|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 19, 2011 13:19:08 GMT
magellan, How much have you bet? I would be happy to take a bet from someone I knew and trusted. Of course you would want to exclude any volcano get-out clauses as a couple of volcanic eruptions is your only realistic chance of winning. Volcanoes are part of nature. There haven't been any [significant] tropically located volcanoes since 1992, but CO2 has continued to rise, so where's the heat for the last ten years? Where is the 3degC/century trend? It is safe to say when this ENSO period is completed, the end of 2011 will result in a wash to below the last ten years average. Really, this is humorous. After 20+ years of Warmology doom prophecies, a simple bet that the next ten years will be warmer than the previous is absolute proof you and yours have no confidence in the AGW theory. An El Nino fudge factor is all you've got after ten years? How many decades before the Big Warm takes over and we get the catastrophic (untrue as well) 3-5+degC/century rise? There is nothing now to suggest the next ten years will ramp up to that level. The year to year variation in temperature is greater than the 30 year "trend", sheesh. The warming that has occurred since 1979 was a result of 1998; a step change not characteristic of a trend resulting from CO2. This was fully explained by John Christy tinyurl.com/47r2dgWhat every warmist (P Gosselin's description; coolist vs warmist to avoid accusations of name calling) must assume is climate has been a constant up to the 20th century, ala the hockey stick, now completely debunked, and ignore all historical evidence of variation on decadal and longer scales. If warmists were so confident in the "theory", they should have no problem betting the "long term" trend will increase well beyond 2degC/century in ten years, not that the average will be simply higher than the previous ten. You've got a place to make a bet now. What makes you think I haven't already? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to do so Magellan. It is usually those who don't have the skills and talents who whine on about the Sun since if they cannot forecast then they *think* no one else can either. Anyone who believes in AGW is not going to see a thing until they get the box off their heads, but some have nothing else that they want to see except man-made global warming everywhere they turn. The Sun holds the most mass of any body in our solar system and is certainly the driver of all climate change on Earth. That is a fact, so those who do not want to see this will not until it becomes self-evident to them and that could take decades, if ever, for them to see depending on who takes the AGW box off their heads first. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 19, 2011 16:57:04 GMT
astromet,
I'm still holding my breath waiting for magellan and you.
When you say the next few months will be cooler, cooler than what? How do I test your forecast?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 19, 2011 17:01:07 GMT
Steve.
Can I see a picture of those lungs of yours? They must be huge!
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 19, 2011 17:02:19 GMT
Would you please produce some coherence to that? There is ample evidence the sun has strong effects on the hydrological cycles on earth. Does agriculture depend on these cycles? Are droughts linked to lack of rain? Have there been periods of drought throughout history bad enough to inhibit the growing of food? Is there a link between famine and lack of food? sarc/off You didn't see it? Your quotes said that the sun affects weather in the Nile region. One quote said high solar activity produced more flooding, and the other quote said high solar activity produced drought. That's a direct contradiction. There is no contradiction as the Sun produces both floods and droughts according to its activity which varies magnetically. Why is it so difficult for you to see that the Sun is the driver of the world's climate? Treating the Sun as a "minor" player, as you've said, shows considerable ignorance of the Sun's power which drives the Earth's entire climate. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 19, 2011 17:19:56 GMT
Steve. Can I see a picture of those lungs of yours? They must be huge! Yes they are, sigurdur. Could you please ask astromet for a testable forecast of temperatures as he isn't talking to me at the moment? As the activity of the sun is unpredictable (cf last January when many people were expecting a continued pick-up in activity), and since its effects on the weather are said to be fickle (droughts floods, take your pick), I continue to believe that it is impossible to predict the effect the sun will have till after the event. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 19, 2011 18:13:32 GMT
astromet, I'm still holding my breath waiting for magellan and you. When you say the next few months will be cooler, cooler than what? How do I test your forecast? I don't make detailed forecasts, but can usually tell whether the next 3-6 months or so of temps are going to rise or fall on average, by using established patterns via satellite data (until UAH screwed it up), mostly over oceans, ocean data itself (SST and OHC), AO, and a bit of probability. Land temperatures are basically an after effect of what the oceans do. Recall I posted the AO (atmospheric I know) a few months back with the message "any questions?". But you can go way back early in 2010 and discover I said 2010 would not likely exceed 1998, and glc still stubbornly argues I was wrong about 2009 temps dropping resulting from the very large SSW event the previous December. I didn't appreciate him rewriting history. So, what do you want? I already said it is very possible by end of 2011 global temps will drop below 1999 levels. I also noted a few times the SOI was at record levels and duration. Just sit back and watch the show ok? PS I'm no expert, and don't claim any special abilities, I am a casual observer that pays attention to detail and historical patterns, |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 19, 2011 18:50:25 GMT
I don't make detailed forecasts, but can usually tell whether the next 3-6 months or so of temps are going to rise or fall on average,
Magellan
I'm sure we all think it's likely that temperatures will fall over the next 3-6 months. We've moved from El Nino to La Nina conditions (as happened in 2007/08). The question is - how far will temperatures fall? Will they fall below the temperatures measured during the 1998-2001 La Nina? Will they fall below the temperatures measured during the 1986/87 El NINO? If not - why not?
If it turns out that it's warmer to-day during a deep LA NINA than it was 20-odd years ago during an EL NINO - What might the reason be?
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 19, 2011 21:05:52 GMT
The question is - how far will temperatures fall? Will they fall below the temperatures measured during the 1998-2001 La Nina? Will they fall below the temperatures measured during the 1986/87 El NINO? If not - why not? A better question would be why should it? 1986/87 El Nino was followed by a La Nina in 1988/89 of comparable depth, thus the drop from 1988 to 1989 would be a more appropriate comparison. The absolute anomaly though would not be. That is because 1989 was 16 years before the broadly acknowledged recent peaking of smoothed surface temperatures in 2005 and 14 years before the peak in OHC in 2003 and we are currently only 5 and 7 years, respectively, distant from that peak. Hadcrut had global average temp drop .077 from 1988 to 1989. Uah dropped .218, GISTemp dropped .12. Thats an average of -.138. Thus an anomaly change for 2011 might be something like UAH=+.20, GISTEMP=.51, Hadcrut =.39 Of course that assumes no warming versus cooling bias change between 1989 and 2011 so if you support a bias change that would indicate perhaps another .04 per year (.02 times 2). For a .15, .46, .35, respectively. Of course currently there is no guarantee the current La Nina will last into summer as it did in 1989 or that other factors might intervene or have an effect (like the tendency shown in icecore records for a slower planetary cooling response as opposed to warming response affecting the cooling vs warming bias numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 19, 2011 23:35:19 GMT
The question is - how far will temperatures fall? Will they fall below the temperatures measured during the 1998-2001 La Nina? Will they fall below the temperatures measured during the 1986/87 El NINO? If not - why not? A better question would be why should it? 1986/87 El Nino was followed by a La Nina in 1988/89 of comparable depth, thus the drop from 1988 to 1989 would be a more appropriate comparison. The absolute anomaly though would not be. That is because 1989 was 16 years before the broadly acknowledged recent peaking of smoothed surface temperatures in 2005 and 14 years before the peak in OHC in 2003 and we are currently only 5 and 7 years, respectively, distant from that peak. Hadcrut had global average temp drop .077 from 1988 to 1989. Uah dropped .218, GISTemp dropped .12. Thats an average of -.138. Thus an anomaly change for 2011 might be something like UAH=+.20, GISTEMP=.51, Hadcrut =.39 Of course that assumes no warming versus cooling bias change between 1989 and 2011 so if you support a bias change that would indicate perhaps another .04 per year (.02 times 2). For a .15, .46, .35, respectively. Of course currently there is no guarantee the current La Nina will last into summer as it did in 1989 or that other factors might intervene or have an effect (like the tendency shown in icecore records for a slower planetary cooling response as opposed to warming response affecting the cooling vs warming bias numbers. What has the temperature change got to do with anything? We know there is a drop in temperatures when going from El Nino to La Nina. I want to know why a deep La Nina in 2011 is still warmer than an El Nino in 1986/87 (if that's actually what happens). |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 20, 2011 1:15:57 GMT
What has the temperature change got to do with anything? We know there is a drop in temperatures when going from El Nino to La Nina. I want to know why a deep La Nina in 2011 is still warmer than an El Nino in 1986/87 (if that's actually what happens). Climate changes GLC. But you should also note we don't know what the result of the 2011 La Nina will be. So far its not "deep". The ONI has not exceeded -1.4C yet. In 1988 it hit -1.9C. The natural change that occurred between 1911 and 1944 over a 30 year span according to Hadcrut was 9 times bigger than the ENSO change you asked about at least it was in 1988. Put simply ENSO is not the big kid on the block. It fits easily inside of the ocean oscillations. The ocean oscillations are a given the only question is how much to attribute to them and how much to attribute to other long term effects like LIA recovery, anthropogenic change, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 20, 2011 4:03:29 GMT
I don't make detailed forecasts, but can usually tell whether the next 3-6 months or so of temps are going to rise or fall on average,Magellan I'm sure we all think it's likely that temperatures will fall over the next 3-6 months. We've moved from El Nino to La Nina conditions (as happened in 2007/08). The question is - how far will temperatures fall? Will they fall below the temperatures measured during the 1998-2001 La Nina? Will they fall below the temperatures measured during the 1986/87 El NINO? If not - why not? If it turns out that it's warmer to-day during a deep LA NINA than it was 20-odd years ago during an EL NINO - What might the reason be? What might the reason be?
I give up, don't leave us hanging. It took 20+ years to get to 2001 and it has stayed basically flat the last ten. It's actually still trending down, but why start a another post war, so let's just say it's flat. Do you think it should take only 1 year to go back to 20 years ago? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 20, 2011 10:23:49 GMT
magellan
I assume you are talking UAH. Then our guesses are similar. Though AQUA Channel 5 currently being above the 2002-2010 average is causing me some second thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 20, 2011 14:57:22 GMT
What has the temperature change got to do with anything? We know there is a drop in temperatures when going from El Nino to La Nina. I want to know why a deep La Nina in 2011 is still warmer than an El Nino in 1986/87 (if that's actually what happens). Climate changes GLC. But you should also note we don't know what the result of the 2011 La Nina will be. So far its not "deep". The ONI has not exceeded -1.4C yet. In 1988 it hit -1.9C. The natural change that occurred between 1911 and 1944 over a 30 year span according to Hadcrut was 9 times bigger than the ENSO change you asked about at least it was in 1988. Put simply ENSO is not the big kid on the block. It fits easily inside of the ocean oscillations. The ocean oscillations are a given the only question is how much to attribute to them and how much to attribute to other long term effects like LIA recovery, anthropogenic change, etc. From an astronomic perspective, it does not take much for the oceans to respond to celestial forces, so we will see another round of warming to come. I estimate this will begin in late 2011 and continue into 2012, 2013, and 2014 with warmer winters, until we see another anomalous colder-than-normal season in the winter of 2014. Then it is back to warmer-than-normal temperatures in 2015 and 2016 before we officially enter the new phase of global cooling in 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 20, 2011 18:00:28 GMT
magellan I assume you are talking UAH. Then our guesses are similar. Though AQUA Channel 5 currently being above the 2002-2010 average is causing me some second thoughts. Though AQUA Channel 5 currently being above the 2002-2010 average is causing me some second thoughts
In what way? I'm thinking the LT is getting a lot of reflected energy because of the snow cover, which may also explain wider areas of surface cooling. We'll know for sure in the next three months where things are headed. Bottom line: this isn't a typical ENSO when comparing to previous ones, for the last 30 years anyway. I really didn't expect such a quick change from El Nino. In fact, as this was a Modoki El Nino, previous Modoki's were not followed by La Nina let alone one of this magnitude. On top of that the SOI normally doesn't get as deep as it has or for so long even in 1998. As there is about a 6-7 month lag response to SOI, it will certainly be interesting what happens through June/July. Honestly, none of it is making much sense at this point and is why I'm satisfied with just sitting back and see how it unfolds. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 20, 2011 18:11:29 GMT
magellan I assume you are talking UAH. Then our guesses are similar. Though AQUA Channel 5 currently being above the 2002-2010 average is causing me some second thoughts. Though AQUA Channel 5 currently being above the 2002-2010 average is causing me some second thoughts
In what way? I'm thinking the LT is getting a lot of reflected energy because of the snow cover, which may also explain wider areas of surface cooling. We'll know for sure in the next three months where things are headed. Bottom line: this isn't a typical ENSO when comparing to previous ones, for the last 30 years anyway. I really didn't expect such a quick change from El Nino. In fact, as this was a Modoki El Nino, previous Modoki's were not followed by La Nina let alone one of this magnitude. On top of that the SOI normally doesn't get as deep as it has or for so long even in 1998. As there is about a 6-7 month lag response to SOI, it will certainly be interesting what happens through June/July. Honestly, none of it is making much sense at this point and is why I'm satisfied with just sitting back and see how it unfolds. Actually, this is making sense and proving some theory's that AGW folks have discounted in the past. 1. Solar winds etc have an effect on climate. It is NOT only the TSI that has an effect. 2. UV and jet streams. Once again, effect. 3. Low sunspots seem to equate clouds. that means reflection of energy. I can't find the paper that I read some time ago about sunlight and diffusion of said sunlights effects on sea temperature. It was quit dramatic to say the least. The oceans have been cooling for some time. AGW folks don't like that and to be honest, I don't either as long term that means world wide cooling. On a regional basis, when we were cooling during the 1940's through the 70's, our weather sucked big time. It has sucked big time since 2004 as well. While the surface temps may have stabalized, other temps have fallen....ocean. And I still attribute that to the sun and what it is doing. |
|
