Predictions for the Next decade, and Your Position on AGW

[BethesdaWX]

{{{{{Edit: Have edited the Poll, because I feel there will be some "differences" between the GISS & Satellites continuing, and since an overall trend can be altered by just a few differences all in all.}}}}}

In spite of the differences in our views on the climate, I felt it'd be a good Idea to make Predictions for the Next decade in Global Temps, and how the outcome would affect our viewpoints.

I'll go out and say this next Decade will be around 0.1C colder than the previous one, with a More significant Drop in Global Temps arriving between 2016-2020, which will give this next decade its colder reading. Hopefully everyone here will still be alive, and not a fatality of AGW.

If The next decade sees an increase in Temps on the order of about 0.15C-0.2C on Satellite Data, My Viewpoint on AGW will begin to Change.

How about you?

Current Datasets

RSS

UAH

HADCRUT

NCDC

GISS

The Upcoming Decade Is gonna be a Ride!

[skierinvermont]

Barring a climactic scale volcano I'd go with .2C on the nose.

So I went with the .1-.2 category but if there was a .15-.25 I would have done that.

Also are we using 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 (ie the 2000s vs the 2010s)?

[BethesdaWX]

Barring a climactic scale volcano I'd go with .2C on the nose.

So I went with the .1-.2 category but if there was a .15-.25 I would have done that.

Also are we using 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 (ie the 2000s vs the 2010s)?

Going by the "official" decadal scale in period measurement, 2001-2010 vs 2011-2020.

[skierinvermont]

Going by the "official" decadal scale in period measurement, 2001-2010 vs 2011-2020.

Well then I might go a little lower like .17C since 2001-2010 is a fairly Nino-esque period compared to 2000-2009. 2001-2010 is .03C (GISS) to .045C (UAH) warmer than 2000-2009.

Comparing 1991-2000 to 2001-2010 we find the latter to be a full .2C warmer on UAH. On GISS it was .23C warmer.

[BethesdaWX]

Well then I might go a little lower like .17C since 2001-2010 is a fairly Nino-esque period compared to 2000-2009.

Comparing 1991-2000 to 2001-2010 we find the latter to be a full .2C warmer on UAH. On GISS it was .23C warmer.

Agreed, as it should have been warmer.

I don't feel the same way about this decade, but, my fate will be determined within 9 yrs, so we'll see. If only AmericanWX were to survive that long

[Clifford]

would it be possible to agree on a standard?

UAH, RSS, NOAA,

In the short term, I'm expecting a mild drop or easing of the gains from the 90's.

However, I am still divided on whether there will be some long-term gains beyond 20 or 30 years into the future.

[BethesdaWX]

Should Have Clarified My Mistake, Should do One Poll for UAH/RSS, another for GISS/HADCRUT/NCDC

Fixed

[nzucker]

Should Have Clarified My Mistake, Should do One Poll for UAH/RSS, another for GISS/HADCRUT/NCDC

Fixed

I think an average is fine..

[superjames1992]

I'll go with flat to perhaps a slight drop in temperatures before resuming warming in the 2020s and 2030s So I'll say 0.0C to -0.1C, but it's a crap shoot. If we warm significantly over the next decade, perhaps I will jump aboard the alarmist AGW train.

Shall we open this thread up if this board still exists in 2020 and see how our predictions verified?

[BethesdaWX]

I think an average is fine..

between the two or the global anom will be avg?

[skierinvermont]

I'd have to do more research on RSS and UAH before guessing for them. I know they are biased low in the past due to satellite drift, intersatellite calibration, diurnal drift and the adjustments made to the data in an effort to correct these problems. But now that they have AQUA I don't know how much of a problem that will be. What's the life expectancy of AQUA? UAH and RSS (and satellite temperature data in general) might become more accurate as we go into the future. In that case, I wouldn't expect much difference between UAH/RSS and GISS in their trends since the start of AQUA. But I don't know.. all I know is that they have been inaccurate in the past and likely show less tropospheric warming than reality. Speaking of which, why not include STAR?

As for the surface.. I refuse to use HadCRUT period. Because it doesn't include the poles. I'm happy to use HadCRUT ... IF you use UAH satellite data to estimate the poles.

So my guess of .17-.18C applies for HadCRUT+UAH poles, or for GISS.

I voted in both categories, but I want my objections noted.

[skierinvermont]

Also interesting that Bethesda voted the next decade would be .2C cooler than the past decade on EUSwx but now he is saying it will be 0-.1C wamer for the surface and 0-.1C cooler for satellite. Big change in thinking the last 5 months.

[WeatherRusty]

I went with +0.1 - +0.2 for both surface and satellite. I'm relying on a continuation of positive radiative forcing as the main driver of climate change.

Overall the surface will warm faster than the lower and mid troposphere, however the mid-level tropical "hot spot" will begin to unambiguously reveal itself as water vapor mixing ratios continue to increase. Methane concentration will show another spurt of growth as the melting arctic tundra degases in response to continued rapid warming. The rate of CO2 increase will continue to grow as nothing is done to curb emissions, while a die back of tropical rain forests due to drought conditions adds to methane and CO2 loading of the atmosphere from decaying vegetation .

Ocean dead zones continue to expand as waters warm and nitrogen based fertilizer runoff promotes algae blooms which deplete the water of oxygen. These regions are now dominated by only a few species of jellyfish. Coral bleaching continues to worsen and fish populations dependent on the coral environment crash in alarming numbers.

The southwest United States is once again besieged by endless drought contritions, bring on conditions reminiscent of the 1930's dust bowl. The Southeast US is also undergoing sever drought conditions with large sink holes opening up all over the Florida peninsula. In New England the maple sugar industry is dying out as sugar maples are producing well less than 50% of the sap common only 3 decades earlier. The ski industry is also suffering as smaller resorts are going out of business due to the shorter winter season, and people are just not inspired to ski as they observe the bare ground outside their windows.

And of course the worst is yet to come!

[BethesdaWX]

I'd have to do more research on RSS and UAH before guessing for them. I know they are biased low in the past due to satellite drift, intersatellite calibration, diurnal drift and the adjustments made to the data in an effort to correct these problems. But now that they have AQUA I don't know how much of a problem that will be. What's the life expectancy of AQUA? UAH and RSS (and satellite temperature data in general) might become more accurate as we go into the future. In that case, I wouldn't expect much difference between UAH/RSS and GISS in their trends since the start of AQUA. But I don't know.. all I know is that they have been inaccurate in the past and likely show less tropospheric warming than reality. Speaking of which, why not include STAR?

As for the surface.. I refuse to use HadCRUT period. Because it doesn't include the poles. I'm happy to use HadCRUT ... IF you use UAH satellite data to estimate the poles.

So my guess of .17-.18C applies for HadCRUT+UAH poles, or for GISS.

I voted in both categories, but I want my objections noted.

I can agree with this if I'm reading your post correctly regarding AQUA (I'll get to that below) As for STAR, I've been doing a lot of Research on this topic, and have found some interesting stuff. Remember we're only looking at Post 2002, when AQUA ended the Issue of Satellite Drift.

The reason I have not (yet) Included STAR, is Partially because it is not a Mainstream Data System, and the corrections for Radiosonde error & direct/indiract use of them, differ between STAR & UAH/RSS is what Causes the Discrepancy. UAH & RSS are in Fairly good agreement now Post 2002, With UAH Warmer than RSS.

Its harder to verify STAR's corrections for Radiosonde error to other datasets, simply because they are now a significant Outlier. The areas where STAR and UAH/RSS differ are not in the Direct Satellite Measurements, but it is How they Correct for Radiosonde error. Radiosonde datasets, especially in the SH, have been known to be sparce & error prone, and they have to be corrected for by every Satellite Dataset. However, the

Relying somewhat directly off Radiosonde datasets in the SH is risky. This was demonstrated by ECMWF and UAH, where 2 infrared channels in RAOBCORE had a significant impact on the error potential to those using them predfominately, and had to be corrected for.

If STAR does become Mainstream, then I'd certainly add it into the Mix.

As for AQUA, I Agree with you if I read your post correctly

I assume when you said UAH/RSS biased "Low", you must mean the overall Trend/data Before AQUA... right? If so, then Yes the Long Term Trend May be Biased low/too cold until 2002. Satellite drift is no longer a problem though, and calibrations pretty much understood and how to correct for, since RSS/UAH now are in good agreement post 1998 with the V3.3 update. So there is good agreement Post 1998, with UAH a bit warmer, but the NCDC/GISS difference is no better. Potential error has been reduced to +/- 0.05C/decade since 2002, so it could be cold OR warm. Calibrations are now very confidently made, and the next decade will only improve.

As for GISS/NCDC errors, you realize that NCDC has better data than GISS or HADCRUT, right? It is also the Middle Road, so I'd go with that if I were you, but thats just me.

[BethesdaWX]

Also interesting that Bethesda voted the next decade would be .2C cooler than the past decade on EUSwx but now he is saying it will be 0-.1C wamer for the surface and 0-.1C cooler for satellite. Big change in thinking the last 5 months.

Was that for Satellite or Surface? That'd explain the difference.

I do not want to get into a whole debate again here, but if you are confused, Please PM Me!

Lets not derail the thread, thanks

[skierinvermont]

Was that for Satellite or Surface? That'd explain the difference.

You didn't specify.. you just said .2C cooler. Now you are saying 0 to -.1 for satellite and 0 to +.1 for surface. So neither is compatible.

[skierinvermont]

I can agree with this if I'm reading your post correctly regarding AQUA (I'll get to that below) As for STAR, I've been doing a lot of Research on this topic, and have found some interesting stuff. Remember we're only looking at Post 2002, when AQUA ended the Issue of Satellite Drift.

The reason I have not (yet) Included STAR, is Partially because it is not a Mainstream Data System, and the corrections for Radiosonde error & direct/indiract use of them, differ between STAR & UAH/RSS is what Causes the Discrepancy. UAH & RSS are in Fairly good agreement now Post 2002, With UAH Warmer than RSS.

Its harder to verify STAR's corrections for Radiosonde error to other datasets, simply because they are now a significant Outlier. The areas where STAR and UAH/RSS differ are not in the Direct Satellite Measurements, but it is How they Correct for Radiosonde error. Radiosonde datasets, especially in the SH, have been known to be sparce & error prone, and they have to be corrected for by every Satellite Dataset. However, the

Relying somewhat directly off Radiosonde datasets in the SH is risky. This was demonstrated by ECMWF and UAH, where 2 infrared channels in RAOBCORE had a significant impact on the error potential to those using them predfominately, and had to be corrected for.

If STAR does become Mainstream, then I'd certainly add it into the Mix.

As for AQUA, I Agree with you if I read your post correctly

I assume when you said UAH/RSS biased "Low", you must mean the overall Trend/data Before AQUA... right? If so, then Yes the Long Term Trend May be Biased low/too cold until 2002. Satellite drift is no longer a problem though, and calibrations pretty much understood and how to correct for, since RSS/UAH now are in good agreement post 1998 with the V3.3 update. So there is good agreement Post 1998, with UAH a bit warmer, but the NCDC/GISS difference is no better. Potential error has been reduced to +/- 0.05C/decade since 2002, so it could be cold OR warm. Calibrations are now very confidently made, and the next decade will only improve.

As for GISS/NCDC errors, you realize that NCDC has better data than GISS or HADCRUT, right? It is also the Middle Road, so I'd go with that if I were you, but thats just me.

You still seem to think that UAH, RSS and STAR "use" radiosonde data. It isn't "used." The difference between then has nothing to do with radiosonde data.. the differences are in calibration. STAR uses simultaneous nadir overpass to calibrate which is better than the pre-launch calibrations.

[BethesdaWX]

You didn't specify.. you just said .2C cooler. Now you are saying 0 to -.1 for satellite and 0 to +.1 for surface. So neither is compatible.

Again, if I was comparing Satellites for the next decade to Surface, then yes.

My thoughts for the next decade have not changed, so I must have been comparing surface to Satellites,expecting the deviation to continue.

[BethesdaWX]

You still seem to think that UAH, RSS and STAR "use" radiosonde data. It isn't "used." The difference between then has nothing to do with radiosonde data.. the differences are in calibration. STAR uses simultaneous nadir overpass to calibrate which is better than the pre-launch calibrations.

But thats not where the differences are between UAH/RSS & STAR, base calibrations agree quite well. Radiosondes are "used" in the verification process to calibration & readings.

In the paper I linked by Spencer & Christy, they show where the difference originate, its predominately the SH.

Can you PM me to continue this discussion?

[skierinvermont]

Again, if I was comparing Satellites for the next decade to Surface, then yes.

My thoughts for the next decade have not changed, so I must have been comparing surface to Satellites,expecting the deviation to continue.

No. You said the next decade would be .2C cooler than the last decade. It is a direct contradiction to what you are saying now. You can try to wriggle out all you want but it's a straightforward direct contradiction. Or you could own up and admit the contradiction and perhaps why your thoughts have changed.

[BethesdaWX]

No. You said the next decade would be .2C cooler than the last decade. It is a direct contradiction to what you are saying now. You can try to wriggle out all you want but it's a straightforward direct contradiction. Or you could own up and admit the contradiction and perhaps why your thoughts have changed.

My thoughts have not changed, go back and link me to this Post so I can clarify what I meant.

PM me and do not take this thread off topic or I'll have to report you dude.

If you're looking for a fight, then do it Via PM.

[skierinvermont]

My thoughts have not changed, go back and link me to this Post so I can clarify what I meant.

PM me and do not take this thread off topic or I'll have to report you dude.

If you're looking for a fight, then do it Via PM.

It's not off-topic. I am asking why you have changed your guess for the next decade which is completely relevant to this thread. Go ahead and report me.. you'd have to report 99% of your own posts while you are at it.

Here is the thread:

http://www.easternus...age__mode__show

The question was "How much warmer/cooler do you expect the 2010s to be compared to the 2000s?"

You answered ".2C cooler"

It's a straightforward direct contradiction to what you are saying now. Just own up and admit it and explain why your thoughts have changed.

[BethesdaWX]

It's not off-topic. I am asking why you have changed your guess for the next decade which is completely relevant to this thread. Go ahead and report me.. you'd have to report 99% of your own posts while you are at it.

Here is the thread:

http://www.easternus...age__mode__show

The question was "How much warmer/cooler do you expect the 2010s to be compared to the 2000s?"

You answered ".2C cooler"

It's a straightforward direct contradiction to what you are saying now. Just own up and admit it and explain why your thoughts have changed.

Dude, this is what I said.

IMHO, beginning around 2020 (give or take a few yrs), the real "cooling" should kick in, and we'd fall to -0.1C to -0.3C by the decade of the 2030's.

The only thing I've changed, is, as I said.....giving or taking a few yrs. My thoughts haven't changed, I'd actually go colder if I could, but I'm stuck on the warm side.

However, I still think we end up the Same at the end of the Decade, just a Change in the pattern of decline.

[skierinvermont]

Dude, this is what I said.

IMHO, beginning around 2020 (give or take a few yrs), the real "cooling" should kick in, and we'd fall to -0.1C to -0.3C by the decade of the 2030's.

The only thing I've changed, is, as I said.....giving or taking a few yrs. My thoughts haven't changed, I'd actually go colder if I could, but I'm stuck on the warm side.

However, I still think we end up the Same at the end of the Decade, just a Change in the pattern of decline.

In the actual poll you answer that the 2010s will be .2C cooler than the 2000s. The poll question is exactly the same as this poll and you gave two very different answers.

[BethesdaWX]

In the actual poll you answer that the 2010s will be .2C cooler than the 2000s.

Then I selected the wrong one, what I wrote is the exact same, actually I'm edging colder now.

Again, it may have to due with Satellite or Surface discrepancies.

ok? Its not like I'm going to Lie.

[skierinvermont]

Then I selected the wrong one, what I wrote is the exact same, actually I'm edging colder now.

Yes it would appear that you selected the wrong option since your text later in the thread is inconsistent with your answer to the poll.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes it would appear that you selected the wrong option since your text later in the thread is inconsistent with your answer to the poll.

I'm glad you now understand this.

Took awhile though. Instead of trusting me, you had to wrongly accuse me of lying.

[Snow_Miser]

Yes it would appear that you selected the wrong option since your text later in the thread is inconsistent with your answer to the poll.

Seriously, Skier? lol

[BethesdaWX]

Seriously, Skier? lol

yeah lol I mean really, he could have read the thread he himself linked.

just goes to show his issue regarding reading...and lying about me..... and how to properly read the NSIDC Graph!

Now you see what I have do deal with on a daily basis.

[nzucker]

As for the surface.. I refuse to use HadCRUT period. Because it doesn't include the poles. I'm happy to use HadCRUT ... IF you use UAH satellite data to estimate the poles.

Well, then, I refuse to use GISS since I've proven some of their extrapolations are wildly incorrect. I am not going to guess the global temperature for a source that isn't actually measuring the global temperature, but is rather measuring what NASA thinks the global temperature should be. And that's a conflict of interest!

For example, how can you show Greenland as >2C above normal for March when both model data and satellites show way below normal anomalies? They must be having some serious station problems up there, or Hansen is tampering with the extrapolations, as I've suspected for a long time.