Global warming

[CapelDodger]

I get the impression mhaze isn't all that good at math. Seems to have general problems with noting that graphs that are lower on the left and higher on the right are going up, adding 1500 to 1100 and getting 2000, and averages in general.

mhaze brought this cycle in via Singer, who makes it a 1500 plus or minus 500 year cycle. Which fits. It would fit almost anything. Singer introduces the plus-or-minus entirely independently. All of a sudden, there it is. And shortly after, there's mhaze quoting it.

mhaze can add up. What he can't do well is discriminate. Without that plus-or-minus he never would have bought it. With it, he did.

 

[mhaze]

Did 1988 turn out to be the warmest year on record?

I have no problem with that. Just noting that less than 12 months can and is used to draw conclusions from. Averages being one such conclusion.

 

[mhaze]

mhaze brought this cycle in via Singer, who makes it a 1500 plus or minus 500 year cycle. Which fits. It would fit almost anything. Singer introduces the plus-or-minus entirely independently. All of a sudden, there it is. And shortly after, there's mhaze quoting it.

mhaze can add up. What he can't do well is discriminate. Without that plus-or-minus he never would have bought it. With it, he did.

Thanks for the clarification (but that does not excuse Schnieb's misquote).

You are correct, I wouldn't have given Singer's theory the time of day except for the plus or minus 500. Whether that means one can't discriminate is another issue, not really sure where that argument might head...seemingly anywhere, quite indiscriminately.

 

[CapelDodger]

So now you can't read either?
He made an - accurate - estimate from the observation of the first 5 months. He addead that his estimate would be wrong if "there is a remarkable, improbable cooling in the remainder of the year".
How you get from there to 5 months averages, it's anyones guess...

From your "accurate" I infer that 1988 did turn out to be the warmest year on record, and no remarkably improbable cooling cropped up. The guy's right, and the argument is that he had no right to be. He just lucked out. Again. It's sad.

David Rodale has made a thing about Sep '07 being no warmer than Sep '88, ergo no warming, while mhaze has made a thing about the NH summer of '88 being remarkable. At the time. Which it was, we all remarked on it at the time. Every other month of '07 has been warmer than the '88 equivalent, and it was normal.

The new normal is evident in the eight-year (should by nine by now, but habits die hard) non-warming timescale that contrarians make up so much of. The stagnation, the pause, the peak even. Year-on-year in the new normal, everything's normal. Ergo (here's the fallacy) the normal doesn't change.

If that 0.18C de-trended solar influence is for real, there's going to be a serious surge-effect on warming in the next three-to-eight. If it's not, why are we talking about it?

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks for the clarification (but that does not excuse Schnieb's misquote).

You are correct, I wouldn't have given Singer's theory the time of day except for the plus or minus 500. Whether that means one can't discriminate is another issue, not really sure where that argument might head...seemingly anywhere, quite indiscriminately.

So where did Singer come up with the plus-or-minus from? He's hot on D-O events with the 1450-year cycle, but there's no such plus-or-minus there. A cycle of 1500 plus-or-minus 500 is no cycle at all. It fits any pattern of "things go up sometimes and down other times".

Of course you needed the plus-or-minus pasted on, and from a trusted source. Singer and the other chap. Paladins.

There's no more behind the plus-or-minus than it being required to make this latest refuge fit with the MWP, in which so much was invested earlier on.

 

[BobK]

Well, for what I was able to discern, the trimester that was missing was replaced by some sort of weighted average of the previous years.
Not something that I was willing to calculate, for the purpose of an internet debate.
So no, it was not made with 7 months, and it does not depend on distribution.

Just to clarify. I never said that particular year was done from seven months data. I simply said that is what I've noticed. The Dec. of the previous year had data so that ANN was composed of eight months.

The distribution does matter. If two of the quarterly periods during the Dec.-Nov. year have less than two months of data they won't compute a yearly mean. They can actually use as little as six months of data with the correct distribution. Entirely miss one quarter since they only require three quarters to compute a yearly mean. Also miss one month in each of the others since they only require two months to compute a quarter. One might begin to think they are more interested in getting another data point than in the actual accuracy of the result.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have no problem with that. Just noting that less than 12 months can and is used to draw conclusions from. Averages being one such conclusion.

The first five months of 1988 were far from average, so much so that it was already remarkable and unusual enough to make 1988 a record year unless something equally remarkable happened later in the year in the opposite sense. Which, unsurprisingly, it didn't. Temperature peaked in September, then cooled off normally.

Hansen made this prediction in '88 for good reason. It wasn't just five months of an average year, it was five remarkably warm months of a record year (as it turned out). The connection isn't hard to make, but the "unless something equally unusual happens in the opposite sense later" covers the outliers.

 

[David Rodale]

I don't know what school of thought you come from, but in mine we can't make anual averages with 9 months... call me picky.

I could, of course, make up numbers, but that would be... well, making up numbers.

But even if we discuss your made up numbers, the point stands. The global ocean is warmer now than in every other recorded year except 1998. The average temperature anomaly for the first 9 months of 2007 is bigger than the average anual anomaly of 1979-2000 by almost 0.2.

You can plot all the graphs starting in an average 1998 that you want, it doesn't change the facts.

Megalodon, you’re missing the point entirely. The only intent on my part was to illustrate the fact there is no warming and hasn’t been since 2001 after the recovery from El Nino 1998. Surface measurements are not the absolute metric for determining whether global warming is occurring, ocean heat content is. If it is not increasing each year, neither will surface temperatures.

Ocean heat content is the true indicator of ‘global warming’. If you choose to believe otherwise, you have the right to be wrong. The oceans absorb and store 1000x more heat than the atmosphere. If the ocean depths are not warming, there is no global warming occurring.

CD was correct in his assessment of El Nino in that it is a release of heat, however the oceans have not regained the heat loss since 1998. This is why Met O blew their prediction for another very strong El Nino for 2006/2007 which in turn was their platform for 2007 to be the “hottest year on record”. The so-called experts didn’t see this coming.

Land/SST are dependent on ocean heat content, not the other way around.

Lyman’s 2006 article said there was a 48 zJ heat loss in the oceans. A draft for a correction was released in April 2007 however was only preliminary. The correction was officially released today:

Finally, a revised estimate of upper-ocean ocean heat content suggests than no significant warming or
cooling has occurred in recent years, with ocean heat content increasing by only 1 (± 16)
11 × 1021 J between 2004 and 2006.

This version includes the obligatory AGW clause which did not appear in the original 2006 version. Maybe he’s up for a budget review

Couple that with the 30 year record low tropical storm activity, is anyone still willing to argue the earth is warming? My “stagnant” temperature remarks don’t appear so silly now do they? Where's that AGW signal?
Disclaimer: Schneibster stated the data below is fake. View at your own peril
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/update1.jpg


Since the Lyman article is based on 2003 to partial 2006 data, what will be most interesting is the next data release in the coming year, and observe what happens the next six months. Keep in mind there is always a lag response to solar and oceanic change.

CD, like it or not, Sep07 is no warmer than Sep88, and it's on it's way down.

It looks like you guys may just have to wait until 2009 now

 

[mhaze]

So where did Singer come up with the plus-or-minus from? He's hot on D-O events with the 1450-year cycle, but there's no such plus-or-minus there. A cycle of 1500 plus-or-minus 500 is no cycle at all. It fits any pattern of "things go up sometimes and down other times".

Of course you needed the plus-or-minus pasted on, and from a trusted source. Singer and the other chap. Paladins.

There's no more behind the plus-or-minus than it being required to make this latest refuge fit with the MWP, in which so much was invested earlier on.

why 1500 plus or minus 500?

well, do solar cycles occur on an exact schedule? No.

El Nino? No.

Etc.

Also note. Bond et al. 2001

Iciness in the North Atlantic, as registered by grit dropped on the ocean floor from drifting and melting ice, is a good example of the climate data now available. Gerard Bond of Columbia University and his colleagues showed that, over the past 12 000 years, there were many icy intervals like the Little Ice Age – eight to ten, depending on how you count the wiggles in the density of ice-rafted debris. These alternated with warm phases, of which the most recent were the Medieval Warm Period (roughly AD 900–1300) and the Modern Warm Period (since 1900). A comparison with variations in carbon-14 and beryllium-10 production showed excellent matches between high cosmic rays and cold climates, and low cosmic rays and the warm intervals.

 

[mhaze]

CD was correct in his assessment of El Nino in that it is a release of heat, however the oceans have not regained the heat loss since 1998. This is why Met O blew their prediction for another very strong El Nino for 2006/2007 which in turn was their platform for 2007 to be the “hottest year on record”. The so-called experts didn’t see this coming.

How could that have been so? Was evidence of PDO shift not clear?

 

[a_unique_person]

Just to clarify. I never said that particular year was done from seven months data. I simply said that is what I've noticed. The Dec. of the previous year had data so that ANN was composed of eight months.

The distribution does matter. If two of the quarterly periods during the Dec.-Nov. year have less than two months of data they won't compute a yearly mean. They can actually use as little as six months of data with the correct distribution. Entirely miss one quarter since they only require three quarters to compute a yearly mean. Also miss one month in each of the others since they only require two months to compute a quarter. One might begin to think they are more interested in getting another data point than in the actual accuracy of the result.

Conspiracy theory forum is down the hall, on the left.

 

[Megalodon]

It's simple. You just made the part up about 5 month averages. I followed the comment with the exact quote as to the use of the partial year data. Duhhh....

I'm really getting tired of you... You said:

No annual averages with 9 months? How about 5 months, then?

There is no way to parse that sentence that doesn't relate "5 months" to "annual averages".

So I guess your accusation of me making things up is just another lie, right?

I know that you're itching to be able to show that 'the other side makes things up to', but it's not happening yet.

 

[Megalodon]

Megalodon, you’re missing the point entirely. The only intent on my part was to illustrate the fact there is no warming and hasn’t been since 2001 after the recovery from El Nino 1998.

David, stop it. I posted the graphs, provided you with the explanation for them. You refuse to see what is in front of you. Now you shift the goal posts to 2001 as the beginning of the "no warming". Let me refresh your memory:
-you already claimed that the warming trend in the last 30 years was mainly due to the 98 El Niño, and I proved you wrong;
-you claimed that if the plot started from 98 it would show cooling, and I proved you wrong;
-now you shifted the start of this trend to 2001 -the start of the decrease in solar activity- and guess what



I proved you wrong again.

Ocean heat content is the true indicator of ‘global warming’. If you choose to believe otherwise, you have the right to be wrong. The oceans absorb and store 1000x more heat than the atmosphere. If the ocean depths are not warming, there is no global warming occurring.

Talk about moving the goalposts yet again... Some parts of the "deep ocean" will not be in contact with the atmosphere for 2000 years. I guess you could warm up the atmosphere to 100ºC tomorrow, and be happy for a couple of decades that there was no GW, since the "deep ocean" was not warming up.

This version includes the obligatory AGW clause which did not appear in the original 2006 version. Maybe he’s up for a budget review

So now you're getting a piece of Diamond's act? That's cool, it's a good sign that I should stop addressing you...

Couple that with the 30 year record low tropical storm activity, is anyone still willing to argue the earth is warming? My “stagnant” temperature remarks don’t appear so silly now do they? Where's that AGW signal?

I don't know if the data is fake, but I do know that someone took it very lightly to make a calculation of "cyclone energy" before the end of the hurricane season. It smells like propaganda, especially since the number of named storms, and the number of cat.3+ doesn't seem to be unusually low. But I have to look deeper into it before making any big statements on the matter.

CD, like it or not, Sep07 is no warmer than Sep88, and it's on it's way down.

Here are your cooling Septembers

 

[Megalodon]

Now if we indicate the % of months that are within tenths of degrees of temp. anomaly, from September 2001:



As you can see, the 73% of the months are between 0.2 and 0.4, and 50% are between 0.3 and 0.5. 92% of the months are above 0.1, 84% above 0.2.
Only one month is below 0, and one month is above 0.5.

See in it what you want...

 

[Megalodon]

Now to see how those percentages compare with the previous decades



Neat, no warming... The mean just decided to move from 0 to 0.3 for a beer, and it will be right back.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
you and I are in agreement probably on 90% of the issues relating to AGW

We differ on the CO2 argument (which means that we differ on All Important Things to you, and on Unimportant Things to me).​

That is interesting. Let's see just how that breaks down.... ...<stuff snipped> All we are saying is that right now, the most important driving force is GWGs, and of those, the most important is CO2.

In the face of all of these well-documented facts, and of our extensively stated beliefs and the documentation that underlies them, and in the face of the statements you have made in this post, I have to ask you: what the hell do you think you're arguing against? Because based on what you've written here, you have no basis upon which to argue other than politics, which you have stated you are uninterested in discussing.

Would you care to explain your behavior?

You've just agreed with me. As I mentioned, I'm pretty much uninterested in politics, and more along the lines that CD takes, have something of a longer view on human events. A search for your moniker and the current president on GW threads brings up many hits, though. A possible conclusion: You are very interested in politics. No big deal, of course, but please do not think that your motivation necessarily apply to other people. They don't.

Some people are actually interested in understanding the issues underlying the science, the state of understanding of it, the various quite divisive concepts within it, and in looking at the ramifications of various resolutions to them.

our extensively stated beliefs and the documentation that underlies them
​

Some of those are brought into question by recent scientific work that I and others have quoted from and referenced. But as I mentioned we are probably in agreement on 90% of the issues concerning AGW as could be esablished by making a list of such things and going down them.

It seemed to me worthwhile to clarify this rather than to watch this great titanic "AGW skeptic vs Warmer" battle on an obscure little internet forum proceed with presumptions that may be somewhat differ from reality.

 

[Schneibster]

OK, then this boils down to a single, easily stated question: why do you keep presenting fake science in this conversation?

 

[Megalodon]

OK, then this boils down to a single, easily stated question: why do you keep presenting fake science in this conversation?

I actually have a feeling of dejá vu about this last post of mhaze. I could swear that this conciliatory tone happened before, just to be followed by more nonsense.

But I might be wrong, and there's no way I'll search 55 pages of thread for a single post

 

[mhaze]

I actually have a feeling of dejá vu about this last post of mhaze. I could swear that this conciliatory tone happened before, just to be followed by more nonsense.

But I might be wrong, and there's no way I'll search 55 pages of thread for a single post

"Might be wrong" is indeed a wise thing to say.

Taking a brief look at your last several posts with little clustergraphs and your assertions. Here is my suggestion.

Please go off and read a bit about ocean heat content, PDO and its historical interaction with the climate cycle. Read about Lyman 2006 and the updates. Note the comments on Lyman at say, www.realclimate.org and Pielke's blogs. Certainly you wouldn't want to miss the discussion at Climateaudit.

That would keep the "might be wrong" on the scientific issues down to a much lower probability. I don't feel obliged to educate you on these things, given your general demeanor. Alternately, keep talking from a position of absolute ignorance. It's pretty funny.

 

[Schneibster]

Moving right along, if it's not fake science, why do you have to use so many rhetorical arguments to support it?