skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 1998-2011 will be 14 years.... And the trend will be positive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I also believe that if you look at the individual ensemble members, you will see that they simulate natural variation due to things like ENSO and many other variables. What is commonly reported is the ensemble mean and the multi-model mean (of ensemble means). One way in which the confidence intervals can be calculated is based off the ensemble member spread. Regardless, that mean shows about .2C rise from 2000 to 2010.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I'm not a big fan of starting in 1998, itws kind of picky. 2002-2006 were very smililar in the flatline, representing the peak of the warming cycle, I'd assume. It's not the peak of the warming cycle, it's the peak of +ENSO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Regardless, that mean shows about .2C rise from 2000 to 2010.... Yes but the confidence interval is anywhere from -.2 to +.6/decade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 And the trend will be positive For GISS, probably. Probably not for the other sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 And the trend will be positive No it wont 2011 will be a "cold" year (relatively speaking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I also believe that if you look at the individual ensemble members, you will see that they simulate natural variation due to things like ENSO and many other variables. What is commonly reported is the ensemble mean and the multi-model mean (of ensemble means). One way in which the confidence intervals can be calculated is based off the ensemble member spread. So in 2020, if/when we see a "few years" of something like +.2 or lower, then we should be able to difinitively say (as long as we haven't hit some shorterm +.8 or so anomoly before then) OOPS!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 For GISS, probably. Probably not for the other sources. No it wont 2011 will be a "cold" year (relatively speaking) The raw trend for UAH from 1998-present is +.08C/decade. The trend 1998-2011 is and will be positive on all sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 It's not the peak of the warming cycle, it's the peak of +ENSO. It is, at this point, the Peak in the Running Mean of the Warming Cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The raw trend for UAH from 1998-present is +.08C/decade. You cant remove ENSO Its an inter-correlated climate system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Yes but the confidence interval is anywhere from -.2 to +.6/decade My point was that .2C/decade trend for the 2000s is the IPCC mean prediction. Ring a bell from last night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 You cant remove ENSO Its an inter-correlated climate system I didn't. Learn to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I didn't. Learn to read. Assuming that 2011 spikes warm, maybe (which its doing the opposite as we speak). We just Knocked off another to 0.1C in MAR Your Graph was not updated when you posted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The raw trend for UAH from 1998-present is +.08C/decade. The trend 1998-2011 is and will be positive on all sources. 1998-2009 had a negative trend for UAH. There is a very good chance that 2011 will bring UAH back to flat, and if we have another -ENSO winter, 2012 almost certainly will take the trend negative again. IPCC models falsified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 My point was that .2C/decade trend for the 2000s is the IPCC mean prediction. Ring a bell from last night? It looks more like .18C/decade to me. Also, the "best guess" number is usually reported as the median which is lower than the mean. For example, the IPCC reports 2-4.5C "best guess" 3.0. The best guess is lower than the mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 1998-2009 had a negative trend for UAH. There is a very good chance that 2011 will bring UAH back to flat, and if we have another -ENSO winter, 2012 almost certainly will take the trend negative again. IPCC models falsified. One sec, I'll plug it in assuming 2011 is -.03 and 2012 is +.02. (I actually think it will be a bit warmer than that but we'll use a lower number). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 It looks more like .18C/decade to me. Also, the "best guess" number is usually reported as the median which is lower than the mean. The trend for the past 10 years was clearly expected to be close to .2C/decade. The trend 10 years from now is most definitely expected to be .2C+/decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 One sec, I'll plug it in assuming 2011 is -.03 and 2012 is +.02. Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The trend for the past 10 years was clearly expected to be close to .2C/decade. The trend 10 years from now is most definitely expected to be .2C+/decade. 1. The mean was +.18C/decade for 2000-2007 (as I said last night and again confirmed by that graph). The acceleration is very slow, so that would say about +.20 for 2010-2020. 2. The IPCC "best guess" number is the median, not the mean. The median is lower than the mean. 3. The 75% confidence range would be .15-.25 not .2-.3. .2-.3 clearly misrepresents how much warming is expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 If you plug in -.03 and +.02 for the next two years, the trend from 1998 goes negative in 2012. However, I believe it is quite likely to be warmer than this, especially in 2012. I could see 2012 being as high as +.30, similar to 2009 which was neutral-neg. Even if this year finishes as -.03 the trend is still positive. At this point I'm guessing the year will be slightly warmer than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 If you plug in -.03 and +.02 for the next two years, the trend from 1998 goes negative in 2012. However, I believe it is quite likely to be warmer than this, especially in 2012. I could see 2012 being as high as +.30 I assume you're thinking we go Nino in 2012? Most likely this La Nina is at least a 2 yr event, if not a 3 yr event. PDO went negative in 1946, and we saw a hefty Nina Period in the Early 1950's as it slowly strengthened. Not saying it means anything, but its something to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 1. The mean was +.18C/decade for 2000-2007 (as I said last night and again confirmed by that graph). The acceleration is very slow, so that would say about +.20 for 2010-2020. 2. The IPCC "best guess" number is the median, not the mean. The median is lower than the mean. 3. The 75% confidence range would be .15-.25 not .2-.3. .2-.3 clearly misrepresents how much warming is expected. I have heard many, many times from AGW proponents that .2C/decade (the mean) is the current expectation - this going back to the early 2000s. Why would they quote this number if the "best guess" is the median? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I assume you're thinking we go Nino in 2012? Most likely this La Nina is at least a 2 yr event, if not a 3 yr event. No not at all.. I think negative-neutral next year is most likely which would probably put us around +.1+.2 on UAH for 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 If you plug in -.03 and +.02 for the next two years, the trend from 1998 goes negative in 2012. Even if this year finishes as -.03 the trend is still positive. At this point I'm guessing the year will be slightly warmer than that. Exactly...and the trend through 2011 would only barely be positive. And I believe even if 2012 finishes like .15C, the 1998-2012 trend would still be slightly negative or flat. Point being, the IPCC models are treading on very thin ice. Being invalidated is not at all out of the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I have heard many, many times from AGW proponents that .2C/decade (the mean) is the current expectation - this going back to the early 2000s. Why would they quote this number if the "best guess" is the median? I've also heard +.18C/decade... a lot of people probably just round. There's also not that big of a difference. I don't know why you guys keep making a big deal out of it.. all I'm saying is the iPCC/climatologist expectation for the 2010s is a little lower than .2-.3 and would be more accurately described as .15-.25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 No not at all.. I think negative-neutral next year is most likely which would probably put us around +.1+.2 on UAH for 2012. It wouldn't go that high unless we transition into El Nino for Fall 2012/winter 2012/13. If we remain negative neutral throughout entire 2012, we probably end up between 0.0 - +0.1C depending on various factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Exactly...and the trend through 2011 would only barely be positive. And I believe even if 2012 finishes like .15C, the 1998-2012 trend would still be slightly negative. Point being, the IPCC models are treading on very thin ice. Being invalidated is not at all out of the question. Well also, if we use the chart I posted the confidence intervals are much larger. The 14 years 95% confident of positive trend was just something I remembered. We'd have to look into that some more. According to the chart I just posted it would take more like 20 years to be 95% confident of a positive trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I've also heard +.18C/decade... a lot of people probably just round. There's also not that big of a difference. I don't know why you guys keep making a big deal out of it.. all I'm saying is the iPCC expectation for the 2010s is a little lower than .2-.3 and would be more accurately described as .15-.25. Ok...but 10 years from now, 2021, the IPCC expectation is up over .2C/decade. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Well also, if we use the chart I posted the confidence intervals are much larger. The 14 years 95% confident of positive trend was just something I remembered. We'd have to look into that some more. According to the chart I just posted it would take more like 20 years to be 95% confident of a positive trend. Well, let's assume about a .4C total expected rise from 2000 to 2020 (completely in line with IPCC). We are on pace to see maybe .2C (ENSO-adjusted). So if that happens, seeing just 50% of the expected warming over 20 years is a significant issue, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Well, let's assume about a .4C total expected rise from 2000 to 2020 (completely in line with IPCC). We are on pace to see maybe .2C (ENSO-adjusted). So if that happens, seeing just 50% of the expected warming over 20 years is a significant issue, I think. IPCC graphs don't exlude ENSO, because it cannot be done. AGW is expected to create a +ENSO feedback anyway, which is why it is pointless to attempt and incorrectly remove ENSO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.