tacoman25 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 If this is a flatline, then I would hate to see what a warming trend looks like. The funny thing is that if you ran that graph between the mid 1930s and late 2000s, you would get essentially a flat trend. Regardless, no one is claiming a flatline from 1900-present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The funny thing is that if you ran that graph between the mid 1930s and late 2000s, you would get essentially a flat trend. Regardless, no one is claiming a flatline from 1900-present. I would hate to see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 If this is a flatline, then I would hate to see what a warming trend looks like. This is actually the flat line that Scott is referring to: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It doesn't really matter what the year turns out to be since we are talking YTD and 12 month records. It's been a very warm last 18 months in the U.S., no doubt about that. However, we saw some very cool periods in the U.S. (much cooler than the globe overall) from 2008-early 2010, so one has to be careful in applying too much of a AGW connection to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The funny thing is that if you ran that graph between the mid 1930s and late 2000s, you would get essentially a flat trend. Regardless, no one is claiming a flatline from 1900-present. If you start the annual temps in 1930...you can get as low as 0.05C per decade in the U.S. temp trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 So let me see if this is correct. The 00s can be blamed on natural variation like ENSO and Solar. Cool. But other warm periods like the 30s through early 50s and 80s through early 90s are primary AGW? So we can't have an underlying warm trend amid a substantial natural variation factor driving temps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Then why is the -PDO +AMO pattern warmer now than during the previous eras if the the temperature wasn't rising? Due to the underlying warming trend caused by AGW. His point is that natural factors are rarely pointed out when we are warm, but they are pointed out when we see a lack of warming or cooling. For some reason, many here seem to equate pointing out an underlying AGW trend with significant natural variation on the decadal scale (and even more on an annual scale) as denying AGW. Unless there's a significant lack of reading comprehension in here (and I'd like to think there isn't), I don't see how those two ideas can be mistaken as the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Actually the expanding ratio of record highs to lows is consistent with what you would expect to see in a warming climate. That's fine. I agree that the climate of the U.S. now is warmer than it has been for most of the past 100 years. But not by a lot. And not sure if you saw my point before, but using just warm records as a proxy is dangerous because of UHI. It's easier to get warm records for many locations than it used to be, regardless of overall U.S. climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I agree that the teleconnections this year were a natural for warm weather he in the US. I am just saying that the magnitude of the warmth is more likely under a warming climate. I like to take a holistic approach and consider all the indices combined with a warming pattern. The southerly flow for the U.S. the first six months of 2012 was basically unprecedented (and we can thank a west-based severe -PDO mainly for that pattern). When that happens, regardless of AGW, you are going to have a very warm year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The southerly flow for the U.S. the first six months of 2012 was basically unprecedented (and we can thank a west-based severe -PDO mainly for that pattern). When that happens, regardless of AGW, you are going to have a very warm year. Is this the reason for Greenland's record temperatures also? Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Is this the reason for Greenland's record temperatures also? Terry I have no idea if it is tied to that or not. Seems a bit off-topic, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Rural locations are experiencing record highs also. Most urban settings experiencing the expanding ratio since the 1970's have been urbanized well back into the 1900's. Don't you think the the NCAR knows this? I'm just saying, unlike the national temperature, station records are not adjusted for UHI or anything else. Something to keep in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 I'm just saying, unlike the national temperature, station records are not adjusted for UHI or anything else. Something to keep in mind. Let me try to sum up the whole UHI argument as used by pseudo-skeptics: Anthropogenic urban heat islands and anthropogenic land use changes create an illusion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) Did I get it close? Do you understand that when we start talking about what will need to be done to adapt to climate changes the whole topic of UHI goes out the window - because we have to adapt to the actual temps we will experience and it doesn't matter what percentage of the actual temperature is natural, or man-made, or UHI? If, for example, I'm laying out the power grid infrastructure for a city of one million residents I have to base the grid capacity design choices on the worst-case scenarios over the lifetime of the power grid. If I decide record setting heat is no problem because it's probably just UHI.the result will be repeated massive blackouts. The same is true about AGW driven precipitation changes, but adaptation is OT so I"ll save it for another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Let me try to sum up the whole UHI argument as used by pseudo-skeptics: Anthropogenic urban heat islands and anthropogenic land use changes create an illusion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) Did I get it close? Do you understand that when we start talking about what will need to be done to adapt to climate changes the whole topic of UHI goes out the window - because we have to adapt to the actual temps we will experience and it doesn't matter what percentage of the actual temperature is natural, or man-made, or UHI? If, for example, I'm laying out the power grid infrastructure for a city of one million residents I have to base the grid capacity design choices on the worst-case scenarios over the lifetime of the power grid. If I decide record setting heat is no problem because it's probably just UHI.the result will be repeated massive blackouts. The same is true about AGW driven precipitation changes, but adaptation is OT so I"ll save it for another thread. No. At least not for me, ORH, SVT, etc. It is apparent you aren't listening very well and are only interested in proving your points to whoever you see as the "opposition". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Is this the reason for Greenland's record temperatures also? Terry Isn't there a Greenland Thread for this comment? Use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Isn't there a Greenland Thread for this comment? Use it. Actually it was in response to someone who was blaming the PDO for the recent extreme temperatures, so it was quite on topic, as would discussion of other areas close to the US but further from or closer to the Pacific. I'm sure you didn't just show up to troll, so what is your explanation for the extremes that so closely mimic those predicted in Dr Hansen's recent paper? I've stumbled onto a plethora of your one line snarks, but don't believe we've ever heard much more from you. I assume, that like everyone else you are now convinced that those who first noted the effects of AGW have been vindicated, that you recognise that if we stay on the same path we, at some point, will have to face at least a seasonally ice free Arctic, and that the net results of this could have detrimental effects on those living in the good old US of A. That is unless you're one of the lunatic fringe that thinks it's all a conspiracy to raise our taxes, steal our freedom and is part of a natural pattern that will resolve itself as soon as some cycle or other reverts to it's previous pattern. Enquiring minds want to know. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 This is actually the flat line that Scott is referring to: Wasn't this one of the examples from Skeptical Science demonstrating how deniers manipulate data to show cooling or flat temperatures while the climate actually warms? Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roardog Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Actually it was in response to someone who was blaming the PDO for the recent extreme temperatures, Terry So you believe the PDO had nothing to do with the warmth in the US this year? Was it entirely AGW driven? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Actually it was in response to someone who was blaming the PDO for the recent extreme temperatures, so it was quite on topic, as would discussion of other areas close to the US but further from or closer to the Pacific. I'm not sure how the PDO is relevant to Greenland (probably not much), but it certainly is relevant to dominant patterns in the U.S. A -PDO pattern tends to lead to below normal heights off the west coast, and the stronger the -PDO, the stronger the troughing often is there. This in turn often leads to southerly flow for areas east of the deep troughing, in this case much of the U.S. as the -PDO pattern was displaced pretty far west. We saw one of the strongest -PDOs on record for Jan-August. I'm not saying this was the only factor that led to the record warmth over this period, but it probably played a large role in the strong/persistent southerly flow into the CONUS. As well as the drought for the central U.S. that helped intensify heat this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 Wasn't this one of the examples from Skeptical Science demonstrating how deniers manipulate data to show cooling or flat temperatures while the climate actually warms? Terry ORH was just demonstrating the magic of cherrypicking - that by careful selection of starting and ending points it is possible to demonstrate almost any trend. Or, as another poster wrote - if you torture data long enough it will say anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 So you believe the PDO had nothing to do with the warmth in the US this year? Was it entirely AGW driven? Actually the only thing that I believe is entirely driven is the Pavlovian response to AGW, driven in this case by the most efficient propaganda machine since Luntz named the bill giving industry the freedom to pollute the "Clean Air Act". If PDO was a major player in the US, was it also in Greenland? Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 ORH was just demonstrating the magic of cherrypicking - that by careful selection of starting and ending points it is possible to demonstrate almost any trend. Or, as another poster wrote - if you torture data long enough it will say anything. Wrong again. Seems to be a pattern with you. He narrowed in the area of contention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Actually the only thing that I believe is entirely driven is the Pavlovian response to AGW, driven in this case by the most efficient propaganda machine since Luntz named the bill giving industry the freedom to pollute the "Clean Air Act". If PDO was a major player in the US, was it also in Greenland? Terry Greenland is so far northeast of the U.S., and so much further away from the Pacific, that I doubt the PDO has much of an effect on Greenland patterns/temps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Then why is the -PDO +AMO pattern warmer now than during the previous eras if the the temperature wasn't rising? Could be any number of things, such as cloud cover, TSI, strength of oceanic flow, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Wasn't this one of the examples from Skeptical Science demonstrating how deniers manipulate data to show cooling or flat temperatures while the climate actually warms? Terry PhilipS said Scott was incorrect on any flat line trend since the late 1990s. He said "The phrase I bolded is the error/lie/disinformation that has been refuted countless times on this and other forums" So I pulled up the data for US temperatures in that time frame and we get a flat line. Not sure how that claim he made is a "lie". He certianly provdied zero statistical evidence to the contrary. I was simply showing what the trend was since other posters brought it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Didn't Hansen come out with a paper quite recently that projected more high extremes and fewer low extremes - Where the bell curve had moved to the right? Terry His paper, at least the one I remember, showed that the bell curve has already shifted to the right dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I'm not so sure the projections from Hansen's model in the 80s are very far off at all from reality in the U.S. Globally, the model projection runs somewhat too warm (not by too much) but the U.S. has been warming much faster than the globe since the 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I'm not so sure the projections from Hansen's model in the 80s are very far off at all from reality in the U.S. Globally, the model projection runs somewhat too warm (not by too much) but the U.S. has been warming much faster than the globe since the 80s. I don't know about his model projections, but the projections he gave in a newspaper article in like 1986 for 20-30 years down the road have proven too warm (unless you want to just take 2012 into the consideration). I'll find the link again, I posted it a year or two ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I don't know if I agree with all of this, I think it mis-characterizes what Hansen says a bit, but it is an interesting perspective. http://cliffmass.blo...distortion.html I think the valid point is about emphasis. It is true that we can say that the recent U.S. heatwave would not have happened without AGW and that AGW 'caused the heatwave.' But you don't often here Hansen and others say the heatwave would still have happened but just would be slightly less severe without AGW. It would be wise to always mention both in the same sentence. I've always defended Hansen when he makes scientifically supported statements (there's a few exceptions) but I think there is perhaps a valid point about emphasis. On the other hand, I don't think it is as scientifically/socially/politically important to remind people that a given heatwave is still 95% natural than the fact that records are piling up in mountains because of agw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Actually the expanding ratio of record highs to lows is consistent with what you would expect to see in a warming climate. To be honest, record highs and lows are entirely biased towards highs. Most rural stations away from UHI dont measure records at all, the urban airports do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.