, I would like to know just how the "original premise of this thread forecast is dead?" How is that possible? I forecasted El Nino for the end of 2009, and 2010, and that is exactly what we have had. We have seen raging floods in Europe, South America, and the United States, as forecasted for 2010. My winter 2010 forecast proved accurate and correct. It was an El Nino event. See - www.youtube.com/watch?v=In51DJQz62EAll climate, weather, and seismic events are caused by astronomical forces. You may call it "junk science," but there would not be meteorology if not for astrologers, who invented weather forecasting. See - www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWYIJnoL-LgYou call it "junk science" because you have no knowledge of astronomical long-range forecasting, and, since you've been here on SolarCycle, I have not seen you forecast a single event, even a month in advance, so your opinion is not only invalid, but has no basis in what is really happening globally, regionally, or locally - even in your own particular region. Try actually seeing what the weather has been doing - here in the real world - and keep your uninformed opinions to yourself why don't you? Ideology & silly opinions with no basis in science have no place in forecasting. I've also forecasted La Nina for 2011 - and did so years ago for this time just ahead - for the winter season, which, for North America, will begin in earnest in late January, early February 2011, as winter will extend through March, and April 2011 with colder than normal climate conditions. The extreme heat being experienced over 50% of the globe in the northern hemisphere has been a result of El Nino, and the Sun, a major player in all climate and resultant weather events. The coming La Nina, which I forecasted long in advance, is on the way, and will impact the winter of 2011 in the northern hemisphere. Meanwhile, the fall season in the U.S., for instance, will see warmer than normal conditions, will be wetter than normal at times, with odd cooling anomalies mixed in, which is a feature of the building La Nina on the way. There is also drought on the way as well for the regions in my forecast for much of the 2010s. This La Nina will be strong in winter 2011, as astronomical transits clearly show in my calculations. We can expect winter to dominate mainly in February, March, and April 2011 with colder-than-normal temperatures reminiscent of the early 1980s in the United States. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jul 11, 2010 23:24:29 GMT
Once again you are confusing heat with temperature. How many times must we go through this? There's no confusion. As the upper ocean heat content increases in the longterm the sea surface temperature will increase too. SST has a warming trend since 2000. OHC since 2000 is more uncertain but also shows a warm trends. In both cases however a 10 year period is not sufficient. I would go with a 20 year period at least. Ie since 1990. Or even further back, since 1980. Over the longterm they will be warming. Increased backradiation. You are also confusing short-term trends. The oceans warming over the longterm doesn't mean they must warm over a short period like 2009-2010. I think you are talking about a short period of time. For short periods of time the instrument uncertainties are greater and the climate random variability dominates. I am talking about a longterm warming over decades, not warming that must happen in 2009-2010. 2009-2010 could cool and there could still be warming from 2000-2020. We had a La Nina in 2008 it caused a drop in the global surface temperature. That then reversed and we had an El Nino in 2010 which caused an increase. We will have a La Nina in 2011 which will cause a decrease then an El Nino that will cause another increase. This is just an oscillation, a noisy osciallation over a longterm warming trend. This decade will be warmer than the last. We will still have El Nino and La Nina events. They just add noise to the longterm trend. It is not a long-term warming trend. What is happening is that we are in a transitional phase - that leads to global cooling. There are still about 6-7 years left out of the Sun-forced global warming phase to the mid-2010s, but we will continue to see increased cooling anomalies that prove that global cooling is a reality. This is what the world should be preparing for in advance. It is going to get much colder in the decades ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 12, 2010 0:16:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jul 12, 2010 11:12:07 GMT
] SST has a warming trend since 2000. OHC since 2000 is more uncertain but also shows a warm trends. In both cases however a 10 year period is not sufficient. I would go with a 20 year period at least. Ie since 1990. Or even further back, since 1980. We had a La Nina in 2008 it caused a drop in the global surface temperature. That then reversed and we had an El Nino in 2010 which caused an increase. We will have a La Nina in 2011 which will cause a decrease then an El Nino that will cause another increase. This is just an oscillation, a noisy osciallation over a longterm warming trend. This decade will be warmer than the last. We will still have El Nino and La Nina events. They just add noise to the longterm trend. You argue against using short term data that are obfuscated by the ENSO oscillation to draw conclusions about the climate. Then you suggest going back 30 years to 1980 as a starting date for climate analysis . This represents 1/2 of the Ocean Current cycle - the warming leg. It couldn't be more misleading. Also, you talk about the El Nino/La Nina oscillation inferring that one always follows the other. it's very possible that we'll see 2 consecutive La Ninas on at least 1 occasion over the current 30-year down leg in the Ocean Current cycle as happened in the previous down leg. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jul 12, 2010 17:06:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 12, 2010 19:38:22 GMT
You argue against using short term data that are obfuscated by the ENSO oscillation to draw conclusions about the climate. Then you suggest going back 30 years to 1980 as a starting date for climate analysis . This represents 1/2 of the Ocean Current cycle - the warming leg. It couldn't be more misleading. I argue against using short term data to draw conclusions about some imaginary "reversal" in the longterm warming. When La Ninas happen, sea surface temperature drops. That doesn't mean the drop heralds a change to the longterm upward trend. As for the warming since 1980, I have good reason to think such warming over the time period to be caused by human activity. I don't have a good reason to think such warming is due to ocean cycles. That ocean cycles contributed any warming at all is far from clear. Swanson et al 2009 found the exact opposite, when they corrected for natural variability they found "Removal of that hidden variability from the actual observed global mean surface temperature record delineates the externally forced climate signal, which is monotonic, accelerating warming during the 20th century"deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdfThey find natural variability caused slight cooling in recent decades rather than warming. That's not entirely surprising because it's only skeptics who are strongly pushing the idea that the recent pattern of ocean oscillations caused warming, and typically they just say this they don't present a study or analysis to quantify it. To take a few examples of problems with skeptic claims, PDO is often cited as explaining global warming in recent decades because until recently we were in a PDO positive cycle. However since 1980s PDO has trended negative, therefore if the positiveness of PDO equates to a warmer earth a negative trend since 1980 implies PDO has had a cooling effect not a warming effect. Also of course PDO has a zero trend over the 20th century that saw warming. So PDO cannot explain any of the overall 20th century warming. The picture about ocean cycles is far from clear even in respect to cause and effect. It's not possible to distangle various cycles (eg AMO) from the longterm temperature trend itself. For example if global temperature had not increased since 1980 due to man, the north Atlantic probably wouldn't have warmed either, in which case the AMO would have gone negative in the 1990s. What I can confidentally say is that ENSO events mask the multi-decadal warming trend and so taking any interval of 3 years, 5 years or even 10 years is unwise (additionally such short periods suffer from solar cycle noise too) |
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Jul 12, 2010 20:00:20 GMT
Socold quote: What I can confidentally say is that ENSO events mask the multi-decadal warming trend and so taking any interval of 3 years, 5 years or even 10 years is unwise (additionally such short periods suffer from solar cycle noise too)ee
unquotea
Please Socold, translate this to us ´general public- learners´ I would appreciate it very much if you make a headline and clear explanation of what you meant. no kiddin´.
|
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Jul 12, 2010 20:08:53 GMT
By the way, I believe -ummm I am a believer
By the way, I only ´believe´ than mankind development driving forces aint´t no good for either mankind nor planet earth´s future (as far as living beings are concerned)
|
|
