tacoman25 Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 No, but it should be. Eh, even if it was, during that 90s period you mentioned it's not like HadCRU/UAH poles would have been setting new yearly warm temp records while other sources weren't. There simply was not the warm divergence like we have seen with GISS since 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I don't think saying someone is "a frickin apologist for AGW believers" or "needs to reexamine their own beliefs" is an antagonistic, nasty post. All I'm saying is that you used to be much more of a skeptic with very independent, self-aware viewpoints, and lately you seem to have fallen back in the mainstream along with constantly making excuses for the hype and errors of the AGW crowd. It's almost as though the skeptic perspective scared you, and you became uncomfortable being outside the scientific majority. I like how you conveniently leave off the comments about being "unable to think for myself" or "scared to be my own person." Even your milder comments about being a "fricking apologist" or lacking self-aware viewpoints really have no place in a substantive discussion. Stick to the substance and not the person. If you are going to attack me personally as you have done over and over and OVER, then I am going to respond. I will simply say my viewpoints are self-aware and critical. YOURS are not. YOU are obviously unable to think for yourself which is why you are fooled by skeptic talking points. Obviously each of us is going to think our understanding is the thoughtful self aware critical one. You don't seem to understand that sometimes people just disagree and the best way to resolve it is to stick to the substance. Instead you are so confident in yourself and baffled that anybody could disagree you resort to attacking them personally with accusations ranging from the milder "lack of self-awareness" to the various nastier insults above. None of this has any place in a substantive discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I like how you conveniently leave off the comments about being "unable to think for myself" or "scared to be my own person." Even your milder comments about being a "fricking apologist" or lacking self-aware viewpoints really have no place in a substantive discussion. Stick to the substance and not the person. If you are going to attack me personally as you have done over and over and OVER, then I am going to respond. I will simply say my viewpoints are self-aware and critical. YOURS are not. YOU are obviously unable to think for yourself which is why you are fooled by skeptic talking points. Obviously each of us is going to think our understanding is the thoughtful self aware critical one. You don't seem to understand that sometimes people just disagree and the best way to resolve it is to stick to the substance. Instead you are so confident in yourself and baffled that anybody could disagree you resort to attacking them personally with accusations ranging from the milder "lack of self-awareness" to the various nastier insults above. None of this has any place in a substantive discussion. I think saying that someone is "unable to think for himself" is substantive because it's a criticism of the fact that someone has become married to a singular viewpoint, such as AGW and the gospel of folks like Hansen/Viner, that the person is unable to separate himself from these perspectives and view them critically. It's not meant as a personal attack on your intelligence, but rather it's attacking your arguments on the basis that they are not a synthesis/critical analysis of various viewpoints, but just a parroting of the mainstream AGW material despite any inconsistencies or incorrect predictions. You have repeatedly defended Hansen and Viner for their comments, even though many others on this forum find them to be egregious. You have also departed greatly from the critical, skeptical perspective that defined your point of view on our radio show, The Jet Stream, and have moved much more towards the IPCC camp. I'm just making observations on how your commentary has wavered in recent months; I remember you were quite pointed in your attacks on McKibben and the Arctic Sea Ice Panel during the radio show, but you have since become an apologist for this type of "climate community." Perhaps you are concerned about being labeled "anti-environment" or being out of touch with your friends'/peers' positions on global warming, but I think you should examine how you've changed and whether this reflects your true thinking. If it does, then maybe you want to explain why you have gone from clearly being a skeptic to hugging the IPCC/Hansen bottom line. I am not baffled that anyone could disagree with me, but I do have confidence in my positions. I think there's plenty of room for debate regarding my positions on long-term solar activity (unproven), the role that the PDO and low solar will have on albedo and cryosphere feedbacks (speculative), and the amount of warming we'll see this century (also speculative). But I don't see much reason to argue against my saying that Viner's comment "British children won't know what snow is" was unreasonable...it was clearly an exaggeration, and clearly a manipulation of emotions about children's love for snow as a tool to influence popular thoughts on global warming. Same goes for Hansen and his comments about NYC being underwater...no reason to be an apologist for an individual whose alarmist comments are likely to lead the public and media astray. You have also repeteadly ridiculed some of my positions as impossible, even though they haven't happened yet....including my long-term predictions regarding a recovery in arctic sea ice, my predictions for 2011 global temperatures (which were predicated on the assumption of a multi-year Niña), etc. You've often made me look like a misinformed idiot on this board by attempting to verify my predictions before they happened, or pointing our mistakes that come from other sources like Watts. You shouldn't be blaming me if I don't exactly know the context of Trenberth's "denier" comment and thus make an assumption based on a Watts article, which you think is debatable/incorrect. Not everyone has hours to look through the Internet to verify every single comment made by Trenberth, and clearly Watts' message of Trenberth incorrectly linking weather events to AGW was well justified, despite the particulars. So stop going on these nit-picking frenzies, and go after Watts if you don't like his interpretation, not me for posting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I think saying that someone is "unable to think for himself" is substantive It's not. Stick to the merits of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 It's not. You didn't even read the rest of my post, and my justification for my comment. You couldn't have, as I literally posted three seconds ago. Bethesda is right: you routinely respond to posts without reading them through. Read first, shoot later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 You didn't even read the rest of my post, and my justification for my comment. You couldn't have, as I literally posted three seconds ago. Bethesda is right: you routinely respond to posts without reading them through. Read first, shoot later... I don't need to read the rest of the post. Saying someone is "unable to think for themselves" is attacking the person and has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the discussion. It's exactly these types of antagonistic posts, which you seem to think are perfectly acceptable, which derail threads into personal arguments. We can go back and forth forever accusing the other of "being unable to think," or we can stick to the merits of the argument and maybe get somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Seriously guys, can you take the personal stuff to PM? It really clutters up the thread and detracts from the actual discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Seriously guys, can you take the personal stuff to PM? It really clutters up the thread and detracts from the actual discussion. How many times does he get to call me names and accuse me of being unable to think before I can respond? His personal accusations and his justification of the personal accusations should all just be deleted. I've reported them so we'll see. I'm in 100% agreement that this personal stuff about who lacks critical thinking and who is "unable to think for themselves" has no place here. And yet he just keeps repeating it. All I have been saying is STOP so hopefully he or a moderator deletes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 How many times does he get to call me names and accuse me of being unable to think before I can respond? His personal accusations and his justification of the personal accusations should all just be deleted. I've reported them so we'll see. I'm in 100% agreement that this personal stuff about who lacks critical thinking and who is "unable to think for themselves" has no place here. And yet he just keeps repeating it. That's all I have been saying and so hopefully he or a moderator deletes it. Well, people commonly accuse skeptics of being unable to think for themselves and parroting oil-funded propaganda, so why can't the same apply to the other side? You've accused Bethesda multiple times of not thinking for himself and just ripping ideas from skeptic blogs on the Internet, so why am I not allowed to accuse you of doing the same thing, except with Hansen and Viner propaganda instead of oil-industry blogs? It's amazing the double standard you set, and then you attempt to get me in trouble with the moderators by repeatedly pointing out the unconscionable things I've done. I've never been warned or suspended for my posts, so apparently you are imagining things I'm doing wrong that no one else sees. And then you think you can "report" me like this is some sort of kindergarten tattle-tale game. Wake up Andrew, this is the real world, people can say what they like and you just have to be able to deal with it. Especially when you say the same things to Bethesda, you shouldn't be complaining. Besides, accusing some of a lack of critical thinking based on their analysis of the literature/media is not an unreasonable argument. I don't think that's personal in the same way that mentioning your dating habits would be. Attacking someone's style of debate or method of analysis is completely acceptable in a discussion of controversial matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Well, people commonly accuse skeptics of being unable to think for themselves and parroting oil-funded propaganda, so why can't the same apply to the other side? You've accused Bethesda multiple times of not thinking for himself and just ripping ideas from skeptic blogs on the Internet, so why am I not allowed to accuse you of doing the same thing, except with Hansen and Viner propaganda instead of oil-industry blogs? It's amazing the double standard you set, and then you attempt to get me in trouble with the moderators by repeatedly pointing out the unconscionable things I've done. I've never been warned or suspended for my posts, so apparently you are imagining things I'm doing wrong that no one else sees. And then you think you can "report" me like this is some sort of kindergarten tattle-tale game. Wake up Andrew, this is the real world, people can say what they like and you just have to be able to deal with it. Especially when you say the same things to Bethesda, you shouldn't be complaining. Besides, accusing some of a lack of critical thinking based on their analysis of the literature/media is not an unreasonable argument. I don't think that's personal in the same way that mentioning your dating habits would be. Attacking someone's style of debate or method of analysis is completely acceptable in a discussion of controversial matters. Maybe I have gone over the line in the past. Maybe not. Either way, you continue to derail this thread with personal attacks. If you're going to stick to the substance, do it, instead of repeating personal attacks that have no place in a substantive discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Maybe I have gone over the line in the past. Maybe not. Either way, you continue to derail this thread with personal attacks. If you're going to stick to the substance, do it, instead of repeating personal attacks that have no place in a substantive discussion. I have made a promise to be better about the personal attacks, and will try to adhere to it. Saying someone is not "open-minded" or a "critical thinker" is not the same as divulging elements of their personal life. All I am saying is I want to make that clear, and I want you to examine yourself for any double-standard that might appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Saying someone is not "open-minded" or a "critical thinker" is not the same as divulging elements of their personal life. I didn't say it was. This is a strawman. I said it has no place in substantive discussion and is a personal attack. It detracts from the merits of the argument. And yet you continue to repeat it over and over and over and over (~15 times in the past 3 pages, along with your justifications for why it's ok to say someone can't think for himself). I think saying that someone is "unable to think for himself" is substantive It's not. This statement is pretty indicative of what's wrong with your posts in general. Stick to the facts. As long as you continue to think that these types of personal attacks are acceptable, then these threads will continue to get derailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 April came in much warmer than expected at +.12 on UAH which is surprising given Ch5 came in at -.10 and the average conversion is +.10. 90% of the time a CH5 anomaly of -.10 would equate to a UAH anomaly between -.05 and +.05. The conversion of +.22 is the largest since Ch5 AQUA readings began in 2003. The previous records were: November 2006: +.216 January 2006: +.201 April 2008: +.199 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 April came in much warmer than expected at +.12 on UAH which is surprising given Ch5 came in at -.10 and the average conversion is +.10. 90% of the time a CH5 anomaly of -.10 would equate to a UAH anomaly between -.05 and +.05. The conversion of +.22 is the largest since Ch5 AQUA readings began in 2003. The previous records were: November 2006: +.216 January 2006: +.201 April 2008: +.199 Interesting. Just goes to show that predicting the final anomaly is an inexact science. Anyone know the RSS number for April? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Interesting. Just goes to show that predicting the final anomaly is an inexact science. Anyone know the RSS number for April? .11C I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Interesting. Just goes to show that predicting the final anomaly is an inexact science. Anyone know the RSS number for April? Inexact yes.. but I would still say the next time CH5 comes in at -.1 that UAH will likely fall between -.05 and +.05. Indicating uncertainty is the whole point of confidence intervals.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 We're +0.28C now...If current trends continue, we'll tank around +0.1C for the JAN anomaly, down to avg in FEB, then maybe -0.1C In MAR. Actually, the 1st 1/2 of JAN has been below the mean totally, so maybe we go even lower... ^^^^ Absolutely Nailed it Was too warm in JAN. April warmer than I thought on UAH at +0.12C, as we shifted out of a Nina-Heavy regime, and saw Major Changes in the Earth AAM. To sum up latest data 1) UAH sees the April spike as it did in 2008, (based on what was shown on AQUA). 2) Major MJO wave to give global temps a boost 3) Subsurface waters losing major El Nino Characteristics. MAJOR MJO Wave, Global temps are about to get a healthy boost as it heads into O1 and O8.... UAH sees a Spike of +0.22C, to rise to +0.12C RSS about 1/2 that. Subsurface waters: Poor Hansen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Do you have any evidence the MJO phase correlates to global temperatures at all....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Do you have any evidence the MJO phase correlates to global temperatures at all....? Its basic physics, a +Earth AAM correlates to an MJO in Phases 8 and 1, and they are Nino Phases..... + Earth AAM is always a Nina Killer, and is usually present in an El Nino. The -PDO is also under influence, although its also an influencer in itself since the ocean currents are what drive the PDO (presumably). So yes it will give global temps a boost. LT temps have been lagging the Sea surface by close to 5 months, so its almost a way to tell a portion of the future in Global temps 5 months out. From Clifford's post: EDIT: Andrew I never said anything about Global temps being affected short term V V V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Its basic physics, a +Earth AAM correlates to an MJO in Phases 8 and 1, and they are Nino Phases..... + Earth AAM is always a Nina Killer, and is usually present in an El Nino. The -PDO is also under influence, although its also an influencer in itself since the ocean currents are what drive the PDO (presumably). So yes it will give global temps a boost. Yes the MJO affects ENSO and ENSO eventually affects global temps... but that doesn't mean the MJO affects global temps in the short term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 EDIT: Andrew I never said anything about Global temps being affected short term Oh I thought "about to" meant soon. MAJOR MJO Wave, Global temps are about to get a healthy boost as it heads into O1 and O8.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Oh I thought "about to" meant soon. Poor ass wording, my fault. Meant that we'll see this manifest sometime down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Poor ass wording, my fault. Meant that we'll see this manifest sometime down the road. Ok, yeah, if we do manage to get a WWB out of it and some ENSO warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I just noticed... Clifford's graph is wrong... CH4 is not TLT. TMT and TLT are both calculated from CH5. CH4 has biases due to satellite drift and is not used. As Roy Spencer has repeatedly pointed out (as have I on this forum) the only channel which should be used is CH5 AQUA.. period. Also, AMSU finally updated and apparently anomalies have continued to go up. The peak to trough (anomalies) of the last 5-6 weeks is huge.. I don't see any other 5-6 week spikes this big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 I just noticed... Clifford's graph is wrong... CH4 is not TLT. TMT and TLT are both calculated from CH5. CH4 has biases due to satellite drift and is not used. As Roy Spencer has repeatedly pointed out (as have I on this forum) the only channel which should be used is CH5 AQUA.. period. Also, AMSU finally updated and apparently anomalies have continued to go up. The peak to trough (anomalies) of the last 5-6 weeks is huge.. I don't see any other 5-6 week spikes this big. Channel 5 has had a significant spike, but it did come down today, so we'll see if that starts another trend/pattern. You can also use the SST channel with decent accuracy, I believe. Global SSTs have dropped steadily in the last few weeks, despite an uptick today. SSTs are a good bit below 2009, which is about to undergo a spike, but still much higher than 2008. It's interesting to see the drop in global SSTs despite all this talk of the SOI and MJO. However, AMSU's take on the SSTs is confirmed by the latest NOAA SST anomaly map, which shows significant cooling in ENSO Region 3 as well as major cooling in the mid-latitudes of the North Atlantic and parts of the Indian Ocean. In the end, the trend on SSTs dictates where we go in terms of global temperature...those who said the cold March 2011 on Channel 5 couldn't be maintained were correct given how much warmer 2011's SSTs have been running compared to 2008. In the end, Channel 5 had a huge spike in April/May to get us back into accordance with the SSTs. In this case, global SSTs are indicating that global temperatures are probably going to stay pretty cool in the long-run unless we see a major Kelvin Wave that jump-starts an El Nino. Right now, 2011 is set to be a relatively cold year globally, and another year that continues the lower global temperature trend that's been established since 1998. Obviously there's a lot of uncertainly regarding ENSO at this point, with mixed signals from a subsurface/OHC that's been pretty warm (although recently dissipating) on the one hand, whereas on the other hand the late winter/spring ONI favors another La Nina, and the global pattern seems to have stayed very Nina-like until the last few days when we've seen a drop in SOI and increase in AAM. NOAA's SST map shows a large cold pool emerging in the N. Atlantic...could this finally be the downfall of the massive, record-breaking +AMO regime?: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Yes the SST data can be used too.. I was thinking only of the atmospheric channels. Also, the AMO has not been that positive this year thus far staying between 0 and .2 (a high value would be .4 or .5). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Yes the SST data can be used too.. I was thinking only of the atmospheric channels. Also, the AMO has not been that positive this year thus far staying between 0 and .2 (a high value would be .4 or .5). Well one controvertial point I have with you, the AMO is absolutely raging warm right now, you can also see the warm waters asociated with the +AMO extending into the Arctic. The +AMO was Record Shattering Last Year, and is very high right now. The "AMO regions" in my view are incorrectly established as well, since the +AMO waters actually go right up into the Arctic to the Ice Cap, and always have. The "white" you see on the Map below is Ice Cover. And Nzucker: I don't think so, definitely disagree. The AMO runs 10-15 yrs behind the PDO, the AMO went positive in 1994, but had been trending up since the mid 1988 or 1989 (forget which one). IMO, Expect the +AMO to begin waning in 2015-2020. The Cold waters in the central N atlantic were caused by a Massive Low Pressure over the Area. Otherwise, for Skier, A few things that I'm sure you agree with (they have nothing to do with AGW!) If you don't believe me, you can google or search NOAA for all of this. 1) The way the PDO, AMO, IOD, QDO & IPO cause long term climate fluctuations is not just due to the colder/warmer SST's & placements directly, but its the fact that these cycles Impact long term Atmospheric Patterns & Likely Global Cloud Cover as well, although that is harder to pinpoint. So looking at a given number in these regions short term means nothing in the Longer Term. Only Four years into a -PDO cycle won't give you the full impact/cooling right away, but as the -PDO regimine matures, the climate system responds over time. Of course the -PDO is having some effect now, but it accumulates, as the PDO and IPO are the strongest Drivers. Eventually other drivers change too, and the climate system responds to everything differently. The Pacific has 3 known Oscillations, the PDO, IPO, and QDO. If there are others, I don't know about them. The PDO and IPO are negative right now, but the QDO is positive. The Atlantic has a Northern Hemispheric AMO, and the Indian Ocean has the IOD. Right now, we're in a +AMO, +IOD, +QDO, and -IPO, -PDO., The IPO/PDO are both stronger than the AMO, IOD, and QDO. The QDO is an ~ 12 year cycle, the AMO/PDO/IPO are ~ 30 year cycles, the IOD is ~ 20 year cycle. 2) As for the whole 2008 vs 2011 debate, they are not comparable in the IOD & QDO regions, but are in the PDO, AMO, and IPO regions. I'm not really focusing on AMSU AQUA, as I'm certain the anomaly is going to drop back near or belw avg 15-25 days from now, but these short term responses from the climate system are really how things tend to go about... all the time. Saying "the PDO was colder in", or the "AMO was warmer in" etc etc etc is worthless, because its long term, and for the climate system, cloud cover, Arctic Ice, etc to respond to these drivers, it takes time, and is irrelavent. 3) Looking at Global SST data, it looks like global temps will peak overall either late summer or early fall. The APR UAH anomaly after La Nina has tended to run warm, so May or June likely end up colder. I I I V V V In reply to Andrew, this is the AMO REGIONS data for each month in 2011: AMO unsmoothed, detrended from the Kaplan SST V2 Calculated at NOAA/ESRL/PSD1 http://www.esrl.noaa...on/amon.us.data http://www.esrl.noaa...simeseries/AMO/ JAN: 0.183 FEB 0.146 MAR: 0.094 APR: 0.130 So on AVG, a +.150 or so, a Healthy Positive. The effect of the AMO, PDO IOD, etc..phases, on the climate system, is long term, as in, multi-decadal.... Not short term. AMO/PDO phases effect on climate is not just due to the shanges in SST's... that's may have little effect. The AMO/PDO/IOD/IPO/QDO affect the climate system multi decadally, not immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 The AMO is not 'very high' right now. Sorry that is just a straightforward fact. It has been between 0 and .2 this year so far... very high would be .4-.5+. It has been weakly positive the last several months. You don't get to just make up whatever definition and statistics for the AMO that suit you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 The AMO is not 'very high' right now. Sorry that is just a straightforward fact. It has been between 0 and .2 this year so far... very high would be .4-.5+. It has been weakly positive the last several months. You don't get to just make up whatever definition and statistics for the AMO that suit you. The raging warm AMO has been mitigated somewhat this winter/spring, but it's still there. I understand the importance of sticking to the index values, but I also agree with Bethesda that there is more to it than a number, just like how I was discussing "-PDO like patterns..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 The raging warm AMO has been mitigated somewhat this winter/spring, but it's still there. I understand the importance of sticking to the index values, but I also agree with Bethesda that there is more to it than a number, just like how I was discussing "-PDO like patterns..." No it's not still there. The number is completely representative of the short-term AMO state of the Atlantic Ocean. Now perhaps some of the effects it has on sea ice take longer to reverse, but the Atlantic Ocean is in a weakly +AMO state, not raging warm. The AMO is a very simple index unlike the PDO. I could understand what you are saying if you made a similar argument for the PDO state because that is a complex EOF analysis. But the AMO is defined as the anomaly of north Atlantic SSTs which is very simple. It's the average anomaly of the north Atlantic from 0 to 70N. The north Atlantic is simply not that warm right now. So both qualitatively and quantitatively I would say the AMO is only weakly positive. Instead of calling it "the AMO" we could just call it "North Atlantic SSTs" because that is what it is defined as. North Atlantic SSTs have been much warmer in recent years. In this case the number represents that fact quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.