JBG Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 I think the exclusion of ENSO is reasonably accurate statistically for figuring out short-term global temperature trends. If the alarmists didn't insist that there was a +ENSO feedback I'd agree with you. But I do agree that you don't want to start or stop a period for calculation in a year like 1997-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 If the alarmists didn't insist that there was a +ENSO feedback I'd agree with you. But I do agree that you don't want to start or stop a period for calculation in a year like 1997-8. At the moment it actually works out OK to start in 1998 because we just had the 2010 Nino which although it wasn't as strong is compensated for by the multi-year strong Nina event that followed 1998. But yeah, starting in 1998 and ending in 2009 is a major No-No. Anything starting in 2002 or 2003 is likely to be bad too because the 2002-2005 period was so Nino-dominant... it's actually more egregious than starting in 1998 because at least 1998 was immediately followed by the multi-year strong Nina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 At the moment it actually works out OK to start in 1998 because we just had the 2010 Nino which although it wasn't as strong is compensated for by the multi-year strong Nina event that followed 1998. But yeah, starting in 1998 and ending in 2009 is a major No-No. Anything starting in 2002 or 2003 is likely to be bad too because the 2002-2005 period was so Nino-dominant... it's actually more egregious than starting in 1998 because at least 1998 was immediately followed by the multi-year strong Nina. I see and understand your point, but just hear me out It'd mean alot The AGW Rule: The expected +ENSO feedback......El Nino Spikes are expected to exceed Nina Drops, so the base "CO2 warming trend" of .2C decade remains. Its not that there are more Nino's, but the Atmospheric Response to El Nino is expected to be Much Greater, and Out-do all La Nina Drops....in a Positive feedback. 1998-2011 has a weakly positive ENSO trend, so feedbacks from the +ENSO trend should increase the Warming Trend. So the timefame you pick won't affect the Trend at hand. Also, One thing really bothers me. As we all know, IPCC states the Earth is loaded with Positive Feedbacks to Forcing Agents......OK, be that as it may, if it were true, any assumption on "Rapid Equilibrium" regarding Solar Activity/TSI is in significant Error, because it would take longer for Earth to come to equilibrium from TSI if the planet was positive feedback prone. As in.....Yes, 11yr TSI variations may be short term 1-2yr lags, but the overall heat Content coming to equilibrium should take Much Longer if the IPCC is correct about Positive feedbacks within the Climate system.......In regards to TSI, yes, we've seen a leveling off since 1980, however, the 1950-2006 time period is still the Most Active TSI period in our recorded History. So, who says we've come to overall Equilibrium? If the IPCC is correct in regards to positive feedbacks dominating the Climate system, then the TSI overall equilibrium would take quite awhile to be Reached as record TSI for 50 years. Just Like CO2...Even if we were to stop emitting it now, supposedly, the Earth Would Continue to warm. Since positive feedbacks HAVE to act on the entire climate system, it would have to apply to TSI as well...Only in this Case...TSI Would Have to Return to Pre-Industrial Levels to match the trend of (in relation) "Stopping CO2"!!! So...when much of that HEAT built up in the Oceans is released during the +PDO phase from 1976-2006, would you expect the excess heat in the atmosphere to be released in torrents? Absolutely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 however, the 1950-2006 time period is still the Most Active TSI period in our recorded History. Keep in mind that there are not 50 years of TSI measurements. It is a space-only measurement. There is even ambiguity in the recorded history from 1978 to present due to the use of multiple satellites, and sensor degradation. Note the subtle differences in each reconstruction, and the minima. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Keep in mind that there are not 50 years of TSI measurements. It is a space-only measurement. There is even ambiguity in the recorded history from 1978 to present due to the use of multiple satellites, and sensor degradation. Note the subtle differences in each reconstruction, and the minima. Yes I'm aware of the sensor decay in TSI measurements which could lead to artificial drop in TSI, However, I'm not a fan of bringing up "potential" error, even if there likely is some, because it may or may not be there. I think the real issue, is, if IPCC wants to make love to their rapid equilibrium theory in regards to TSI,(which represesnt s powerful negative feedbacks) then they have to throw out AGW, you can't have both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Why can't some people tell the difference between fringe whackjob sources and actual science? This is how a scientist writes and works: http://www.gfdl.noaa...log/isaac-held/ This is how a fringe whackjob tries to get media attention: http://www.helium.co...eoclimatologist Try reading both and see if you can tell the difference. One comes across as a totally uncredible moron, the other comes across as a professional intellectual. With the second source, you can tell in the first 2 paragraphs. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.