The_Global_Warmer Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 What is the link where you are getting the data from http://nomad3.ncep.n...in/pdisp_sst.sh Thanks, there are multiple options so I might be doing it wrong. trying again with global. Looks to match up identical. I did Northern Hemisphere, ok. Southern Hemisphere, ok North Atlantic, ok south atlantic, ok south pacific, not ok north pacific, not ok Indian ocean, ok arctic ocean, ok They all fit but the Pacific. I ran them over and over and checked and rechecked and checked again. Here is the map version of the time series for August 2012. the colors really suck since blue and light blue are 0-1C. Just eye balling it. It looks fairly even. Maybe he changed his parameters since the Hudson and GOM are in here and both have positive anomaly's. There is a large region of below 0C water on this map. I don't see the anomaly being so high like I came up with. However there is the semi-large regions of 1.5C+ water while there is only a few small areas of -1.5C water it is further North and covers less ground but it's larger, also the 2C+ anomalies are much larger, that North Central region has that pocket of 2.5C-3.5C andt the tiny blob of 3.5C+. Also the 0-15N region has quite of positive ground as well. I am likely in error, it's hard to say, good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 The inconsistent, not getting off the ground possible Nino has kept global temps from reaching to 2010 or higher. Fwiw, the current Nino is expected to stay weak. From what I've seen with past Ninos, when it stays weak, global increases in fall and to the end of the year are generally not impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Thats strange that the N PAC graph doesn't match like the others. I can't figure it out either on that site. I'd have to see the raw text data though to know if its an error on the graph or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 The text is below. And confirms the time series. data from 00Z01NOV1981 to 00Z01AUG2012 "----------" -0.0293783 0.0590488 0.0498256 0.0639518 0.0487894 -0.0304306 -0.0773515 -0.0677694 -0.119114 -0.150444 -0.0919422 -0.0369456 -0.0909294 -0.0879954 0.0429911 0.106364 0.211434 0.156719 0.115508 0.154981 0.205074 0.0633677 -0.0224438 -0.000889858 -0.0028822 0.070064 -0.0020562 -0.0793935 -0.0906978 -0.0263889 -0.176163 -0.391791 -0.296712 -0.26048 -0.210097 -0.236253 -0.239791 -0.241634 -0.20782 -0.244043 -0.261266 -0.291651 -0.277648 -0.1435 -0.168257 -0.239412 -0.166296 -0.146276 -0.172482 -0.203438 -0.213643 -0.194555 -0.193652 -0.180677 -0.114113 -0.147039 -0.177944 -0.233785 -0.186871 -0.189451 -0.200518 -0.198629 -0.127542 -0.11278 0.0165783 0.041605 0.0838799 0.190758 0.332124 0.382438 0.39936 0.283528 0.185893 0.273487 0.197387 0.0801568 0.156351 0.188467 0.153573 0.228404 0.246026 0.132444 0.0439958 0.0212859 0.0331933 -0.0660836 -0.102937 -0.0557679 -0.129344 -0.145919 -0.0573217 0.0789604 0.208689 0.176876 0.0724248 0.0145103 0.0642001 0.0327788 -0.0277247 0.111888 0.0887528 0.125154 0.120468 0.0194193 0.0288055 0.0848218 0.188833 0.2316 0.142399 0.130297 0.0745195 0.0605271 0.0982407 0.0840936 -0.0104043 -0.0691672 0.0116793 0.0438826 0.114884 0.00528926 -0.0271625 -0.0309547 0.000847438 0.00755178 -0.0119726 -0.0822688 -0.0768867 -0.0510522 -0.182757 -0.286302 -0.266282 -0.211905 -0.178098 -0.132662 -0.0323967 -0.0194275 -0.13698 -0.0104473 0.0238601 -0.00764342 -0.177252 -0.0785547 -0.0337038 -0.0699157 -0.0949017 -0.130252 -0.0747688 -0.133808 -0.0967665 0.0144534 0.0103767 -0.147502 -0.0943737 -0.064197 -0.0134919 0.225681 0.246279 0.126952 0.171956 0.23549 0.214339 0.222216 0.275878 0.423844 0.397927 0.338458 0.200916 0.260688 0.236973 0.168001 0.138742 0.0948012 0.032148 0.087361 0.0658863 0.00409483 -0.0470953 0.0338292 0.0811246 -0.0947428 -0.0460294 -0.028301 0.0824693 0.0983367 0.146289 0.12062 0.156938 0.266683 0.333553 0.358752 0.4307 0.515187 0.424792 0.4439 0.50856 0.601143 0.571549 0.572167 0.662889 0.719568 0.598417 0.683777 0.52559 0.508229 0.503861 0.433099 0.284889 0.251463 0.282256 0.243871 0.234871 0.294484 0.351952 0.467444 0.381647 0.246311 0.172476 0.190783 0.110014 0.138278 0.278503 0.272136 0.323692 0.139322 0.151597 0.278806 0.293306 0.223093 0.289991 0.194569 0.177328 0.182857 0.284382 0.273257 0.201602 0.295818 0.304742 0.409675 0.487434 0.509023 0.436534 0.438019 0.417404 0.367782 0.376717 0.327612 0.164447 0.0879344 0.137456 0.278693 0.375209 0.443381 0.332907 0.28574 0.288573 0.218443 0.342485 0.272084 0.343851 0.455108 0.499935 0.628936 0.620575 0.650757 0.480006 0.423462 0.406837 0.384804 0.342906 0.34368 0.0846027 0.206586 0.253266 0.405833 0.4047 0.454684 0.499152 0.460304 0.365303 0.273221 0.389049 0.497079 0.503806 0.534873 0.594466 0.628528 0.605278 0.486693 0.384238 0.35717 0.292062 0.21276 0.213431 0.365311 0.475851 0.508135 0.594007 0.681665 0.629035 0.714155 0.627004 0.48584 0.449208 0.451605 0.384079 0.429739 0.373536 0.36335 0.339381 0.313449 0.34215 0.422353 0.357055 0.254101 0.235559 0.275674 0.333546 0.23633 0.35697 0.477856 0.425447 0.436344 0.459549 0.431558 0.307015 0.245067 0.179764 0.0872608 0.0745683 0.146322 0.185455 0.351535 0.449161 0.434049 0.37719 0.545918 0.429424 0.46333 0.3854 0.439393 0.549601 0.75173 0.699294 0.711304 0.712336 0.757679 0.620351 0.512512 0.516891 0.341079 0.258149 0.217992 0.201415 0.307089 0.345796 0.407144 0.342823 0.446394 0.453989 0.459866 0.288503 0.273962 0.223901 0.159836 0.153664 0.299087 0.424382 0.510741 0.597713 0.720224 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Yeah that does confirm the time series on the map. But if Bob Tisdale is also downloading data from there, then he must be getting something different since the graphs obviously do not match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Fwiw, the current Nino is expected to stay weak. From what I've seen with past Ninos, when it stays weak, global increases in fall and to the end of the year are generally not impressive. I find it very fascinating. The 0.34 in August and yearly trend so far matches up quite well with the data we have and our time UAH time series. I try to weigh GISS/NCDC/UAH/RSS in their proper context. Obviously the daily AMSU data makes it much more fun to follow. We are nearing a pinnacle that will give u a better understanding of the climate forces. from what I have seen in my accumulative feeble understanding of this, I think we would be cooling now if GHG forcing was more stable, not even gone but more stable. Our measuring of the energy imbalance shows us the Earth continue to take in more and more energy. Where that goes, what it get's used for and so on will have major implications on the global temperature scheme. While not linear I think the GHG forcing trend, solar variance, ENSO, Arctic amplification, Northern Hemisphere(land amplification, tied to ice and snow albedo feedback and ghg forcing), and the -PDO. ENSO variance is clear. There is a huge global response to ENSO, but ENSO varies wildly so it's common. There is the under lying warming trend. The 13 month average picks this up well. Northern Hemispheric Land amplification is also observed but can be muted by other factors. This is a very fascinating puzzle. I am not sure I should but the Northern Hemisphere waters are so warm. 2010 September: Globe:+0.48 NH:+0.26 SH:+0.55 Tropics:+0.23 2011 September: Globe:+0.29 NH:+0.30 SH:+0.27 Tropics:+0.18 Only through the 4th of September on UAH so it's not much of a helpful hint. Even if the Nino fades it will still be a warm contriibutor to the global temp regime. And with so much heat still in the Northern Hemisphere that will start being pushed into the atmosphere, I think we could see a couple pretty warm months. I am going ahead and predicting a .41(+/-0.025) for September on UAH. We haven't seen a direct warming response blowing the doors off the UAH 60-85N, but the AMO is going to be over 0.500 when August updates, we are still in a solar peak, al biet weak. The PDO is negative(-1.52) and their criteria is 20N poleward, the anomaly vs the 1971-2000 climo is 1.25C+. Removing the arctic and it's relatively the same. I am not sure how that works out. I don't know much at all about antarctica but it's warming recently, looks like the PV has been displaced over the ocean. This warming is reflected in the August UAH temps and on this graph. We will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Friv With Tisdale & Bastardi & Goddard all putting out unreproducible charts, is it possible the disinformation campaign has entered a new phase? I'm aware they've all done similar things in the past, but this seems as though they're marching in lock step into a brave new world where "facts" are simply manufactured as needed. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Friv With Tisdale & Bastardi & Goddard all putting out unreproducible charts, is it possible the disinformation campaign has entered a new phase? I'm aware they've all done similar things in the past, but this seems as though they're marching in lock step into a brave new world where "facts" are simply manufactured as needed. Terry I thought Tisdale was legit? Goddard is to irrelevant to acknowledge. Bastardi is likely doing all of this for $$$. He might have the same passion for weather as a met who is wiling to work in North Dakota with a Masters or PHD making 25-30K a year getting to make forecasts for a living. Another man might sell out his scientific integrity for 75, 100, 150K a year by whatever means. Bastardi at accuweather and now his new place get's paid more than most NWS mets to be a walking scientific joke. Some people have dignity and honor others don't. It is what it is. At this point I am not going to go down the road of Tisdale manipulating anything. But an answer would be nice. Only 5 days into September and so far it looks like the ENSO effect's/overall warm global SSTs are warming the lower troposphere. Channel 6 and 7 are warming slower so it looks like bottom up, that makes sense. Right about 37-40N the Northern Hemisphere Oceans, lakes, and smaller sea's are running very warm. I am not well versed in how they will disperse warmth into the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 AMSU Channel 5 has dropped signifcantly, and we're now even with last year and below 2010. September will still come in fairly warm on UAH I'd guess, but not as warm as August. Global SSTs also seem to be cooling off with the Niño eroding from the eastern end, cooling in the Gulf of AK, and a very chilly southern ocean: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 AMSU Channel 5 has dropped signifcantly, and we're now even with last year and below 2010. September will still come in fairly warm on UAH I'd guess, but not as warm as August. Global SSTs also seem to be cooling off with the Niño eroding from the eastern end, cooling in the Gulf of AK, and a very chilly southern ocean: So you expect 2012 to basically follow 2011 or fall below it the rest of the month, which would be a giant free-fall given the current sea surface temperatures compared to 2011. Through 12 days, 2012 channel 5 temps are running 0.0906C warmer than 2011. All things being equal adding that to 2011 would put 2012 at 0.38C. Of course they are not always equal. But even so, look below at the difference in 2011 vs 2012 global ssts. Probably had a lot to do with the huge fall off from Sept - Oct last year. Do you think 2012 will fall like that? MEI index in August was .539 a large drop from July but still much higher than 2011 by at least 1C. AMO index is running about .3C above 2011 in August. They actually slightly went up more the first week of September. PDO index was colder in July for 2012 than 2011. 2011- September 0.29C 2010- September 0.48C 2012- August 0.34C display plot oiv2.ctl ssta 1 03jun2011 to 11oct2011 display plot oiv2.ctl ssta 1 03jun2012 to 11oct2012 Don't get me wrong I am not trying to start a big argument. 2011 even with the large collapse in SSTs and and on the channel 5 temp set still finished with a 0.29C anomaly on UAH. 2012 has to finish at .34C or above to go against your assertion. I just don't see the evidence showing it cooling off enough for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 AMSU Channel 5 has dropped signifcantly, and we're now even with last year and below 2010. September will still come in fairly warm on UAH I'd guess, but not as warm as August. Global SSTs also seem to be cooling off with the Niño eroding from the eastern end, cooling in the Gulf of AK, and a very chilly southern ocean: I'm not sure it will have an anomaly lower than August. We're still over 2011 right now although dropping fast...but 2011 also dropped quite a bit. I'm more interested in what type of anomalies we'll have in the spring and summer if this Nino craps out on us. It will be interesting if we pull another La Nina coming off a weak El Nino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 So you expect 2012 to basically follow 2011 or fall below it the rest of the month, which would be a giant free-fall given the current sea surface temperatures compared to 2011. Through 12 days, 2012 channel 5 temps are running 0.0906C warmer than 2011. All things being equal adding that to 2011 would put 2012 at 0.38C. Of course they are not always equal. But even so, look below at the difference in 2011 vs 2012 global ssts. Probably had a lot to do with the huge fall off from Sept - Oct last year. Do you think 2012 will fall like that? MEI index in August was .539 a large drop from July but still much higher than 2011 by at least 1C. AMO index is running about .3C above 2011 in August. They actually slightly went up more the first week of September. PDO index was colder in July for 2012 than 2011. 2011- September 0.29C 2010- September 0.48C 2012- August 0.34C I'm not sure you have a good grasp on how the MEI and PDO indexes are determined... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I'm not sure you have a good grasp on how the MEI and PDO indexes are determined... Apparently not. I assumed it was just an average anomaly of the Nino1-4 regions combined vs climo for Nino's lat/long. Never the less the idea of positive vs negative fits for what I thought it represented, but it's nice to get to see on face value it wasn't what I thought it was. El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the most important coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon to cause global climate variability on interannual time scales. Here we attempt to monitor ENSO by basing the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) on the six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific. These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky ©. These observations have been collected and published in ICOADS for many years. The MEI is computed separately for each of twelve sliding bi-monthly seasons (Dec/Jan, Jan/Feb,..., Nov/Dec). After spatially filtering the individual fields into clusters (Wolter, 1987), the MEI is calculated as the first unrotated Principal Component (PC) of all six observed fields combined. This is accomplished by normalizing the total variance of each field first, and then performing the extraction of the first PC on the co-variance matrix of the combined fields (Wolter and Timlin, 1993). In order to keep the MEI comparable, all seasonal values are standardized with respect to each season and to the 1950-93 reference period. IMPORTANT CHANGE: The MEI used to be updated every month during the first week of the following month based on near-real time marine ship and buoy observations (courtesy of Diane Stokes at NCEP). However, this product has been discontinued as of March 2011 (ICOADS-compatible 2-degree monthly statistics). Instead, the MEI is now being updated using ICOADS throughout its record. The main change from the previous MEI is the replacement of 'standard' trimming limits with 'enhanced' trimming limits for the period from 1994 through the current update. This leads to slightly higher MEI values for recent El Niño events (especially 1997-98 where the increase reaches up to 0.235 standard deviations), and slightly lower values for La Niña events (up to -.173 during 1995-96). The differences between old and new MEI are biggest in the 1990s when the fraction of time-delayed ship data that did not enter the real-time data bank was higher than in more recent years. Nevertheless, the linear correlation between old and new MEI for 1994 through 2010 is +0.998, confirming the robustness and stability of the MEI vis-a-vis input data changes. Caution should be exercised when interpreting the MEI on a month-to-month basis, since the MEI has been developed mainly for research purposes. Negative values of the MEI represent the cold ENSO phase, a.k.a.La Niña, while positive MEI values represent the warm ENSO phase (El Niño). IMPORTANT ADDITION: For those interested in MEI values before 1950, a 'sister' website has now been created that presents a simplified MEI.ext index that extends the MEI record back to 1871, based on Hadley Centre sea-level pressure and sea surface temperatures, but combined in a similar fashion as the current MEI. Our MEI.ext paper that looks at the full 135 year ENSO record between 1871 and 2005 is available online at the International Journal of Climatology (Wolter and Timlin, 2011). as far as the PDO, PDO INDEX Updated standardized values for the PDO index, derived as the leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean, poleward of 20N. The monthly mean global average SST anomalies are removed to separate this pattern of variability from any "global warming" signal that may be present in the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Friv, chill out. Yes, it is bad. but you have to put the trolls into logical mode. You can not do that by being the mad scientist. Cool it with the colors. Add extra steps in the reasoning. Relax, it is not your fault. Have a beer. You are doing your job. They are not convince-able. If you can not make a proof that gives you certainty about the conclusion, you are incapable of coming to a reasoned conclusion in your own mind. They are the sheep that must be taught to weave linen stockings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Friv, chill out. Yes, it is bad. but you have to put the trolls into logical mode. You can not do that by being the mad scientist. Cool it with the colors. Add extra steps in the reasoning. Relax, it is not your fault. Have a beer. You are doing your job. They are not convince-able. If you can not make a proof that gives you certainty about the conclusion, you are incapable of coming to a reasoned conclusion in your own mind. They are the sheep that must be taught to weave linen stockings. I want to say not everyone is a troll here who doesn't seem to grasp what AGW is and how the climate system works. Some people legitimately can not step outside the analytical analysis box but others can't shake there emotional bias, and others are just flat out fake skeptical trolls. But we all make mistakes and spitting so much venom at others is not helpful, you don't want to be an ***hole or a jerk do you? I understand how frustrating it can be to get trolled hard by people who never take a moment to say oh my bad, I was a complete tool about that topic or whatever, you were right, please show me what I missed and congrats on figuring it out so well and bettering the knowledge for all of us. In a dream world we would all do that, instead of dealing with the absurd and personally comforming notion that there is actual more than one way to view any single piece of this puzzle on the ground of factual analysis. In other words there is only one side of the coin all others are frauds. We hardly ever work at getting the right answer as close to 100% as possible we spend so much time trying to tare down the folks who's ideas are closer than our own preconcienved notions. (Some are convince-able but they move from thing to thing clinging on to any hope like the global temperature record. Or thinking 8 months into the future at all times, that big cool down is coming just around the corner because of made up stuff about the Sun, that will never go away, some people can't be convinced of this reality, look at the three stoogies, Watts, Bastardi, and Goodard they promote this poison.) And step into the zone where logic, reason, data, conceptions, perceptions, spatial thought, spatial understanding come together so beautifully but that is a place of mind, a construct that is outside and devoid of linear time. I wouldn't trade my life for anyone else's or my brain. I wish my IQ wasn't stuck in the mid to upper 130s and was more like 160+ but we can't all get blessed with top 0.001% intelligence. If I was lucky enough to spend a day with someone of that ilk, I'd hope they would treat me equally they way I try to understand someone at 100 IQ even though I know I am thinking way beyond them, we are still over 99% identical everything I am they are. Somethings good they are I am not. When your lucky enough to land in the "higher thinking" club you have a responsibility to the 98% or so of people who are just as intelligent in many other ways or even more so than people like us to do what we do ethically with a sense of honor, purpose, truth, riteousness. I except many of the folks who are well down that thinking latter who pull humans out of burning buildings, protect and serve, make sure my food order is safe to injest, teach my 6 year old and so on have equal responsibility to anyone who is here to think up stuff. Our collective strengths and work will continue to propell our species to it's common goal of assention, higher knowledge, prominence, peace, securty, safety, love, and the common liberty and will to pursue their own happiness by all human kind. To make this job easier a common mutual respect is required by all peoples and party's involved. But there are big time draw backs, many like me skip steps forget about linear time over not properly account for it. Like I did with the Hudson Bay debable last year, which ended with me completely embarassing myself. But that's ok, it happens, if I can't admit when I mess up I can't grow and learn at the fast pace that I desire if at all, sometimes it takes longer than I wan't it to, but it always is for the better when I can admit fault and then try to understand where I went wrong. We have a lot of people here we converse with who have missed the boat on Arctic Sea Ice by enough to say FU&K IT, I'm out, I can't take this anymore. If you were being real with oneselves a real personal inventory like Skier did a month ago you can step back and discard the wrong or broken information in the brain and write new rules, codes, and laws for that particular function. Basically: The uptake transporters for dopamine and norepinephrine are overly active and clear these neurotransmitters from the synapse a lot faster than in normal individuals. This is thought to increase processing latency, diminishes working memory, and affects salience. this is why I can adapt to new information so easily my entire life, it's an amazing feeling and gift to not hold onto wrong views and so easily move on when better information is presented. I watch folks tirelessly for years bang their head on the wall over this stuff not able to el comprehendo why they are wrong. I notice when new ideas or data is presented we hear about the old "literature", I apprecaite the snail's pace scientific process. It protects us from radical divergence form a working model. But it is HORRIBLY inhibiting when these "literature" is to slow and static vs the rapidly unraveling climate system. Basic physics won't be changed unless something big comes to unfound an idea. But the cryosphere is changing at a century's pace in months or a couple year at this point. Literature and studies conducted in 2005 or 2009 can be obsolete by now. We have to check, recheck and do it all over again to make sure we don't get stuck there. 30 years is now 3 in the cryosphere. Stimulants, such as methylphenidate and amphetamine act on these neurons to increase the availability of dopamine and norepinephrine for neurotransmission. They act to correct the problem with the "wiring". Methylphenidate acts by blocking the dopamine and norepinephrine transporters, thus slowing the pace at which these neurotransmitters are cleared from the synapse. Amphetamine acts in a similar fashion, but also increases the release of these neurotransmitters into the synaptic cleft by temporarily reversing the uptake process. Now onto the change in salience which is the key to understanding this science with limited data ingested and no professional training. The salience (also called saliency) of an item – be it an object, a person, a pixel, etc. – is the state or quality by which it stands out relative to its neighbours. Saliency detection is considered to be a key attentional mechanism that facilitates learning and survival by enabling organisms to focus their limited perceptual and cognitive resources on the most pertinent subset of the available sensory data. Saliency typically arises from contrasts between items and their neighborhood, such as a red dot surrounded by white dots, a flickering message indicator of an answering machine, or a loud noise in an otherwise quiet environment. Saliency detection is often studied in the context of the visual system, but similar mechanisms operate in other sensory systems. When attention deployment is driven by salient stimuli, it is considered to be bottom-up, memory-free, and reactive. Attention can also be guided by top-down, memory-dependent, or anticipatory mechanisms, such as when looking ahead of moving objects or sideways before crossing streets. Humans and other animals have difficulty paying attention to more than one item simultaneously, so they are faced with the challenge of continuously integrating and prioritizing different bottom-up and top-down influences. Distinctiveness, prominence, obviousness. The term is widely used in the study of perception and cognition to refer to any aspect of a stimulus that, for any of many reasons, stands out from the rest. Salience may be the result of emotional, motivational or cognitive factors and is not necessarily associated with physical factors such as intensity, clarity or size. Although salience is thought to determine attentional selection, salience associated with physical factors does not necessarily influence selection of a stimulus[2] I can't sleep if the tiny light on the DVD player or xbox is on. I notice it all, it's a curse in that regard. The softest snoring, any sound out of place no matter how faint is incredibly distracting, this has ruined Music for me on many levels because I pick up background beats or noises that most people don't hear and it knocks me off the main part of the song that we are supposed to hear. I have to sleep with a loud humming sound like a air conditioner motor, a loud fan. But it has to drown out all other sounds including any light ear buzzing. However at the same time, this has given me the ability to learn climate and weather through looking at graphs and tying obscure pieces together. the puzzle fits, I have no idea how to present that to the folks here. Even though the puzzle fits is devoid of linear time. Seeing Causality as one is a non-linear concept, even if it's linear based, you know before and after. Apparently understanding albedo in a linear function with other factors all driving or hammering on it is hard for most people even PHD holding scientists sometimes can't lay out the puzzle pieces outside of linear function and answer the damn questions before trying to time stamp it's Effect. The most lost concept I see here is individual cause and effect within the climate system. Just because A is doing this does not mean or imply B, C, and F have to also do this. In other words these things before all have to be treated a separate things with their own set of unique property's we have to dissect and understand them as they are before we can understand them as they function in a non-linear system that functions on linear time. Arctic Sea Ice Antarctic Sea Ice Antarctic glacial floating ice Antarctic glacial land ice Southern Pole climate system Northern Pole climate system Sea Surface Temperatures Oceanic Heat Content Sea Ice albedo Greenland glacial ice Greenland glacial ice albedo Greenland floating glacial ice Land based surface temperature anomaly's Ocean based surface temperature anomaly's Solar flux/TSI/Solar Variation Sea Level Rise Snow cover anomaly's general albedo feedback Upper Ocean mixing and the list goes on and on. Anyways I wasted 27 min on this useless rant I won't get back. Let's all try to be a bit more repsectful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Bye Bye ice http://www.weatherbellmodels.com/weather/gfs/2012091506/arctic/gfs_t2m_anom_arctic_stamp.php (not for the feint of heart) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 It's also hard to judge month-to-month on UAH because some months seem to have naturally higher anomalies than others. To me, it looks as if we're cooling down from August on the Channel 5 temperatures and global SSTs. However, I didn't compare the average anomaly for August in the last few years to the average anomaly in September. That can be a factor I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 It looks like the good news bad news battle goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 It looks like the good news bad news battle goes on. My biggest issue with the whole AGW debate is the disinformation and scare mongering...the two usually in step with each other. If we aren't terrified of AGW, then something is "wrong" with us...that is the message many try to send. Not all, but many. I think its important to put the climate in perspective...and that means the global climate, not just focusing on one thing like arctic sea ice or Antarctica. Natural variability has always happened and will continue to happen regardless if some people want to believe it or not. AGW is just an underlying signal on top of that natural variation. Trying to pin down that underlying component is what we should be striving to do, not scare people with stories of more hurricanes or 3 meter of sea level rise by the end of the 21st century or use a global temperature spike from El Nino to say the "warming is accelerating". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Additionally, folks should not use a transition to a la Nina dominated decade to claim that co2 dominated forcing has slowed or stopped. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if we have 10 consecutive la Nina years in a row. The upward warming trend will eventually show itself. What many people on this board are afraid of is that people will use the last 10 years of slower surface warming to delay action on the emissions front. The last thing we need is to be complacent and then have an upward spike in temps when the PDO flips positive and solar output inevitably moves out of the local min. The faster the rate of warming in a 10-20 year period, the less we may be able to deal with consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Additionally, folks should not use a transition to a la Nina dominated decade to claim that co2 dominated forcing has slowed or stopped. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if we have 10 consecutive la Nina years in a row. The upward warming trend will eventually slow itself. What many people on this board are afraid of is that people will use the last 10 years of slower surface warming to delay action on the emissions front. The last thing we need is to be complacent and then have an upward spike in temps when the PDO flips positive and solar output inevitably moves out of the local min. The faster the rate of warming in a 10-20 year period, the less we may be able to deal with consequences. I agree...unfortunately many people did not use this logic when we had a spike in global temps during an El Nino dominated period in the 1980s/1990s and just assumed we would continue to warm at the same rate. We really only became aware of what the PDO was around the turn of the century, so still much is being learned from it. But its quite clear in the research done so far that it has a large significant correlation with ENSO on the decadal scale. Positive PDO will tend to coincide with more (and stronger) El Ninos and negative PDO will tend to coincide with more (and stronger) La Ninas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Additionally, folks should not use a transition to a la Nina dominated decade to claim that co2 dominated forcing has slowed or stopped. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if we have 10 consecutive la Nina years in a row. The upward warming trend will eventually slow itself. What many people on this board are afraid of is that people will use the last 10 years of slower surface warming to delay action on the emissions front. The last thing we need is to be complacent and then have an upward spike in temps when the PDO flips positive and solar output inevitably moves out of the local min. The faster the rate of warming in a 10-20 year period, the less we may be able to deal with consequences. I think the main reason people point out natural variation such as the PDO is because it is evidence that CO2 is not the only factor influencing climate/weather trends. The climate models may very well have the right idea in the long term, but it's already clear they don't account for everything that happens internally within the climate system. Which is perfectly understandable, given that climatology is such a young scientific field of study. And the fact is, many times even renowned scientists have been fooled into thinking AGW was responsible for a certain weather/climate trends, and then extrapolating into the future based on that reasoning - when in fact climate has always naturally been in a state of flux with different periods featuring different trends. In the late 1990s, very few scientists understood the PDO or how the +PDO phase had affected things the previous 20+ years. As a result, they believed that those trends were mainly reflective of AGW...and some have been slow to let go of that notion, despite the fact that our understanding (or at least awareness) of natural climate variation/phases has increased substantially since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Additionally, folks should not use a transition to a la Nina dominated decade to claim that co2 dominated forcing has slowed or stopped. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if we have 10 consecutive la Nina years in a row. The upward warming trend will eventually slow itself. What many people on this board are afraid of is that people will use the last 10 years of slower surface warming to delay action on the emissions front. The last thing we need is to be complacent and then have an upward spike in temps when the PDO flips positive and solar output inevitably moves out of the local min. The faster the rate of warming in a 10-20 year period, the less we may be able to deal with consequences. It seems remarkable that some here don't understand the "precautionary principle" involved with prospective changes due to AGW. It is a bit like the Hippocratic Oath - "First, do not harm". Yes, it is still impossible to prove apodictically that AGW will cause specific calamitous things to occur at specific times in the future. But the severity of the possible (and increasingly likely) consequences of AGW to all of us make it necessary to take out a bit of insurance against these consequences by curbing emissions - this is something we DO know enough to do. It is a prudent, conservative policy. Given the urgency, those who minimize and even ridicule this need are worse than irritating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 My biggest issue with the whole AGW debate is the disinformation and scare mongering...the two usually in step with each other. If we aren't terrified of AGW, then something is "wrong" with us...that is the message many try to send. Not all, but many. What if the facts and evidence support legitimate fear about the future of the planet and humanity? You are basically saying that if you are afraid or worried, you must be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I think the main reason people point out natural variation such as the PDO is because it is evidence that CO2 is not the only factor influencing climate/weather trends. The climate models may very well have the right idea in the long term, but it's already clear they don't account for everything that happens internally within the climate system. Which is perfectly understandable, given that climatology is such a young scientific field of study. And the fact is, many times even renowned scientists have been fooled into thinking AGW was responsible for a certain weather/climate trend, when in fact climate has always naturally been in a state of flux with different periods featuring different trends. In the late 1990s, very few scientists understood the PDO or how the +PDO phase had affected things the previous 20+ years. As a result, they believed that those trends were mainly reflective of AGW...and some have been slow to let go of that notion, despite the fact that our understanding (or at least awareness) of natural climate variation/phases has increased substantially since then. The IPCC never claimed to have natural variation fully included in their future projections. I wouldn't say that the PDO fooled climatologists, however. The important surface temperature implications that the PDO phase is represented in the Nino indicies (which we have a good understanding of). Many recent papers (Foster 2011, ect) have fully isolated the global warming signal and did not find it to be much (if at all) slower than the the IPCC projections in 2007. Additionally, we have seen the magnitude of natural variation prior to the 1950's and it does not at all resemble the massive temperature increase of the last 3 decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 The IPCC never claimed to have natural variation fully included in their future projections. I wouldn't say that the PDO fooled climatologists, however. The important surface temperature implications that the PDO phase is represented in the Nino indicies (which we have a good understanding of). Many recent papers (Foster 2011, ect) have fully isolated the global warming signal and did not find it to be much (if at all) slower than the the IPCC projections in 2007. Additionally, we have seen the magnitude of natural variation prior to the 1950's and it does not at all resemble the massive temperature increase of the last 3 decades. Another way to look at this is with the temperature record versus projections. Let's cherry pick between 2003-2012 and conceed that the trend on many of the global ST indicies have a nuetral to slightly positive trend (so let's call it a wash and say no trend). The natural variation of the period should suggest a negative trend (strong ninas at the end of the period and low solar activity). If we subtract the natural variability against the projected AGW signal of 0.2deg/decade, it would suggest that natural variation had a -0.2 degree pull on the trend the last decade. One can point out many instances before the 1970s that natural variability had that pull on a trend in a decade's time. Which is why I don't believe we should be comfortable with the current temperature regime and trends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 The IPCC never claimed to have natural variation fully included in their future projections. I wouldn't say that the PDO fooled climatologists, however. The important surface temperature implications that the PDO phase is represented in the Nino indicies (which we have a good understanding of). Many recent papers (Foster 2011, ect) have fully isolated the global warming signal and did not find it to be much (if at all) slower than the the IPCC projections in 2007. Additionally, we have seen the magnitude of natural variation prior to the 1950's and it does not at all resemble the massive temperature increase of the last 3 decades. 1. It's true that the IPCC never claimed to have natural variation fully included, but when they started making projections, there was very little understanding of natural phase changes anyway. 2. Just because ENSO was somewhat understood and acknowledged to have an impact on global temperatures does not mean that climate scientists 10-15 years ago were not making assumptions based on ignorance of the PDO. Remember, at one point in the late 1990s, a popular theory was that AGW was making +ENSO more common - based partly on the evidence of the past 20 years. We now know that to be false, and that the +PDO phase was largely responsible for the increased number of +ENSO events since the 1970s. 3. Well sure, if you just want to look at the 2007 projections...one would hope they would be more accurate than older ones. 4. Actually, if you look at the global (and Arctic) temperature increases from the early 1920s to 1940s, while the past 30+ years or so have seen somewhat greater increases, the increases then were pretty massive as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 What does everyone think of this interesting new paper by Solomon and Polvani? It suggests that stratospheric cooling is mostly due to ozone depletion. Quite interesting. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012JD017719.shtml This also agrees with Liu and Weng 2009 that stratospheric temperature declines may be mainly due to Ozone Depletion, since they found a complete reversal in stratospheric temperature trends starting from 1995. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 1. It's true that the IPCC never claimed to have natural variation fully included, but when they started making projections, there was very little understanding of natural phase changes anyway. 2. Just because ENSO was somewhat understood and acknowledged to have an impact on global temperatures does not mean that climate scientists 10-15 years ago were not making assumptions based on ignorance of the PDO. Remember, at one point in the late 1990s, a popular theory was that AGW was making +ENSO more common - based partly on the evidence of the past 20 years. We now know that to be false, and that the +PDO phase was largely responsible for the increased number of +ENSO events since the 1970s. 3. Well sure, if you just want to look at the 2007 projections...one would hope they would be more accurate than older ones. 4. Actually, if you look at the global (and Arctic) temperature increases from the early 1920s to 1940s, while the past 30+ years or so have seen somewhat greater increases, the increases then were pretty massive as well. Right. In the early 1920's to 1940's, natural variability had a large chunk of responsibility for a distinctly positive trend. However, natural variability is currently acting to force a negative trend in the last 10 years, but the AGW signal is masking it completely (which is why using 10 years for climate trends in erronous). My point is, that the AGW signal is generally well understood in the context of natural forcing. Therefore, the consensus of climate scientists sounding the "alarm" probably should not be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.