Jo Nova writes:
Prediction: Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold.
Visit Steven Goddard’s blog to read the full news story.
Their work fits in reasonably well with the Syun Akasofu graph posted here for the world to see:
Jo Nova writes:
Prediction: Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold.
Visit Steven Goddard’s blog to read the full news story.
Their work fits in reasonably well with the Syun Akasofu graph posted here for the world to see:
sceptical says:
June 1, 2011 at 9:41 am
Not at all what Trenberth said. Just as with your misunderstand of what the IPCC said about a Tropospheric hotspot, you have this wrong.
The hotspot isn’t there and neither is the committed warming. CO2=CAGW hypotheses are not falsifiable in practice, and therefore they are not scientific hypotheses. CO2=CAGW cultists will simply not let them be falsified, which makes them no more than meaningless statements, exactly like the kind of conspiracy theories put forth elsewhere, which appear to make factual statements, but whose adherents will simply not allow to be falsified by any empirical of factual state of affairs. In the case of ipcc Climate Science we are all essentially talking about its Religious Dogma, because that’s the way ipcc Climate Science handles its “science”.
What do you want to believe, the politicians or the data?
Bob B, perhaps Lucia cherry-picked 2001 because it was one of the warmest years on record, which would show in itself the idea that global temperatures declined after 2000 as ridicules.
Smokey says:
June 1, 2011 at 8:03 am
Understanding what Lindzen says would be a small step for Mann, but a giant leap for Mankind. After all the propaganda I mean.
haha!
sceptical:
At June 1, 2011 at 9:41 am you assert to me:
“Not at all what Trenberth said. Just as with your misunderstand of what the IPCC said about a Tropospheric hotspot, you have this wrong. Your misunderstanding about the IPCC was pointed out numerous times to no avail, so there seems to be no reason to explain about Trenberth except to say you do not understand what he was talking about.”
No!
You are telling porkies.
Above, my only mention of Trenberth was at June 1, 2011 at 8:43 am where I wrote:
“However, this “committed warming” seems to have vanished (Trenberth says this is a “travesty”).”
In its context, my statement is in complete agreement with a ‘Climategate’ email Kevin Trenberth wrote on Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, to Tom Wigley. That entire email says:
“Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
So, my post explained that the “committed warming” is heat that has gone into the oceans but seems to have vanished (my post cited one of several pieces of evidence that it has vanished, but others include ocean cooling and reduction to ocean expansion).
Trenberth’s ‘travesty’ email says, “we are no where close to knowing where energy is going”.
Then, what I said about the ‘hot spot’ is is that it is predicted by the IPCC to be a unique effect of “well mixed greenhouse gases”.
The most recent so-called scientific Report from the IPCC is the AR4 and it explains the ‘hot spot’ in Chapter 9 from WG1. The pertinent Section is
9.2.2.1 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Response
And it can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
The Section summarises the matter in Figure 9.1.
Anybody can check that what I said is true by clicking on the link.
Sceptical, you and John B need to raise your game. Your lies are no substitute for my referenced facts.
Richard
@ur momisugly Scottish Skeptic:
You have an excellent idea about using Fourier analysis to deconvolute the noise from the signal. I used the technique to improve signal to noise ratios for my analytical instruments and achieved an order of magnitude improvement in my detection limits.
Unfortunately in the ‘real world’ there can be multiple types of noise present simultaneously. In the Fourier space these sources must be discriminated using a multivariate linear least-square algorithm to ‘fit’ the explainable noise spectra. Anything remaining is either signal or a novel source of noise, or a combination thereof.
Computationally a Fourier Transform is VERY cumbersome if the data is not an equally spaced set (in proper space) of 2^n data pairs.
Realistically, the requirement for equally conditioned data is also difficult to meet, so ‘bad’ data points contribute disproportionately to the residual variance.
Climatological data is currently unable to provide large enough data sets to allow such an analysis to produce meaningful statistics.
Her book is worth reading “Past climates : tree thermometers, commodities, and people”
sandyinderby says:
June 1, 2011 at 7:22 am
Dave Wendt says:
June 1, 2011 at 3:19 am
“Trees are great for chronology, mostly worthless for thermometry.”
Isn’t the case for this paper that the rings are being used as a calendar and the isotopic mix as a thermometer? In which case this is no different from ice cores, lake sediment and other proxies; and probably is their equal or better for the more recent past?
For the isotope ratios in the tree rings to encode a record of the ambient temperature in which the tree grew, the tree’s foliage must be at or very close to that ambient temperature, as it is almost entirely responsible for the tree’s interaction with the atmosphere. The Hellicker paper showed that, rather than following the ambient, the foliage, thru various physical mechanisms, maintained itself within a much narrower range. Thus whatever the isotope ratios in the tree rings suggest, they lack a physical connection to the true temp of their environment.
RE: spangled drongo says:
June 1, 2011 at 3:03 am
Coldest autumn in Australia since 1950
===========================
Look at this from the perspective of the MJO. Sort of frightening for the NH. The “fun” may continue for quite a while.
Dave Wendt:
I am writing to ask for explanation of a comment you made at June 1, 2011 at 11:52 am. Please note that my query is genuine because I am not a biologist.
You say;
“For the isotope ratios in the tree rings to encode a record of the ambient temperature in which the tree grew, the tree’s foliage must be at or very close to that ambient temperature, as it is almost entirely responsible for the tree’s interaction with the atmosphere. The Hellicker paper showed that, rather than following the ambient, the foliage, thru various physical mechanisms, maintained itself within a much narrower range. Thus whatever the isotope ratios in the tree rings suggest, they lack a physical connection to the true temp of their environment.”
I do not understand that.
The growth of a tree trunk in a year (i.e. a tree ring) incorporates oxygen isotopes in atmospheric CO2 that the tree absorbs through its leaves. The tree controls the temperature of its leaves but I am not aware that it controls the temperature of its trunk.
I do not understand how the isotope ratios absorbed from the air and incorporated into a tree’s trunk are affected by the temperature of the leaves.
Please explain more fully.
Richard
here’s another non computer forecast ttp://www.agwnot.blogspot.com/
Sceptical–what a dumb statement.
All talk of recovery from LIA may be off the mark. According to longest temperature record we have available (CET), LIA recovery took less than 50 years, in order for the temperatures to move more or less sideways for the next 250. Only in the recent couple of decades or so (but even that appear to be short lived), CET surpassed the1740s,
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET.gif
I am equally sceptical about any of regular multidecadal oscillations, be it 30, 60 or whatever years. Any regularity if there is one would have to come from a long term feedback loop or the orbital parameters; no such have been identified above the annual except for the Milankovic cycle.
Clear evidence that AGW science has made us dumber.
RE: Dave Wendt: (June 1, 2011 at 11:52 am)
“Thus whatever the isotope ratios in the tree rings suggest, they lack a physical connection to the true temp of their environment.”
That is probably true, however if the goal is an estimate of average global temperature, then this data may be useful. If the isotope ratios are fairly uniform from tree to tree, then they are probably good data. On the other hand, if this data is highly variable then it is probably of little value.
Met office has just issued monthly numbers for May (CET).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/May.htm
Re: my post above
I do not see any LIA recovery since early 1700s. As far as cycles (30, 60 etc years) apparent pattern is more random then regular.
Ian W says:
June 1, 2011 at 7:23 am (Edit)
The flurry of posts from John Finn is because he has only just recovered and been able to start typing again after putting his hand into a pot of water that had been boiling – but he’d turned the heat off 30 seconds previously and it should have instantly dropped to room temperature. 😉
Lolz. 🙂
I find it odd that people are only now rediscovering Leonora Libby. If it wasn’t for the great Bob Mullikan she wouldn’t have become a physicist and worked for Enrico Fermi. The days BM (Before Mann) when science had great people before this current dark age.
Ian W says:
June 1, 2011 at 7:23 am
The flurry of posts from John Finn is because he has only just recovered and been able to start typing again after putting his hand into a pot of water that had been boiling – but he’d turned the heat off 30 seconds previously and it should have instantly dropped to room temperature. 😉
But in this case it doesn’t seem to have cooled at all. In fact, according to at least 3 sources, it’s got warmer. However this is largely irrelevant since the prediction is (or was) :
Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold .
Note it doesn’t say “then start cooling” or even “then stop warming” it says “then very cold”. Though it’s possible my concept of “very cold” may be different to that of others. Tallbloke’s definition of a ‘cold’ winter seems to be one that is slightly warmer than the 1981-2010 average winter.
vukcevic says:
June 1, 2011 at 2:11 pm
I do not see any LIA recovery since early 1700s. As far as cycles (30, 60 etc years) apparent pattern is more random then regular.
Hi Vuk, I think the last NH winter may have given a clue why the CET record may not be a good guide for even NH temps during a solar slowdown. Last December’s CET record dropped to LIA lows but the AO strongly turned positive in Jan which saw a change in the jet stream shape that protected the UK and western Europe for several months. At the same time the rest of the NH was under snow and ice.
Smokey says:
If we don’t know what caused the little ice age, how can we be sure that what caused it is now working opposite in effect to warm us as depicted in the Syun Akasofu graph?
sceptical, I believe that Lucia is using data from 2001 on because the model predictions were effectively published in 2001 via the IPCC report.
Hence data post 2001 could be used to verify the predictions, while data prior to that time would only be confirming a hindcast.
In other words, there is at least a prima facie reasoning behind the chosen starting point. Your example is a true cherry-pick in that you picked a random timeframe to illustrate a pre-conceived idea.
If you wish to dispute the use of data from 2001 on then feel free to come up with your version of Lucia’s analysis, complete with logical reasons behind the steps you have taken.
John Finn says: “I’ve never posted at Jo Nova’s…”
No one said you did. Your off-the-mark responses, including the one above, are not inconsistent with your being unable or unwilling to actually read the comments.
Richard S Courtney says
Is this really what Trenberth said? I would interpret this to be a comment about how well we can measure the system. That any attempt to geoengineer would have the problem in that we could not determine if it is working or not. He’s not saying the heat has vanished at all, he’s saying that it can move about a lot and they wouldn’t know.
Richard S Courtney says:
June 1, 2011 at 12:30 pm
I’m not a biologist either. I’ve based my assessment on the Hellicker and Richter paper and the WUWT post about it that I referenced earlier in the thread as well as some further searches I did at the time the paper came out which seemed to support what they said. As I understand the theory of isotope proxies in tree rings prior to H&R, the isotope ratios which are the basis of the proxy, are established by the temperature at which photosynthesis takes place in the tree’s foliage, which was assumed to mirror the ambient temp. H&R asserted that the foliage actually maintained itself around a target temp of 21C, which challenges the logical premise of the proxy.
I haven’t Googled H&R for some months, but up until late last year there were no works that contradicted it. The history of the paper is an interesting bit in itself. When the paper was published there was a lot of references to it for 2-3 weeks, then it just seemed to disappear down the memory hole. The last time I checked, one of the few later references in the Google search was actually a comment of my own from another old thread from here. I seem to be just about the only person who still remembers it, but I’ve brought it up quite a number of times in the last 3 years and no one has ever jumped in to tell me why my interpretation is incorrect.
Gotta run, hope that helps.