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:
Essentially these old “claims/prediction” fits well with the pattern that Girma Orssengo found as well here http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/10/18/investigating-the-climate-of-doom; see points (2) and the linked articles.
Projecting the Orssengo linear+cyclic pattern forward simply says what these older claims say as the assumption, keep replicating the patter from the past forward.
Also it seems similar to what Piers Corbyn does his analysis: looking at weather patterns from the past and projecting them forward using the current observational data as a pattern matching template to pick which of the past patterns to project forward.
It would be good to see Girma Orssengo update his analysis with the more recent data observations.
pete, “I believe that Lucia is using data from 2001 on because the model predictions were effectively published in 2001 via the IPCC report.”
Which model predictions are you refering to? The IPCC also used models in previous reports.
Bob B., ditto.
sceptical,
The IPCC’s model predictions are wrong
Walter:
I begin by asking you and ‘sceptical’ to discuss the issues I raised instead of your attempting to hide my points by concentrating on a comment I added in parenthesis. My request is forcefully put because your dispute of that minor comment is spurious.
Your comment at June 1, 2011 at 6:13 pm is mistaken. It takes Trenberth’s words out of context and then misrepresents them.
I quoted the entire email from Trenberth to Wigley in my rebuttal of ‘sceptical’ at June 1, 2011 at 10:53 am. To save others needing to find it, I copy it here.
Kevin Trenberth on Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, to Tom Wigley:
“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!”
He begins by asking;
“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 remainder is exposition of those opening statements.
But your post provides selective quotation: it deletes those two opening sentences, quotes the remainder, and then accuses me of misrepresenting what Trenberth said because I refered to the sentences you deleted!
And the “geoengineering” mentioned in Trenberth’s email is the mitigation policies (i.e. alterations to future global temperature) that I described in my post t(at June 1, 2011 at 8:43 am) which mentions Treberth.
As I said in that post:
“Chapter 2 of the report by IPCC Working Group III the IPCC in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) says;
“Most generally, it is clear that mitigation scenarios and mitigation policies are strongly related to their baseline scenarios, but no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios.”
When Trenberth says;
“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!”
he is explaining
(a)”why no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios” (i.e. “we cannot account …”)
and
(b) why that is important (i.e. “we will never be able to tell…”
Richard
Dave Wendt:
re. your post at June 1, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Yes, that does “help”. Thankyou.
Richard
Geoff Sharp says: June 1, 2011 at 3:34 pm
…………..
Hi Geoff
I agree, CET is only good for the North East Atlantic, while its west coast is usually very different. There is a good reason for this. The N.A. drift current splits into 2 parts, one carries on into Arctic the other swings westwards towards South Greenland and Labrador. It is variable ratio of these two ( (this is what my project -NAP is about) that drives the strength of Icelandic low in the winter, affecting path of jet stream and the associated weather patterns.
I’m still waiting for someone to compile all the thousands of records set all over the world the past two years for precipitation (liquid and frozen), cold temperatures and record low maximum temperatures.
It’d be nice to have to numbers as proof to debunk the “warmest decade” baloney.
John Finn says:
June 1, 2011 at 3:29 pm
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. 😉
… it’s possible my concept of “very cold” may be different to that of others.
That must be why you got your fingers burned.
Tallbloke’s definition of a ‘cold’ winter seems to be one that is slightly warmer than the 1981-2010 average winter.
I’m not the one who started cherry picking quarter years out to try to prove a point.
You are.
I know that what counts is the ocean heat content and next up the southern hemisphere SST. Both of which have been falling gently for a long time now. Even if you go from the trough of the La Nina following the ’98 super el Nino to the peak of the 2009-10 El Nino, you’ll still get a negative slope of a linear regression of SH SST over the 2000-2010 decade.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1998/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2000/to:2010/trend
That plus Peter Berenyi’s analysis on my blog leads me to think the XBT-ARGO splice is still way wrong despite a recent downward ‘correction’.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/
You’ve been had mate.
As regards the AO it varies considerably in the short to medium term and has always shown positive spikes in multidecadal periods of negative AO and negative spikes in multidecadal periods of positive AO.
However on multidecadal (and probably even more so on multicentennial timescales) it does appear to show some correlation with the level of solar activity:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AO_NAO.htm
It is trending more negative with the newly less active sun, was more positive when the sun was active through cycles 21 to 23 and was a little less positive during weaker cycle 20.
I have always contended that the top down solar effects on the atmosphere are modulated by bottom up effects from the oceans which accounts for such variability on short to medium timescales and an apparent failure of the solar correlation unless one looks at the longer timescales.
That variability plus oceanic modulation also brings into play the potential for CET temperatures to be unrepresentative of northern hemisphere temperatures as a whole though I would argue that CET diversions from northern hemisphere temperatures are usually temporary and ocean induced as Vuk points out.
The UK is a bit of a special case because our weather can swing wildly between warm south westerly dominance and bitter north or north easterly dominance depending on the positions of the loops in the jetstream. Such swings can occur whether there is a global warming or a global cooling trend. They are driven by the ever changing interaction between the top down solar effects and the bottom up oceanic effects.
However during a global warming trend (positive AO) the jets are more often north of the UK so the potential for bitter north and north east winds declines just as we saw during the late 20th century warming spell.
When the globe is cooling (negative AO) the jets become more meridional/equatorward with broader, deeper, more prolonged looping which generates more frequent cold spells in the CET.
The USA responds more directly to average northern hemisphere temperature changes because the effects of the west to east air flow progression are reduced by the barrier of the Rockies and so the central and eastern USA is less affected by changes induced by oceanic behaviour. The weather of the USA to the west of the watershed however is directly and very closely related to oceanic effects.
So, currently, I am waiting to see whether the continuing low level of cycle 24 will correlate with a generally negative AO (more negative than the period 1970 ish to 2000).
If cycle 24 stays lower than cycles 21 to 23 but yet the AO for the whole period of the cycle matches the positivity of the late 20th century then I would accept that as a falsification but that is currently not looking very likely.
Richard S Courtney says
I selected the last two for brevity. Even with the first two sentences included he does not claim the warming vanished as you suggested when you say:
Saying that we can’t trace the heat throughout our global system is quite different to saying that it vanished.
Walter:
I repeat my strong request that you address my points and stop knit-picking an aside I made in parenthesis.
But, to establish fact instead of your imagings at June 2, 2011 at 3:16 am, I point out that Trenberth did NOT say, as you claim;
“we can’t trace the heat throughout our global system”.
He said;
“we are no where close to knowing where energy is going”.
The energy is supposed to be “going” into the oceans to induce “committed warming”. But it is not in the oceans and it is not observed anywhere else.
I stated;
However, this “committed warming” seems to have vanished (Trenberth says this is a “travesty”).
That statement is correct.
Now, address what I wrote instead of making erroneous quibbles.
Richard
Hi Richard S Courtney,
You sound a bit angry and I apologise if I have upset you, but I still don’t agree with your interpretation of Trenberth’s use of the word Travesty.
I have since googled about and found a report by Trenberth:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf
In the introduction he says:
He is not saying the heat has vanished, he is saying we do not have sufficient capability to track it.
Richard S Courtney says:
June 2, 2011 at 4:05 am (Edit)
Walter:
I repeat my strong request that you address my points and stop knit-picking an aside I made in parenthesis.
Richard, trying to get co2 driven warming believers to discuss ocean heat content this late in the AGW argument is like trying to discuss stuffing and cranberry sauce with turkeys before thanksgiving.
Anyway, this covers it:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/
No ‘missing heat’, just a duff theory.
Tallbloke:
Thankyou for that link. It is an excellent summary of the ‘ocean heat’ issue that I had not seen before.
As you say;
“No ‘missing heat’, just a duff theory.”
That agrees with my post at June 1, 2011 at 8:43 am which concludes saying;
“In summary, the claimed effects of ‘mitigation policies’ , ‘carbon footprints’, etc. are completely meaningless and should be disregarded. It is much better to look at the observed climate cycles and to see what range of climate effects they imply people should prepare for.”
I would have been grateful for any genuine disagreement with that post, but I am annoyed at the knit-picking of an aside which I put in parenthesis.
Again, thankyou.
Richard
Bob B says:
Surely you do the calculations first, before telling them what it would be, otherwise it sounds like you are just fishing around for the answer you want rather than using a scientific approach.
Walter:
Use whatever sophistry you like, and pretend whatever you want to.
You have made no attempt to critique what I wrote but have chosen to advocate your spin about an aside I put in parenthesis. What I said in that aside is correct, but ‘So What?’ My argument remains intact whether or not what I said in that aside is correct.
And, yes, I am “a bit angry”. You have chosen to carp on about that aside and, thus, have inhibited proper discussion of what I wrote. As Willis might say, that angryfies my blood.
Richard
I’m not the one who started cherry picking quarter years out to try to prove a point.
You were the one who suggested bracing ourselves for “another” cold winter. Are you now saying your comment was completely irrelvant?
jorgekafkazar says:
June 1, 2011 at 5:05 pm
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.
Wht no comment about the UAH v HadCrut records. Tell me this how much longer are the readers of this blog going to continue to cite the “fraudulent” CRU record to support their pet theories.
Richard S Courtney says:
Richard, again, sorry for having to highlight what seems to be another problem for you.
After insisting I address your other remarks, I did some more hunting about and noticed the IPCC definition is different to your description.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-5-1.html#box-ts-9
They are suggesting that it takes a while for the oceans to warm given a specific amount of GHG. Because the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for many years afterward it continues to warm the planet even after we’ve stopped adding more CO2.
Whilst you may be right about there potentially being heat in the ocean’s depth that can resurface later, this is not the source of “commited warming”.
Do you even realise that you just made no effort to counter my quotation of Trenberth, when he explicitly states that we lack the capacity to monitor the system adequately enough, then you declare yourself as being correct again, then criticise me of ignoring you! Pot Kettle!
Bob B, the graph here also shows the difference expected between some various scenarios and a “commited warming”. The difference is not zero.
Richard, a question:
If temperature bounces back before 2020 and the “committed warming” prediction comes true, would you accept that the prediction was valid and AGW wins?
By your logic, you should. But if that did happen, I would say to you, “We just got lucky. Solar output picked up, and there was an El Nino, you know, that sort of thing. If those things had held off until a year or two later, you would have won”.
Of course that is ridiculous. Why? Because, as always, it’s the trend that matters. The last few years have bucked the trend, which is why that prediction might look far-fetched. The real issue here is that AGW proponents are contending that the trend is still there, masked by short term variability. You are contending that the trend has stopped , or at least slowed.
Walter,
You are right! Trenberth’s “missing heat” and the IPCC’s “committed warming” are not related. I hadn’t spotted that. The missing heat is thought to be somewhere already, we just don’t know where. Committed warming is the expected future warming due to already accumulated CO2. Different thing altogether.
Though I fear we may get accused of nit picking.
John
Walter:
Your points are spurious.
You say to me:
“Do you even realise that you just made no effort to counter my quotation of Trenberth, when he explicitly states that we lack the capacity to monitor the system adequately enough, then you declare yourself as being correct again, then criticise me of ignoring you! Pot Kettle!”
Of course not! That “quotation” was a justification, but assuming it is true then it still agrees with what I wrote in the email you claim to be replying where I said;
“The energy is supposed to be “going” into the oceans to induce “committed warming”. But it is not in the oceans and it is not observed anywhere else.
I stated;
However, this “committed warming” seems to have vanished (Trenberth says this is a “travesty”).”
That is right because
1. The heat is supposed to be going into the ocean.
2. Several independent pieces of evidence show it is not in the ocean or anywhere else.
3. Trenberth says; “we are no where close to knowing where energy is going”.
4. The heat taken into the ocean is said to cause “committed warming”.
5. The absence of heat in the ocean means the “committede warming” does not exist; it is absent, it has vanished, it has disappeared, it has followed he Oozlum Bird, etc.
6. So, “It is a travesty!” that “we are no where close to knowing where energy is going” equates to “It is a travesty!” that the “committed warming” has vanished.
Now you have googled and found an isolated statement that you have taken out of context and you want me to be sidetracked onto that? No way, Hose!
However, I will point out one thing and leave it to you to see where you are wrong.
Your quotations says;
“If the concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols were held fixed after a period of change, the climate system would continue to respond due to the thermal inertia of the oceans and ice sheets and their long time scales for adjustment. ‘Committed warming’ is defined here as the further change in global mean temperature after atmospheric composition, and hence radiative forcing, is held constant.”
The GHE occurs in the atmosphere to warm the air. So, “does thermal inertia of the oceans and ice sheets” mean
(a) the air warmed by the GHE gets further warmed by the “the oceans and ice sheets “?
or
(b) “the oceans and ice sheets” get warmed by the air warmed by the GHE?
Richard
Of course fourier analysis can’t analyze any periodic oscillations with a period of more than 1/2 the sample length.
However, a FFT can be easily done even if your sample is not of a 2^N length.
The way to do that is this:
First determine a line (y = mx+b) connecting the first and last datapoint of the sample.
Subtract that line from the sample and remember the m and b for later.
This makes the sample start and end with zero.
Pad the dataset out with zeros to the next larger 2^N length.
Do the FFT.
Convert the real and imaginary frequencies from cartesian to polar coordinates, which will give you phase angle and amplitude.
If the data is noisy, calculate the mean value of the amplitudes of the dataset and set all amplitudes below the mean to zero. This will get rid of most of the random noise (but not 1/f noise) and you should see any frequencies of oscillations above the noise threshhold.
Do an inverse FFT of the result and add your original linear corrector back in.
Now you can correlate the original sample set with the inverse FFT result and see what trends there are.
You can also correlate in the frequency domain the amplitudes between 2 datasets and so on. For example if you look at the amplitude spectrum of SSN and compare it to the amplitude spectrum of for example surface temp data, and if there are spectral peaks at the same frequencies there is a correlation, independent of the time lag or phase.
In general, and signal processing is my daily bread, I don’t understand why time series data in climate science is not analyzed much more in the frequency domain as analyses in the time domain are always frought with problems.
John B. says:
The real issue here is that AGW proponents are contending that the trend is still there, masked by short term variability.
No, John, the real issue here is that CO2=CAGW Climate Scientists are, 1] still going to be “begging the question” as to the cause, if the trend up resumes, while, 2] they are also still the ones who are refusing to let their “theory” be falsified by any empirical event so far, and who also, 3] will not even name any kind of falsifying or challenging event or data whatsoever that would cast doubt upon their theory; when, 4] at the same time still not acceding to using real, scientific method and principles, science in their work – or even mentioning that they should!
In other words, again the real issue here is that CO2=CAGW Climate Scientists are the exact same kind of “conspiracy theorists” elsewhere who will simply not let their “theory” be rebutted by any event or process, such as the practice of real science: which means that their “theory” actually makes no statements at all about the real world!
The Climate Scientists, enc., just want to be able to keep repeating the words involved with CO2=CAGW [“tenets”, according to the PNAS itself] in order to bring about either some kind of personal gratification for themselves, the continued flow of funds to them requiring the official repetition of the words as strictly political “science”; or in order to bring about the control of others for their personal benefit, as in the case of their paymasters.
Come on, John B., is being “useful” to those ends really what you want to spend your life on?
KLA said “In general, and signal processing is my daily bread, I don’t understand why time series data in climate science is not analyzed much more in the frequency domain as analyses in the time domain are always frought with problems.”
I think the reason may be that the main forcings and feedbacks in which are interested are not cyclic. Milankovitch cycles are too slow and solar cycles have too little effect (except as a background) to be of much interest in climate research. Volcanic, aerosol, cloud and GHG effects are not cyclic. AGW purports that the latter are the major effects, so does not concentrate on the cyclic effects.
I could be wrong…