skierinvermont Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 the arctic is clearly warm... Yes.. the chart that he keeps posting of GISS vs UAH in the arctic basically confirms GISS's arctic extrapolations. UAH warmed by ~.9C while GISS warmed by 1.1C. Pretty decent agreement.. certainly MUCH better than ignoring the arctic entirely like HadCRUT does. And this is not to mention it is quite likely the arctic warmed more at the surface than 15,000 feet up in the atmosphere, given the rapid loss of sea ice which would affect the surface more directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Yes.. the chart that he keeps posting of GISS vs UAH in the arctic basically confirms GISS's arctic extrapolations. UAH warmed by ~.9C while GISS warmed by 1.1C. Pretty decent agreement.. certainly MUCH better than ignoring the arctic entirely like HadCRUT does. And this is not to mention it is quite likely the arctic warmed more at the surface than 15,000 feet up in the atmosphere, given the rapid loss of sea ice which would affect the surface more directly. But the Antarctic cooled a bunch which reduces the Hadley bias... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 But it is your responsiblilty to not jump to false conclusions. ... Why would I Fill the HADCRUT with GISS data? HADCRUT shows Cooling in parts of the Arctic... GISS is too warm there. So,how do we know that the rest are not cooling as well? The Magnitude that GISS shows is BS. Not that we have the records anymore, since they were over at Eastern, but I'd like to toot my own horn and note that I was almost perfect with my 2010 "predictions". As for 2011... UAH: +0.14 GISS: +0.44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Not that we have the records anymore, since they were over at Eastern, but I'd like to toot my own horn and note that I was almost perfect with my 2010 "predictions". As for 2011... UAH: +0.14 GISS: +0.44 Well congrats on your predictions Not sure why you're quoting me though. Well, I think I do, but you've misinterpreted my comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 If you don't mind me asking, what's a good link that has the global temps from HadCrut, UAH, GISS, etc? I see a lot of charts of monthly temps from various sources, but I don't know where they come from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 If you don't mind me asking, what's a good link that has the global temps from HadCrut, UAH, GISS, etc? I see a lot of charts of monthly temps from various sources, but I don't know where they come from. Here are the data tables I use as a resource: HadCrut: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly GISS: http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts+dSST.txt RSS: http://www.remss.com...Ocean_v03_2.txt UAH: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 This is the best climate website you'll see IMO, it has everything that exists. http://www.climate4you.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The ECMWF weeklies are also bringing it to almost -.5C in the NH by week 3, and signs of an even larger drop afterwards! (albeit a bit of a recovery beforehand). The reasoning for this....the stratosphere over much of the globe (not just the pole) is actually warming in sub-par with a compact area of cooling right over the pole, in this time frame, which is unusual given the circumstance. Global temps looks to head into a downward spiral for a bit.....to put it lightly Is the model based global temp anomaly projections available on the net?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Is the model based global temp anomaly projections available on the net?? I don't think so, but I haven't looked. My Bro gets this stuff off the Euro pay site I think... I relay my info from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Global temps looks to head into a downward spiral for a bit.....to put it lightly Given January will probably be something like .1C on UAH given what CH5 shows so far... and you are predicting -.01C for the year, that doesn't sound like a "downward spiral to put it lightly" to me. Sounds like we're pretty much near rock bottom already in your opinion. All these "spiral" comments are a bit reminiscent of one Mark Serreze. A downward spiral to me implies more like <-.1C on UAH, IE another .2C+ lower, and lower than your typical La Nina year such as 2008, 1999, 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Given January will probably be something like .1C on UAH given what CH5 shows so far... and you are predicting -.01C for the year, that doesn't sound like a "downward spiral to put it lightly" to me. Sounds like we're pretty much near rock bottom already in your opinion. All these "spiral" comments are a bit reminiscent of one Mark Serreze. A downward spiral to me implies more like <-.1C on UAH, IE another .2C+ lower, and lower than your typical La Nina year such as 2008, 1999, 2000. January should be lower than .1C, given that current global temps are -.3C as we speak, but we're nowhere near rock bottom, which should come in the March/April timeframe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 January should be lower than .1C, given that current global temps are -.3C as we speak, but we're nowhere near rock bottom, which should come in the March/April timeframe. Still seems to me if you really believed a "downward spiral to put it lightly" were coming you'd predict lower than a fairly mundane -.01C for the year which is actually warmer than the past 3 Nina years that are comparable in strength to this one (1999,2000,2008). At least Zucker is willing to put the balls to the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Still seems to me if you really believed a "downward spiral to put it lightly" were coming you'd predict lower than a fairly mundane -.01C for the year which is actually warmer than the past 3 Nina years that are comparable in strength to this one (1999,2000,2008). At least Zucker is willing to put the balls to the wall. Uber +AMO. I'm actually concerned I may be too warm now, if I bust, its too warm. The uber +AMO is my reasoning for this, as I expect to to strengthen as we head into the summer months, but then again... The +AMO is still locked in the stratosphere, amazing how powerful it is on all levels. If it were neutral right now, I'd have guessed the global anomaly for 2011 at just above -.2C. The record -NAO we've been seeing has the +AMO as one of the drivers, Solar being the other. These two in tandom beat down the +QBO, thats pretty awesome. Unfortunately, they can't do it forever, as witnessed by the changes in the stratosphere. So now its +AMO/Solar against +QBO/ending SSWings... in the end, it comes around neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Uber +AMO. I'm actually concerned I may be too warm now, if I bust, its too warm. The uber +AMO is my reasoning for this, as I expect to to strengthen as we head into the summer months, but then again... The +AMO is still locked in the stratosphere, amazing how powerful it is on all levels. If it were neutral right now, I'd have guessed the global anomaly for 2011 at just above -.2C. The record -NAO we've been seeing has the +AMO as one of the drivers, Solar being the other. These two in tandom beat down the +QBO, thats pretty awesome. Unfortunately, they can't do it forever, as witnessed by the changes in the stratosphere. So now its +AMO/Solar against +QBO/ending SSWings... in the end, it comes around neutral. The AMO has almost no effect on global temperatures.. there is no detectable correlation between the AMO and temperatures. At least with the PDO there is a bit of a correlation. Regardless.. I wouldn't go around claiming temperatures are "going to spiral downwards, to put it lightly" if you're predicting a fairly tepid -.01C on the year which is warmer than all 3 of our last decent Nina events (99, 00, 08). I'd say something like, "global temperatures will drop slightly farther than their present levels." Enough of the hyperbole. Finally, the AMO is going to be stuck in a more and more positive state over time as the earth warms since its calculation is based on simple linear detrending of Atlantic SSTs instead of an EOF analysis like the PDO calculation. They should calculate the AMO the same way they calculate the PDO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The AMO has almost no effect on global temperatures.. there is no detectable correlation between the AMO and temperatures. At least with the PDO there is a bit of a correlation. Regardless.. I wouldn't go around claiming temperatures are "going to spiral downwards, to put it lightly" if you're predicting a fairly tepid -.01C on the year which is warmer than all 3 of our last decent Nina events (99, 00, 08). I'd say something like, "global temperatures will drop slightly farther than their present levels." Enough of the hyperbole. Finally, the AMO is going to be stuck in a more and more positive state over time as the earth warms since its calculation is based on simple linear detrending of Atlantic SSTs instead of an EOF analysis like the PDO calculation. They should calculate the AMO the same way they calculate the PDO. A "bit" of correlation? There is more correlation to global temperatures and multi-decadal PDO phases over the past 75 years than just about any other factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The AMO has almost no effect on global temperatures.. there is no detectable correlation between the AMO and temperatures. At least with the PDO there is a bit of a correlation. Regardless.. I wouldn't go around claiming temperatures are "going to spiral downwards, to put it lightly" if you're predicting a fairly tepid -.01C on the year which is warmer than all 3 of our last decent Nina events (99, 00, 08). I'd say something like, "global temperatures will drop slightly farther than their present levels." Enough of the hyperbole. Finally, the AMO is going to be stuck in a more and more positive state over time as the earth warms since its calculation is based on simple linear detrending of Atlantic SSTs instead of an EOF analysis like the PDO calculation. They should calculate the AMO the same way they calculate the PDO. You're downright stupid if you think the AMO has no effect on global temperatures, you obviously are clueless when it comes to the global climate. The AMO is an atlantic carbon copy of the PDO... there are 2 PDOs in the Pacific, the NH & the SH, the AMO as well goes through 30yr oscillations just like the PDO. There is also the IOD. The PDO went negative in 2006-07, the AMO will head negative around 2017. Here is the problem.. La Ninas tend to bring the PDO into negative territory, El Ninos Visa versa. However, the PDO base is something completely different, and it went negative in 2006-07. The notion that the PDO went negetive in 1999 is not correct, becaude it was only negative during the La Nina in 1999-2001. It went positive in 1976....and we can see the Increase in La Ninas since 2006-07. Its a 30 year cycle, we can see that it went back negative right on time, in 2006-07. Look at the Increase in La Nina since 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 A "bit" of correlation? There is more correlation to global temperatures and multi-decadal PDO phases over the past 75 years than just about any other factor. What looks better to you.. graph A of the PDO vs global temperatures, or graph B of global temperatures vs external forcings in W/m2 (mainly CO2). Graph B. I guess it depends on your subjective use of the word "bit" but I would say graph A is a "bit of a correlation" while graph B is a very strong correlation. Graph A: Graph B: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 A "bit" of correlation? There is more correlation to global temperatures and multi-decadal PDO phases over the past 75 years than just about any other factor. He has no clue what he's talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 You're downright stupid if you think the AMO has no effect on global temperatures, you obviously are clueless when it comes to the global climate. If it had an effect, then there would be a detectable correlation. And there isn't. At least the PDO correlates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 If it had an effect, then there would be a detectable correlation. And there isn't. At least the PDO correlates. Wrong, it can just be overwhelmed by other factors. Doesn't mean the AMO is unimportant. Obviously warmer SSTs in any part of the ocean increase global temperatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 What looks better to you.. graph A of the PDO vs global temperatures, or graph B of global temperatures vs external forcings (mainly CO2). Graph B. I guess it depends on your subjective use of the word "bit" but I would say graph A is a "bit of a correlation." Graph A: Graph B: Last 50yrs of warming predicted by natural cycles: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/minority-report-50-year-warming-due-to-natural-causes/ Predicting Northern Hemispheric Warming Since 1960 Since most of the recent warming has occurred over the Northern Hemisphere, I chose to use the CRUTem3 yearly record of Northern Hemispheric temperature variations for the period 1900 through 2009. From this record I computed the yearly change rates in temperature. I then linearly regressed these 1-year temperature change rates against the yearly average values of the PDO, AMO, and SOI. I used the period from 1900 through 1960 for “training” to derive this statistical relationship, then applied it to the period 1961 through 2009 to see how well it predicted the yearly temperature change rates for that 50 year period. Then, to get the model-predicted temperatures, I simply added up the temperature change rates over time. The result of this exercise in shown in the following plot. What is rather amazing is that the rate of observed warming of the Northern Hemisphere since the 1970’s matches that which the PDO, AMO, and SOI together predict, based upon those natural cycles’ PREVIOUS relationships to the temperature change rate (prior to 1960). Again I want to emphasize that my use of the temperature change rate, rather than temperature, as the predicted variable is based upon the expectation that these natural modes of climate variability represent forcing mechanisms — I believe through changes in cloud cover — which then cause a lagged temperature response. This is powerful evidence that most of the warming that the IPCC has attributed to human activities over the last 50 years could simply be due to natural, internal variability in the climate system. If true, this would also mean that (1) the climate system is much less sensitive to the CO2 content of the atmosphere than the IPCC claims, and (2) future warming from greenhouse gas emissions will be small. <!– This entry was posted on Sunday, June 6th, 2010 at 6:51 AM and is filed under Blog Article. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. –> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Your opinions and assumptions here show that you are biased. You don't know that the baseline update was done for political reasons, and for you to assume that UAH is guilty of that and comparing it to as if GISS moved back their baseline (which would obviously be a lot different) is not a balanced viewpoint. How is it different than the NOAA moving the U.S. anomaly baseline forward? Tell that to the skeptics including posters on here who also think the baseline switch was stupid. NOAA moves their baselines forward for weather purposes.. but the climate indexes which they control do not change baselines. There are all valid reasons for the baselines used by the various indexes. GISS and HadCRUTd have stuck with the most recent baselines that were available when they developed their indexes.RSS uses the most recent period that was available when they overhauled their data around 2000.UAH has decided to switch without any valid explanation and when it makes no sense. It just complicates things. 1000s of researchers have used this data in published articles.. now you have to convert baselines if you want to read any of that. It's pretty telling that RSS didn't switch but UAH did. If you want me to admit that I don't know for a 100% fact that Roy Spencer switched it partly because it makes the anomalies appear lower, fine I will admit that. But given what a poor decision it was to switch, it seems pretty likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Read my above post. Anyone who thinks there is no correlation to global temps is misguided, its right there in front of everyone. The Long Term warming over the past 2 centuries created by Solar is seperate from the 60 year fluctuations created by PDO/AMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Wrong, it can just be overwhelmed by other factors. Doesn't mean the AMO is unimportant. Obviously warmer SSTs in any part of the ocean increase global temperatures. Wrong. Your lack of statistical understanding is apparent. Given enough data, statistical studies like Don's can detect even very weak correlations that are overwhelmed by other factors. Correlation studies can detect the mere .1C effect that solar cycle has even underneath all the other much larger factors. However, no correlation with the AMO is found similar to the solar correlation. I've explained this to you before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Skier, I see you posting...You didn't read! This is why you keep loosing climate debates, you can't read to save your life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Last 50yrs of warming predicted by natural cycles: http://wattsupwithth...natural-causes/ Predicting Northern Hemispheric Warming Since 1960 Since most of the recent warming has occurred over the Northern Hemisphere, I chose to use the CRUTem3 yearly record of Northern Hemispheric temperature variations for the period 1900 through 2009. From this record I computed the yearly change rates in temperature. I then linearly regressed these 1-year temperature change rates against the yearly average values of the PDO, AMO, and SOI. I used the period from 1900 through 1960 for “training” to derive this statistical relationship, then applied it to the period 1961 through 2009 to see how well it predicted the yearly temperature change rates for that 50 year period. Then, to get the model-predicted temperatures, I simply added up the temperature change rates over time. The result of this exercise in shown in the following plot. What is rather amazing is that the rate of observed warming of the Northern Hemisphere since the 1970’s matches that which the PDO, AMO, and SOI together predict, based upon those natural cycles’ PREVIOUS relationships to the temperature change rate (prior to 1960). Again I want to emphasize that my use of the temperature change rate, rather than temperature, as the predicted variable is based upon the expectation that these natural modes of climate variability represent forcing mechanisms — I believe through changes in cloud cover — which then cause a lagged temperature response. This is powerful evidence that most of the warming that the IPCC has attributed to human activities over the last 50 years could simply be due to natural, internal variability in the climate system. If true, this would also mean that (1) the climate system is much less sensitive to the CO2 content of the atmosphere than the IPCC claims, and (2) future warming from greenhouse gas emissions will be small. <!– This entry was posted on Sunday, June 6th, 2010 at 6:51 AM and is filed under Blog Article. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. –> Again... no correlation my a**. Remember, PDO since 1960 is predominately positive even with the negaitve phase through 1976, you can see by the forcings attributed, the PDO has a high positive impact. Positive since 1976-2006, even 2009-2010 was positive due to El Nino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 What looks better to you.. graph A of the PDO vs global temperatures, or graph B of global temperatures vs external forcings in W/m2 (mainly CO2). Graph B. I guess it depends on your subjective use of the word "bit" but I would say graph A is a "bit of a correlation" while graph B is a very strong correlation. Graph A: Graph B: There has obviously been an underlying warming trend over the past 100 years. But as far as fluctuations within that warming trend, the PDO has very good correlation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Skier, I see you posting...You didn't read! This is why you keep loosing climate debates, you can't read to save your life! I wasn't responding to your post. I will respond to your post shortly, once I go read the method Spencer used to make that "model". I've read it before and it is mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 There has obviously been an underlying warming trend over the past 100 years. But as far as fluctuations within that warming trend, the PDO has very good correlation. I can agree with this. No point arguing over semantic subjective definitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.