Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 10:23pm PT
|
"Not all of the explanations could be correct, if they were, observed temperatures should have been sinking like a stone instead of staying about the same, as they've accounted for the "missing" heat in a myriad of ways! That's what passes for "reality" I guess these days. "
Why guess? Do exclamation points serve as a magical substitute for basic math and science? Let's see you add up the added heat and show how this supposed contradiction exists. I expect you will run away from any such attempt, knowing how wrong you are.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 10:51pm PT
|
Looking at the global mean sounds good and I don't object to it in theory, but remember these guys seem to make up data willy-nilly, including doing things like changing what temperature it was in a particular place in the past! (They've got innumerable "tricks," a word with a very malleable meaning in the parlance of warming circles, such as the tree-rings-are-great-except-when-they-don't-show-what-we-want, then-we-ignore-them.)
So we have this huge conspiracy among world wide scientist so we can't trust the data and information that we don't like.
Looking at both weather and climate in a place where we can keep our eyes on them at least serves as a bit of a "reality" check (the reality of what the temperature is, not what crackpot theory is in vogue this week).
So what does this reality check show us? It has been very warm in my part of the world the last year. Last winter were crap, the summer very warm and a very warm fall without any snow so far.
So my reality check says that it is warm, your reality check says that it is cold. Should we fight about who's reality check are correct?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 11:24pm PT
|
Your little europeon corner of the world isn't diddly compared to the portion of north America suffering from back to back severe winters and a cool summer, Ray. Your little peon burb certainly aint squat compared to the landmass of Russian Siberia that is likewise suffering an early and severe winter.
Yes BlahBlah is correct in the level of deception, outright fictitious invention necessary to prop up these blowhard lies that is global climatism.
There is no missing heat. As satellite observations show there is no decrease in outgoing LWR, in fact there has been a slight increase, therefore there is no missing heat.
Why is this? You guys on the CAGW doom side are incapable of comprehension. You are all stuck on stupid in the grip of your rigid ideology.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 11:34pm PT
|
Lol, so the world is actually cold even though even Spencer's data show that october was the warmest october on record? I guess that Spencer can't be trusted anymore.
You could look at the mean temperature or at least also look at the parts of the world that is not cold. So north america and sibiria are cold right now but what about the rest of the world?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 11:55pm PT
|
The most telling metric, Phule, is global land and sea ice extent as well as extent and duration of snow cover; all of which is showing a slight increasing trend. And Roy did not record the warmest October ever.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 12:11am PT
|
The most telling metric, Phule, is global land and sea ice extent as well as extent and duration of snow cover; all of which is showing a slight increasing trend. And Roy did not record the warmest October ever.
So Roy did not record the warmest October ever?
LOL, so the global sea ice extent is more interesting than the NH sea ice extent also when discussing NH temperature and winters as I thought that you are doing? It is a clear decreasing trend in NH sea ice extent.
I really don't know how many times you are going to say that the duration of snow cover is increasing. The data clearly show that it is not the case because the snow cover in the spring is clearly decreasing.
So the duration of snow cover in the NH is decreasing. The sea ice in the NH is decreasing. This really doesn't look like data that show that the winters in NH is more severe.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 12:24am PT
|
blahblah wrote:
You must have missed a few days here.
The "magic ocean theory" is the (admittedly pejorative) label given to one of the "explanations" for the hiatus, namely, that the warming has continued to occur, it's just occurred in the oceans since the start of the hiatus rather than in the atmosphere.
That begs questions such as why atmospheric temperatures were rising before the hiatus, and whether the ocean is going to get sick of taking all the heat that used to go into the atmosphere and revert back to the old pattern, or something else.
no, didn't miss any days here, but you might have missed a bit...
perhaps you didn't understand how variance figures in, and that the "magic ocean theory" you state incorrectly... that is, that the possibility that this is an ocean oscillation of some importance at our current level of accuracy of predicting the climate.
I can refer you back to some of the discussions if you like, but I suspect you didn't understand it before, you're probably not going to understand it now....
the question you are begging is answered, that is, the oceans have been doing this all along. the next question you would ask would be "if they were doing it all along, why didn't we know that before?"
the answer is in our understanding of the "variance" of the climate, and how it relates to our ability to model that variance. Initially, you might see the bumps and wiggles as a totally random process... so the system you're studying, in this case the climate, appears to be predictable only at the level of the amplitude of the noise... I had posted this plot before:
this is the one that Dr. Roy made, the red line is a 13 month average of the blue line, centered on the month (so 6 before and 6 after, and the month). The difference between the two defines a residual, and the mean square of that difference is related to the variance...
The standard deviation of that residual is something like 0.1ºC. If the bumps and wiggles were due to just "random" processes, then you could take that red line and add to it some value that varies as a normal distribution with that standard deviation, you'd get something like this:
the red line is there, but the green line is the "synthetic" data with random noise added, the calculation of the standard deviation is identical in the two...
The yellow line is calculated as the red line, but using the green points... it pretty much agrees, but it varies from the red line. But the two are equivalent representations, we can't know the difference if the "noise" is random.
The question regarding the "magic ocean" as you put it has to do with the climate models' ability to make an accurate prediction of the climate observables. Following a paper of Chylek et al. (2014) (my post) and taking the observed inputs one can get an idea of how much of the variation is explained by those inputs.
When you calculate the residual of the Model 1 with the temperature time series, and compare it to the AMO (the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index) you find this:
which shows the correlation between the two... we can go into the details if you want but this suggests that the variations left over from taking into account the green house gas, the human aerosol, solar and volcanic radiative forcing and the El Nino Southern Oscillation index leaves a variation that could be accounted for by the AMO.
The "Model 1" is not a computer model, but a model which is a linear combination of factors known to be important in the climate. Model 1 refers to a particular choice of the human aerosol emission (there are multiple models because we don't have a complete understanding of the affect the aerosols have, in particular, as the aerosol composition changes).
That is, the AMO has been acting this way all along... it is revealed because the Global Mean Temperature is well described by including those other factors... Model 1 gives an rms value about what Dr. Roy's plot gives above 0.11ºC, and the addition of the AMO reduces this to 0.08ºC, which could be significant. Unlike Dr Roy's plot, this model provides a prediction for the "red line."
This comparison is over the time period from 1900 to 2011.
So this leads to a conjecture that the oceans have been doing this all along... we didn't know because previously we hadn't been able to attribute the other variations.
One can take this as some sinister conspiracy, or as an example that we don't know anything, or as just the normal process of refining our knowledge as we learn more.
The "hiatus" has what magnitude? It depends on how you represent the difference, here is one way I did it a while ago:
so maybe almost no "hiatus" to something that might be as large as 0.4ºC, this depends on the definition of the baseline, the temperature time series etc...
looking at the residual of Model 1 and the AMO above, you see that the maximum variation is on the order of 0.3ºC. The residual and the AMO have the same time structure too. This neatly accounts for the "hiatus" given all the other factors.
Now the question becomes one of understanding the AMO and the oceans in general, in the complex climate models. Some of the models are in better agreement with the observed temperature time series, and they also exhibit an AMO like cycle, which means their treatment of the oceans may be more realistic.
But this becomes the subject of continued research. Nothing "magical" about it, nothing "magical" about its appearance. If you've been following the scientific research about the explanation of the "hiatus" you know that many explanations have been offered and that our understanding is growing.
All this comes because we have accurate predictions from the climate models, the can actually disagree with the observations in a meaningful way, that is, we expect a level of accuracy and precision in the models that can be compared with the observations and rule out some of the models (or model runs). Here, with the" hiatus", we're talking about variations occurring over decades with amplitudes smaller than those expected by the other, predominate source of temperature variation: green house gas emission by humans.
maybe you missed a few days...
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 06:32am PT
|
And Roy did not record the warmest October ever.
This place gets funnier of late. No, Roy (UAH) did not see 2014 as the warmest October ever. The UAH temperature anomaly tied for the warmest October anomaly in that record -- with 2012!
And the warmest 6 October temps, per UAH, all happened since 2003. In 7th place another tie -- between the Super El Nino year 1998 and 2013. The Ice Age cometh.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 07:22am PT
|
from jeff dunetz
1) Through Halloween of 2014- The Global Warming Pause has lasted 18 years and one month. Heartland Institute analyst, Peter Ferrara, notes“If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.” So there was thirty years of cooling followed by 20 years of warming and almost 18 years of cooling…and that’s what the global warming scare is all about.
2) Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels and the Arctic ice cap has seen record growth. Global sea ice area has been averaging above normal for the past two years. But to get around those facts, the global warming enthusiasts are claiming that global warming causes global cooling (really).
3) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant it’s what you exhale and it is what “feeds” plants. Without CO2 there would not be a single blade of grass or a redwood tree, nor would there be the animal life that depends on vegetation; wheat and rice, for example, as food. Without CO2 mankind would get pretty hungry. Even worse the global warming proponents keep talking about population control because they don’t want more people around to exhale, and let’s not talk about what they say about stopping methane (no spicy foods, no cows, no fart jokes).
4) There is not ONE climate computer model that has accurately connected CO2 to climate change. In fact CO2 is at its highest levels in 13,000 years and the earth hasn’t warmed in almost 18 years. Approximately 12,750 years ago before big cars and coal plants CO2 levels were higher than today. And during some past ice ages levels were up to 20x today’s levels.
5) Even with the relatively high levels there is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. At 78% nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. Oxygen is the second most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere at 21%. Water vapor is the third most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere; it varies up to 5%. Exhale freely because carbon dioxide is the least abundant gas in the atmosphere at 0.04%.
6) The climate models pushed by the global warming enthusiasts haven’t been right. Think about that one for a second. If you believe what people like Al Gore the polar ice caps should have melted by now (actually by last year), most coastal cities should be underwater and it should be a lot warmer by now. As my Mom always said, Man plans and God laughs. The Earth’s climate is a very complicated system and the scientists haven’t been able to account for all the components to create an accurate model.
7) You are more likely to see the tooth fairy or a unicorn than a 97% consensus of scientists believing that there is man-made global warming. The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn’t ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion.
8) I changed my mind…this past February, Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist, and the co-founder of Greenpeace, the militant environmental group told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee “
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”
There are more like Moore.
9) Back to Ice Age– predictions. When I took Earth Science in college 38 years ago, the professor explained that the scientific consensus was we are heading toward an ice age. That was just before text books were changed to discuss global warming. That was followed by calling it climate change. Now many scientists claim there is new evidence that the Earth may be heading toward an ice age (please stop crying Mr. Gore).
10) Droughts have not increased.
It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,”
Professor Roger Pielke Jr. said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
11) Polar Bears are alive and well and not dying out. In the Fall 2014 issue of RANGE Magazine Dr. Susan Crockford wrote,
“In a recent TV ad campaign, the Center for Biological Diversity said, “global warming is pushing polar bears to the absolute brink.” Results of recent research show this to be a lie – fat, healthy bears like this one from near Barrow, Alaska, are still common and many of the assumptions used by computer models to predict future disasters have turned out to be wrong.”
In case you were wondering, walruses are doing fine also.
12) No Increase In Hurricanes: A study published in the July 2012 Journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms, asserting:
We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls, but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.
The only thing “man-made” about global warming, is the argument that we should all stop thinking because there is a scientific consensus about global warming. There are too many questions still open.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 07:29am PT
|
More funnies! Chief pretends to quote me:
"2014 as the warmest October ever."
EVER Chiloe??? Seriously... You truly are pathetic. And you are supposedly neutral and unbias in all this.
But here's the whole sentence he cut that quote out of:
"No, Roy (UAH) did not see 2014 as the warmest October ever."
And here's the whole paragraph:
This place gets funnier of late. No, Roy (UAH) did not see 2014 as the warmest October ever. The UAH temperature anomaly tied for the warmest October anomaly in that record -- with 2012!
And the rest of that post:
And the warmest 6 October temps, per UAH, all happened since 2003. In 7th place another tie -- between the Super El Nino year 1998 and 2013. The Ice Age cometh.
All of which (except the Ice Age) is accurate as stated, at least to the 2-digit precision of published UAH figures. I might have added that apart from 1998, the 15 warmest Octobers are 2001 to present. But hey, that's only October.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 08:00am PT
|
Ed - Why are some charts current (through 2013), while others seem to end in 2006, excluding the last eight years of data?
because I was replicating the paper of Chylek et al. who did not have time series beyond 2006 for the input.
Sure does. Manipulate and fudge the data, draw up the pretty graphs, twist the verbiage around here and there ("EVER!!!), and they will all appear the way you want them to.
actually, you can repeat my analysis, if I've fudged things you can show that I have fudged things... why would I do that if someone (with relatively elementary skills and access to all the data I had access to) could so easily demonstrate that I had?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 08:02am PT
|
Another excerpt from the Abraham et al. article I cited earlier, which summarizes conclusions from recent research in nontechnical terms:
Recent research provides a clearer picture of a seemingly enigmatic event—the apparent slowdown in global warming over the past decade. An emerging understanding allows articulation of clear conclusions. First, despite views expressed in the popular press, global warming did not cease 15 years ago. Measurements taken with modern equipment show that the thermal energy contained within Earth’s thermal reservoirs has continued to increase unabated at a rate of 0.5 to 1.0 Watt per square meter of Earth surface area. This conforms to expectations based on relatively simple atmospheric physics, given the addition of important greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and positive feedbacks reinforcing the effects of this change.
As we have explained, much of the extra heat is being stored in deep ocean waters. The increase in deep-water storage is likely to have been driven by changes in wind patterns in the Pacific Ocean, which bring cool water to the ocean surface while burying surface waters to intermediate depths. In terms of the implications for surface temperatures, studies that have accounted for the impact of short-term natural changes, the solar cycle, and changes in atmospheric aerosols and particulates show remarkable agreement in quantifying both the persistence and intensity of the long-term warming trend.
Emphasis added to the last sentence; that's a point that Ed has explained in many different ways here. I've taken shots at it too, including that time series analysis a while back, and citations to other recent work. Well known among scientists, tough to communicate against politics.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 09:16am PT
|
Thanks for the weather report, TGT.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 09:20am PT
|
I could repeat this each time, I guess.
"Here ya go, TGT, a global view to go with your weather report."
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 09:40am PT
|
I'm gonna make it rain in SoCal - I'm goin' to the carwash.
See? Climate change is easy peasy!
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 09:42am PT
|
Larry, Ed and Bruce. Just stop posting, no amount of information or facts are going to sway them.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 09:44am PT
|
BTW - latest study out from Environment canada, Polar bear pops have declined past ten years in beaufort sea, sea ice decline cited as likely factor.
But to borrow a page from Chiloe's favorite playbook (by analogy), maybe the polar bears just moved someplace else!
I thought it was pretty well established that total number of polar bears is actually increasing, but like everything else related to this stuff, it seems to depend on who you ask.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2014 - 10:08am PT
|
BTW - latest study out from Environment canada, Polar bear pops have declined past ten years in beaufort sea, sea ice decline cited as likely factor.
But to borrow a page from Chiloe's favorite playbook (by analogy), maybe the polar bears just moved someplace else!
I thought it was pretty well established that total number of polar bears is actually increasing, but like everything else related to this stuff, it seems to depend on who you ask.
You could ask google:
Try it; click on any link. No, polar bears are evidently not increasing.
Cool read about the myth of polar bear increase, here:
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!