skierinvermont Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 To get back to the problems with Spencer's PDAT: 1. According to his method, an airport in a place with 1 person per square mile will warm .06C/decade faster than a place with 0 people per square mile. How is one person going to cause 1.5F of warming per century on his own? 2. It doesn't matter at all if the one person has lived there forever.. for whatever reason if 1 person lives there, the place will warm faster than a place where nobody lives. Physically this does not make sense. UHI occurs because of population increase, not population itself. A town that has had no population growth for decades should not be warming faster than the surrounding uninhabited area. It might be warmer because of UHI, but the rate of warming would be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 UAH isn't magical. The extra heat being trapped and released still goes into the same pot has the rest of the Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 NCDC: Climate Highlights — January The average temperature for the contiguous United States during January was 30.3°F, or 0.1°F below the 20th century average. The January 2014 temperature ranked near the middle of the 120-year period of record, and was the coldest January since 2011. Despite some of the coldest Arctic air outbreaks to impact the East in several years, no state had their coldest January on record. Climate Highlights — winter-to-date (December 2013–January 2014) For the first two months of the winter season, the contiguous U.S. average temperature was 30.6°F, 1.1°F below the 20th century average, and the 33rd coldest December-January on record. This was the coldest December-January since 2010/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 We should be a lock to pass 2010-2011 (actually we already have in the updated/revised Dec/Jan data on NCDC)...we actually have a shot at 2009-2010 because of how cold February has been and the potential for significant cold in the final 5-7 days of the month across the CONUS....but my guess is we will fall a bit short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 2010-2011 had most of its negative anomalies in the far SE United States, not that they don't count, but it didn't impact life and property anywhere near as much as 2013-2014 so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I guess the Global Warmers trial should begin around 2030. I wonder how they will answer the prosecutions questions about how could they ignore the snowy and cold winters that took off around 2000, how could they ignore that temps peaked prior to 2000. Now I imagine the answers will be the same as they always are-Hot, cold, snowy, wet or dry-it's all caused by global warming and especailly by those nasty humans and especially by those successful and idustrious Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 What a fool! Prepare to be blindsided by destiny. Those carbon fumes are good for plant growth and more is always better. America even has the most climate contrarians, we are so good at breaking trends and leading the way, no one can beat us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Here is a graph from the U.S HCN network showing that this winter so far is the 3rd coldest on record for the CONUS. Of course I assume all the global warmers will trash it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Even if it was the 3rd coldest (which it is not), it would just become another statistical annual record of noise. January recently broke out of it's 5+ year long cold spell and came in 4th warmest on record globally. If you're simply acknowledging these impressive anomalies, fair enough. If you are here to imply this year is significant in light of AGW then no. I know you are running out of trump cards and it's laughable at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Even if it was the 3rd coldest (which it is not), it would just become another statistical annual record of noise. January recently broke out of it's 5+ year long cold spell and came in 4th warmest on record globally. If you're simply acknowledging these impressive anomalies, fair enough. If you are here to imply this year is significant in light of AGW then no. I know you are running out of trump cards and it's laughable at this point. what??? Running out of trump cards? My point is we really don't have good data for the USA that has not been tampered with. I state nothing about AGW or CO2. The Earth has stopped warming and I actually believe we will begin a cooling phase for the next few decades. The CAGW folks are the ones running out of answers and excuses...it's a PR nightmare for them. I do believe CO2 levels will lessen any potential drop in temperature...but ocean cycles IMO, looking at the data, seem to be what is correlating best to the variations in climate. Also global cloud cover too is likely affecting global temps which could be modulated by the Sun's magnetic field which is at historic low-levels. It all points toward cooling unless CO2 with strong positive feedbacks are correct. That would be the only way we continue to warm unabated. Maybe it will..and I will be totally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 what??? Running out of trump cards? My point is we really don't have good data for the USA that has not been tampered with. I state nothing about AGW or CO2. The Earth has stopped warming and I actually believe we will begin a cooling phase for the next few decades. The CAGW folks are the ones running out of answers and excuses...it's a PR nightmare for them. I do believe CO2 levels will lessen any potential drop in temperature...but ocean cycles IMO, looking at the data, seem to be what is correlating best to the variations in climate. Also global cloud cover too is likely affecting global temps which could be modulated by the Sun's magnetic field which is at historic low-levels. It all points toward cooling unless CO2 with strong positive feedbacks are correct. That would be the only way we continue to warm unabated. Maybe it will..and I will be totally wrong. Ah, another steaming pile of your pseudo-skepticism, topped with a confection of conspiracy theory. But seriously, you take a brief period of weather for a single country - well, not even the whole country, just a cherry-picked portion of the country - and claim that it has significance for global climate change? How do your numbers look if you include the whole US? Or, better yet, the whole world? And, FYI, the Earth has not stopped warming, fundamental physics shows that we will not be cooling for the next few decades, and the Sun is not a major factor in recent climate change - so the only thing you got correct in your post is that you will be totally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Even if it was the 3rd coldest (which it is not), it would just become another statistical annual record of noise. January recently broke out of it's 5+ year long cold spell and came in 4th warmest on record globally. If you're simply acknowledging these impressive anomalies, fair enough. If you are here to imply this year is significant in light of AGW then no. I know you are running out of trump cards and it's laughable at this point. Oh I know, the quicker guys like him shutup, the faster we get off fossil fuels... right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Ah, another steaming pile of your pseudo-skepticism, topped with a confection of conspiracy theory. But seriously, you take a brief period of weather for a single country - well, not even the whole country, just a cherry-picked portion of the country - and claim that it has significance for global climate change? How do your numbers look if you include the whole US? Or, better yet, the whole world? And, FYI, the Earth has not stopped warming, fundamental physics shows that we will not be cooling for the next few decades, and the Sun is not a major factor in recent climate change - so the only thing you got correct in your post is that you will be totally wrong. The Earth has stopped warming since the late 1990s. That is pretty much well known. Not sure where you get your info from. Everyone knows their has been a "pause" in global warming since the late 1990s. Have you been living in a cave? Or just can't accept that the climate models likely are wrong. And I never said one cold season in one part of the world cancels the effects of CO2. You made that assumption. I do think the role of CO2 is overstated in our climate system. The feedbacks are likely too high in the climate models. There are many PHD atmospheric scientists who believe this. Many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 The Earth has stopped warming since the late 1990s. That is pretty much well known. Not sure where you get your info from. Everyone knows their has been a "pause" in global warming since the late 1990s. Have you been living in a cave? Or just can't accept that the climate models likely are wrong. And I never said one cold season in one part of the world cancels the effects of CO2. You made that assumption. I do think the role of CO2 is overstated in our climate system. The feedbacks are likely too high in the climate models. There are many PHD atmospheric scientists who believe this. Many. It's very possible OHC has been rising since the LIA, but we have no way of knowing for certain either way and they will just point to that to counter your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 The Earth has stopped warming since the late 1990s. That is pretty much well known. Not sure where you get your info from. Everyone knows their has been a "pause" in global warming since the late 1990s. Have you been living in a cave? Or just can't accept that the climate models likely are wrong. And I never said one cold season in one part of the world cancels the effects of CO2. You made that assumption. I do think the role of CO2 is overstated in our climate system. The feedbacks are likely too high in the climate models. There are many PHD atmospheric scientists who believe this. Many. Has oceanic heat content risen since the late 90s? The statements I bolded are completely wrong. There's simply not two ways about it. Quite frankly, you keep posting about what you "think" but I never see any proof at all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Has oceanic heat content risen since the late 90s? The statements I bolded are completely wrong. There's simply not two ways about it. Quite frankly, you keep posting about what you "think" but I never see any proof at all for it. His statement is wrong not just because OHC has continued to rise, but because surface temperatures have been rising slowly as well at a rate of about .07C/decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 It's very possible OHC has been rising since the LIA, but we have no way of knowing for certain either way and they will just point to that to counter your post. OHC almost certainly has been rising since the LIA as indicated by rising sea levels throughout the 20th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 The feedbacks are likely too high in the climate models. There are many PHD atmospheric scientists who believe this. Many. No there are not many. The few that do say this (like Spencer, Lindzen, Christy etc.) have made a fortune off their denial and/or have raging political biases and/or have taken money from the fossil fuel industry. There probably are quite a few atmospheric scientists who would argue for a sensitivity closer to 2C than the 3C typically found in most models. But most scientists agree it is likely higher than 2C and probably between 2-4C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 His statement is wrong not just because OHC has continued to rise, but because surface temperatures have been rising slowly as well at a rate of about .07C/decade. Agree 100%. The skeptics' obsession over "the pause" is nothing short of fascinating. We're talking about a high-inertia system operating in a non-linear manner. Temporary pauses in atmospheric warming should be expected, followed by relatively rapid phase shifts. GCMs are not designed to predict these temporary blips, so claiming the pause disproves the modeling is an outright lie. It doesn't matter whether or not the trend since 2001 (or whenever) is slightly up or slightly down. People can get the trend they want from selective starting points, different datasets, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Agree 100%. The skeptics' obsession over "the pause" is nothing short of fascinating. We're talking about a high-inertia system operating in a non-linear manner. Temporary pauses in atmospheric warming should be expected, followed by relatively rapid phase shifts. GCMs are not designed to predict these temporary blips, so claiming the pause disproves the modeling is an outright lie. It doesn't matter whether or not the trend since 2001 (or whenever) is slightly up or slightly down. People can get the trend they want from selective starting points, different datasets, etc. You seem to have a strange penchant for completely dismissing the GCM's failures in the "pause". It is one thing to scoff at outlandish claims that it means global warming has stopped or the theory has been shattered....but it is another to pretend that both climate scientists expected this and GCMs are still on track and the pause is worth nothing more than a footnote. The slowing of global surface temperatures can mean several things, and the peer review evidence supports multiple viewpoints. This is not a black/white argument or interpretation. One possible explanation is the GCMs are too sensitive to positive feedbacks in GHGs...particualrly water vapor/clouds. Another explanation is that the ocean is able to sequester more heat than previously expected. Yet another is the GCMs are poor at resolving aerosols. Finally...it could be just a total fluke and the GCMs are right, but just got unlucky with a roughly 2 sigma event over a 20 year period. It could be a combination of these. There's many angles to the climate science debate...and ECS is just one of them. TCR is probably more important from a policy standpoint and many of the new papers are focusing more on the TCR. There's a reason papers are coming out on these variables and the models' struggles....and its not because the GCMs are performing satisfactory. Pointing that out doesn't mean someone is denying global warming either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 You seem to have a strange penchant for completely dismissing the GCM's failures in the "pause". It is one thing to scoff at outlandish claims that it means global warming has stopped or the theory has been shattered....but it is another to pretend that both climate scientists expected this and GCMs are still on track and the pause is worth nothing more than a footnote. The slowing of global surface temperatures can mean several things, and the peer review evidence supports multiple viewpoints. This is not a black/white argument or interpretation. One possible explanation is the GCMs are too sensitive to positive feedbacks in GHGs...particualrly water vapor/clouds. Another explanation is that the ocean is able to sequester more heat than previously expected. Yet another is the GCMs are poor at resolving aerosols. Finally...it could be just a total fluke and the GCMs are right, but just got unlucky with a roughly 2 sigma event over a 20 year period. It could be a combination of these. There's many angles to the climate science debate...and ECS is just one of them. TCR is probably more important from a policy standpoint and many of the new papers are focusing more on the TCR. There's a reason papers are coming out on these variables and the models' struggles....and its not because the GCMs are performing satisfactory. Pointing that out doesn't mean someone is denying global warming either. Well it all depends how important you think climate models are for determining ECS. Obviously you know they are not the only line of evidence. If you think that they are the primary method, then I can see how the disparity is significant. But I would argue that GCMs are not the primary method for determining ECS. So the disparity is not particularly damaging to our knowledge of ECS. In that case, the disparity is really only interesting from a technical scientific modeling perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Well it all depends how important you think climate models are for determining ECS. Obviously you know they are not the only line of evidence. If you think that they are the primary method, then I can see how the disparity is significant. But I would argue that GCMs are not the primary method for determining ECS. So the disparity is not particularly damaging to our knowledge of ECS. In that case, the disparity is really only interesting from a technical scientific modeling perspective. I agree with you. However, that is why I also mentioned TCR being a more focused on metric in recent studies over ECS. ECS is relegated to a trivial stat in terms of policy if it is not very applicable to the next 100-200 years. If we have an ECS of say, 2.6C, but a TCR of 1.3C...and the rest of the ECS takes hundreds of years to realize, then we are really only concerned about the TCR. The GCMs generally realize most of the ECS in the TCR which is why they warm us so quickly in the 21st centruy. Finding out how realistic that is becomes an important component of climate science as it relates to policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.