Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Dancing David]

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

I was listening to my local NPR while wiring yesterday and they had the commodity report on (one of those agricultural benefits of living in the Midwest), they were talking about the potentials in the Midwest and how maturation might effect prices. The broker was talking about how this year comapres to 1965 and then rattled off some stuff the was very cogent, the Pacific DO, the ninos, the solar cycle and then that the drought in India corresponds as well.

Sort of interesting to hear a commodities broker be so informed.

 

[BenBurch]

I've done worse. And are the rolleyes supposed to represent snark for the overall content of your post, an addenda to the text or are you expressing sarcasm about my fail being funny?

I am pretty sure he referred to PopTech.

 

[Poptech]

Censored again! Awesome!

I can always tell when my posts become dangerous to the alarmists.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Censored again! Awesome!

That said, how about instead of a wall of links, you agregate them somewhere and post one single link?

I can always tell when my posts become dangerous to the alarmists.

Or maybe posting one link to an offsite list instead of 370 seperate links might not get your post edited by the mods?

Of course it's got to be how "dangerous" your posts are...

 

[fsol]

No, you are wrong on this. The PDO has been around a long time, although it was first recognized in science around 1997. Global temperature has a well known PDO component, which is typically delt with before looking at underlying data. Etc. And I properly handled the matter in the post which you responded to, but did not seem to understand. You can refer to the IPCC and get yourself educatified.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_142244866729a48a4a.png[/qimg]

Did your tomatoes prove AGW again this year?

You are talking about global temps and showing a reconstuction of Finnish summer temps and projections? Seems a little bit strange to me.

 

[mhaze]

I've done worse. And are the rolleyes supposed to represent snark for the overall content of your post, an addenda to the text or are you expressing sarcasm about my fail being funny?

I've linked in the sig line to Poptech's lists for two years, and assume that Newsbusters did the same.

Follow the thread back and you'll see that the posting of the list was in opposition to others' claiming that recent hot weather was caused by AGW.

 

[a_unique_person]

Censored again! Awesome!

I can always tell when my posts become dangerous to the alarmists.

 

[BenBurch]

Censored again! Awesome!

I can always tell when my posts become dangerous to the alarmists.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Poptech
Censored again! Awesome!

I can always tell when my posts become dangerous to the alarmists.

ditto

WE can always tell when your posts exceed the bounds of stupidity....even for the incredible tolerance of your nonsense here....

••••

Even the critters have your nonsense on ignore....correctly so...

Rodent size linked to human population and climate change
July 31st, 2009

You probably hadn't noticed -- but the head shape and overall size of rodents has been changing over the past century. A University of Illinois at Chicago ecologist has tied these changes to human population density and climate change.

http://www.physorg.com/news168241528.html

 

[mhaze]

I was listening to my local NPR while wiring yesterday and they had the commodity report on (one of those agricultural benefits of living in the Midwest), they were talking about the potentials in the Midwest and how maturation might effect prices. The broker was talking about how this year comapres to 1965 and then rattled off some stuff the was very cogent, the Pacific DO, the ninos, the solar cycle and then that the drought in India corresponds as well.

Sort of interesting to hear a commodities broker be so informed.

Good comment. I would think a commodities broker would have to be so informed on these phenomena.

Apparently Warmers here are Deniers of the PDO? (As well as Deniers of Solar Influences?)

Unbelievable.

 

[mhaze]

Oh.

Where exactly is this issue?

So nobody has any remaining complaints about the scientific results summaried in Figure 6 above of Georgieva 2005, showing that high solar influences continued through year 2000 and correlate with temperature > R = 0.85?

Good.

Then we don't need to hear any more nonsense about "Solar can't have influenced or contributed to GW during the last 50 years, so it must have been man's effects".

 

[mhaze]

You are talking about global temps and showing a reconstuction of Finnish summer temps and projections? Seems a little bit strange to me.

True. I don't think the resolution of the global temperature reconstructions is adequate to show the PDO cycle (eg consider the spagetti charts). From US West Coast and Canadian weather we know the PDO effects there for some time, historically. The Finnish study shows the cycle going way back.

We could probably pull some other references, but I am not sure of the point. Capel's comment was disparaging the very existence of the phenomena or it's relevance to climate. Anti-IPCC.

From a prior post on the Finnish study:

.... a study that covers 7,500 years in Finland (one location only, note):

Blog discussion, with links to technical articles.

The tree ring data in Figure 1 were smoothed using a 100-year sliding window; Figure 2 is for the last 1,300 years showing each summer and smoothings at the decadal, multi-decadal, centennial, and multi-centennial time frames. In describing the results, Timonen et al. write “The warmest and coldest reconstructed 250-year periods occurred AD 931-1180 and AD 1601-1850. These periods overlap with the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). The coldest and warmest of all reconstructed 100-year periods occurred AD 1587-1686 and AD 1895-1994, respectively.”
​

One of the conclusions:“The most significant cycles in our supra-long chronology range from 30 to 95 years (30-32, 37, 47-49, 81-85 and 95 years). We hypothesize that the climate during the last 500 years has had a varying cyclic pattern of 60 – 95 years. Our two models predicting natural climatic variation for the rest of this century lean on this judgment.”

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

So nobody has any remaining complaints about the scientific results summaried in Figure 6 above of Georgieva 2005, showing that high solar influences continued through year 2000 and correlate with temperature > R = 0.85?

Wrong. We're just not interested in your childish games.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Since this thread seems to have moved into the sea, here's some ocean heat content data to ponder:

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/levitus-et-al-2009-ocean-heat-content.html

 

[mhaze]

Wrong. We're just not interested in your childish games.

Oh. So you are not going to demonstrate understanding Figure 6, and by answering my question about scaling?

Or did you see your error?

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.

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

 

[BenBurch]

Why don't you tell me what that graph supposedly proves, MHaze? Articulate your understanding of it, and THEN and only then will I tell you what is wrong with it. Because honestly I don't have the energy to go research yet another of your red herrings which you have faulty understanding of yourself, so I want your understanding of it on the record FIRST.

 

[mhaze]

Why don't you tell me what that graph supposedly proves, MHaze? Articulate your understanding of it, and THEN and only then will I tell you what is wrong with it. Because honestly I don't have the energy to go research yet another of your red herrings which you have faulty understanding of yourself, so I want your understanding of it on the record FIRST.

But I've already done just that. Quoting from my post #911:

....Georgieva 2005, showing that high solar influences continued through year 2000 and correlate with temperature > R = 0.85?

Good.

Then we don't need to hear any more nonsense about "Solar can't have influenced or contributed to GW during the last 50 years, so it must have been man's effects".

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

But I've already done just that. Quoting from my post #911:

....Georgieva 2005, showing that high solar influences continued through year 2000 and correlate with temperature > R = 0.85?

Good.

Then we don't need to hear any more nonsense about "Solar can't have influenced or contributed to GW during the last 50 years, so it must have been man's effects".

I've already demonstrated that coincidental correlation for part of a time series can generate a very high correlation coefficient. Their result of R = 0.85 proves nothing.

Anyone who has access to IDL can verify that correlating the 2 time series in this program generates an R of 0.89. But does either variable appear to represent a driver for the other variable? (I don't have the capability of generating a plot from my home computer):

pro regress_demo

x=fltarr(100)
for i=0,9 do x = 5.
for i=10,55 do x = (i - 10)/2. + 5.
for i=56,99 do x = 27.5 - (i - 55.)/2.

y = fltarr(100)
for i=0,19 do y = 0.
for i=20,50 do y = (i - 19)*3.
for i=51,80 do y = (81 - i)*3.
for i=81,99 do y = i - 80.

r = regress(x, y, const=constant, correlation=correlation)
print, r, constant, correlation
r = regress(y, x, const=constant, correlation=correlation)
print, r, constant, correlation
plot, indgen(100), x
oplot, indgen(100), y

end

 

[macdoc]

Opening line of cited Bulgarian brilliance...

To evaluate the anthropogenic influence on global change, first the influence of the natural factors must be evaluated. The natural factors can be internal (volcanic eruptions, atmospheric modes of variability like ENSO, NAO, etc.), or external (solar variability, distant stars bursts, passage of the Solar system through clouds of galactic dust).

_{PP09.04 The role of the sun in climate change Katya Georgieva Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Solar-Terrestrial Influences Institute, Sofia, Bulgaria ClimateChange: GlobalRisks,ChallengesandDecisions IOPPublishing IOPConf. Series: EarthandEnvironmentalScience6(2009)092016 doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/9/092016}


conflates non drivers like ENSO and NAO with drivers like volcanoes and then speculates on "star bursts" and "galactic dust".....



total unadulterated rubbish.....as is the norm from the usual suspects....

 

[BenBurch]

But I've already done just that. Quoting from my post #911:

....Georgieva 2005, showing that high solar influences continued through year 2000 and correlate with temperature > R = 0.85?

Good.

Then we don't need to hear any more nonsense about "Solar can't have influenced or contributed to GW during the last 50 years, so it must have been man's effects".

We'll go one at a time with the many things wrong with that; 1. Correlation does not imply causation. Show me a proven mechanism?