• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

mhaze said:
Oh.

Where exactly is this issue?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14224495e34e0a9922.png
Click to expand...

At only 2 of the 4 major changes in the temperature graph did the AK index change at the same time. With the other 2, there was one instance in which the AK index changed well before the temperature trend and one instance in which the AK index changed well after the temperature trend. In addition, the 3 instances in which the temperature graph flattened out but did not change direction were not accompanied by contemporary changes in the AK index.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
At only 2 of the 4 major changes in the temperature graph did the AK index change at the same time. With the other 2, there was one instance in which the AK index changed well before the temperature trend and one instance in which the AK index changed well after the temperature trend. In addition, the 3 instances in which the temperature graph flattened out but did not change direction were not accompanied by contemporary changes in the AK index.
Click to expand...

You've explained all this before, and he knows this.

If he had an answer, you would have had it by now.
 
BenBurch said:
You've explained all this before, and he knows this.

If he had an answer, you would have had it by now.
Click to expand...
Awwww.

Isn't Megalodon going to join in the fun?

What is the nature of the data of the AK index and what is it's preferred scaling?

Georgieva 2005



(HINT: Keep in mind you are not dealing with "DENIER papers" here, you are not dealing with somebody's idea of second rate journals, or blog studies). Nope. First rate solar physicists.

GO!!!
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Respectively, what you have done here is to assign cause of local weather phenomena to carbon dioxide. This is incorrect, but the reasons sometimes are technical. Here is just one example. "Hurricanes will be more intense because of Global Warming (yada yada yada). Well, reality is that hurricanes form in quiet air. If the air is more turbulent (as you have above mentioned) then FEWER hurricanes can form.

Take a look at the polar vortices and global circulation to and from the poles to get a more accurate idea of climate on the large scale.
Click to expand...
Okay I will remove Co2 is the cause and replace it with whatever. And I was referring more to Pacific low pressure weather systems that hit the West Coast and not specifically hurricanes
 
To my mind, how global warming affects Pacific weather systems is far more important than what it does to hurricane development. What happens in the Pacific generally affects the entire US weather. So if the lows amplify out there - for whatever reason, the highs are amplified too. For example, the California High that keeps California exceptionally dry in summer has suddenly amplified all the way up into the YUKON where high temps are 30 degrees above normal. Western Wa just today saw the hottest weather - by far - ever recorded here in 118 years. That same mega high has caused a big dip in the jet stream over the Mid west, that has caused one of the coolest summers on record east of the rockies except for Texas
Personally, I think the melting polar cap is causing vast changes in Pacific weather patterns by amplifying the lows and highs somehow. If that is the case it may come to pass that the US has to beware nearly every weather system that rolls acroos it
 
Tumbleweed said:
To my mind, how global warming affects Pacific weather systems is far more important than what it does to hurricane development. What happens in the Pacific generally affects the entire US weather. So if the lows amplify out there - for whatever reason, the highs are amplified too. For example, the California High that keeps California exceptionally dry in summer has suddenly amplified all the way up into the YUKON where high temps are 30 degrees above normal. Western Wa just today saw the hottest weather - by far - ever recorded here in 118 years. That same mega high has caused a big dip in the jet stream over the Mid west, that has caused one of the coolest summers on record east of the rockies except for Texas
Personally, I think the melting polar cap is causing vast changes in Pacific weather patterns by amplifying the lows and highs somehow. If that is the case it may come to pass that the US has to beware nearly every weather system that rolls acroos it
Click to expand...
Th Pacific Decadal Oscillation has a big effect on the northwest USPacific coast.

Googling, ...
 
lomiller said:
He reaches conclusions that are not contained in the original paper.



Why? The conclusions in blog you linked to are theirs alone and have nothing to do with anything in the NOAA paper.

Oh and for the record you should know the blog in question is Roger Pielke jr, whose background is political science, not climate science.
Click to expand...

Nowhere am I talking about Roger Pielke's conclusions or views. Let's take him out of the equation, because it seems to be giving you some sort of issues.

Let's talk about this:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/bams/full-report.pdf

The NOAA did some analysis on recent tmeperature trends compared to modelled trends. Here are some selected excerpts relevant to this thread:

The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise
Click to expand...

Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
Click to expand...
 
So NOAA is saying that an ENSO-adjusted trend of zero warming needs to continue for at least 15 years before we could conclude that the warming due to AGW predicted by models is not happening? So not until 2015, even if the ENSO-adjusted trend remains zero for the next 6 years, would we be justified in drawing that conclusion?

OK then.

What shall we do in the meantime? Talk about something else? :)
 
Geckko said:
Nowhere am I talking about Roger Pielke's conclusions or views. Let's take him out of the equation, because it seems to be giving you some sort of issues.

Let's talk about this:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/bams/full-report.pdf

The NOAA did some analysis on recent tmeperature trends compared to modelled trends. Here are some selected excerpts relevant to this thread:
Click to expand...
Page ref?

I'm not certain of the meaning of just a zero trend of 15 years. A trend either declining or zero for 15 years would falsify the premises of all the models regarding climate sensitivity to GHG.

mhaze said:
Awwww.

Isn't Megalodon going to join in the fun?

What is the nature of the data of the AK index and what is it's preferred scaling?

Georgieva 2005



(HINT: Keep in mind you are not dealing with "DENIER papers" here, you are not dealing with somebody's idea of second rate journals, or blog studies). Nope. First rate solar physicists.

GO!!!
Click to expand...
What is going on? No answers? Nobody willing to come up and debunk the R > 0.85 relationship between the aK index of solar activity, and the global climatic normals of temperature, found by Georgieva to be valid up to the current decade? No Warmers running to support the half baked theory that "solar cannot be responsible for warming of the last half century", therefore it must be GHG emissions?

Okay, here is ...

Another hint!

Solar physics has high scientific standards. You will not find silly and continual statistics, math and conceptual errors common in solar physics, like you do in "climate science".

Yet another hint.

Here is Figure 1 from the article - sunspot number count against global temperature climatic normals (average of 30 years done each 10 years). You see clearly that using this framing for the effect of solar, a strong argument may be made for the lack of solar influence in recent decades.


 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Page ref?

I'm not certain of the meaning of just a zero trend of 15 years. A trend either declining or zero for 15 years would falsify the premises of all the models regarding climate sensitivity to GHG.

Now what is going on? No answers?

Okay, here is ...

Another hint!

Solar physics has high scientific standards. You will not find silly and continual statistics, math and conceptual errors common in solar physics, like you do in "climate science".
Click to expand...

Hang on, is this the same temperature record that Anthony Watts doesn't believe in? Do you accept it is correct?
 
a_unique_person said:
Hang on, is this the same temperature record that Anthony Watts doesn't believe in? Do you accept it is correct?
Click to expand...
No, it is not (to my knowledge). Watts criticizes and discusses the US NOAA stuff, and these are 30 year averages from the UK Hadley Center.
 
lomiller said:
You think that report supports your postion on global warming?

:dl:
Click to expand...

:confused:

I don't know what my "position on global warming" is. But since you seem to, could you help out and give everyone here a comprehensive explanation of it?

I think it is an analysis of the topic in the title of this thread - comparing projected and actual temperature trends.

Everyone can decide what to do with the information.
 
That's been covered off ad nauseum....IPCC projections have been conservative for a variety of reasons, mostly political....don't expect people to feed you pablum in little bites...the information is out there from mainstream reliable sources.....

The models and projections are always of limited value against the actual observed changes which are myriad and robust in analogue.
 
We are in agreement that critters may be more accurate than our hundred-some year temperature record.

Unfortunately, that does not address the attribution of a temperature rise.

Which is the subject of this thread.

From the OP:
Quote:
The non-linear trend in Rahmstorf et al. [2007] is updated with recent global temperature data. The evidence does not support the basis for their claim that the sensitivity of the climate system has been underestimated.
​
I'm curious as to why you persist in thinking GW=AGW. Could it not also be that 25% or 50% of GW = AGW, instead of what you appear to believe, 100%? If in your view no, then why not?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom