Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 Next
Comments 90551 to 90600:
-
johnd at 08:11 AM on 29 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Peter Hogarth at 07:07 AM, I think you will find that one of your excerpts from the paper is the same as one I offered earlier. I find that one has to be careful to understand whether at various points they are examining what influences are being manifested in the physical world or in the modeling. I am not sure what the points are of your last two comments. Can you elaborate. -
The Day After McLean
Moderator/DB @ 22 - The appropriate HTML code for limited image sizes has vanished from the Comments Policy page, where I have frequently copied it before. Might this be restored? I found it quite helpful. The last time I wanted to post a limited size image I had to go to a previously posted image on an old thread and "view source" to remind myself of the syntax. Not terribly "user friendly". In that regard, it might also be worth showing the hypertext for italics, bold, and underlines on that page, if the moderators consider those helpful for the general posting.Moderator Response: (DB) Sure, KR, I'll take care of it. Edit: Done. -
scaddenp at 07:48 AM on 29 March 2011Models are unreliable
" then why has no skeptic produced a model with a set of parameters that can explain the climate of the 20th century without CO2 radiative forcing? Has this been done?" This is a point that needs some further emphasis. It would be a telling blow to climate science if you could fiddle with the parameterization so as to reproduce historical temperature records without a CO2 influence. Considering the rubbish that opponents do fund, wouldnt attempting this be a better bet than dubious disinformation? AR4 model will run on a modern desktop. Even a TAR model would be devastating, so not that difficult if parameterization is so tunable. Petroleum companies certainly have the resources - hey they could contract my institute to attempt it! That would be fun. Back in real world, this has happened because it cant. The tuning argument is from those that dont understand the process. Its FUD created to rationalize debelief in a message that they dont want to hear. -
damorbel at 07:27 AM on 29 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #870 Fred Staples you wrote:- 1/"It is much easier to say what heat is not, than what it is." - Heat is what is measured by temperature, don't you think? 2/"Back Radiation : 333 Watts per square meter, absorbed by surface (it says)....Quite absurd" - Fred, what I like about 'Back Radiation' is that it goes straight into the surface, nothing is reflected, even though most of the surface is water with a refractive index of 1,33; I'm sure Fresnel is weeping in his grave! -
les at 07:25 AM on 29 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Looks like Obama is putting physics to rights... "As the largest consumer of energy in the U.S. economy, the Federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentally-responsible products and technologies," said President Obama. -
muoncounter at 07:24 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
johnd #25: "my money is on JAMSTEC" I note you did not specify a temperature for 2011 in your reply, so where the pass line is in this craps game isn't clear. I guess it's always prudent to save some room for a late-innings goalpost shift. "there are some who can produce work that is accurate, but many who can't." Is your standard here that 'accurate' means 'agrees with you' and 'inaccurate' means 'warming'? "The early bird might be the party pooper, but they do get the worms." If by early, you mean predictions made in say, 1988?Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed date. -
johnd at 07:22 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Just to add to the mish-mash of ENSO predictions, here is a reliable prediction going forward with the prediction made at this time last year.
-
Albatross at 07:20 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
JohnD, Let us cut to the chase. This post is about McLean's dubious forecast for global SATs in 2011. 1) How much are you willing to wager that McLean's forecast is going to be correct? You said earlier that "my money is on JAMSTEC, as it has been for some years now". That forecast is largely irrelevant, but how about you put money where your mouth is instead of floating red herrings? 2) Or do agree with that McLean's forecast is hogwash? -
scaddenp at 07:10 AM on 29 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
#869. Stunning. Please show us your sums for calculating the average surface temperature and lapse rate for say earth, venus, mars by this incredible piece of physics. I am really interested. After all this can be done by normal climate science. Any alternative explanation that you think avoids such "errors as violation of 2nd Law" has to do so as well. Physci claim he/she could though we are still waiting. -
Peter Hogarth at 07:07 AM on 29 March 2011Weather vs Climate
johnd, you seem to have either slightly misinterpreted the Luo paper or deliberately quoted out of context. It proposes that short term enhanced land surface temperatures are driven mainly by Sea Surface temperatures (SST) and heat exchange, rather than directly by GHG and radiative effects. They show that short term (seasonal to interannual) variations in Surface Air Temperature (SAT) is driven mainly by SST (the topic of their paper). They also accept SST is a longer time constant function due to longer term natural variations superimposed on a warming trend due to radiative forcing and GHG. If true, this implies better predictability of regional SAT at periods of over a year by using SST conditions to initialise the models. Some quotes from the paper: “We note that the SST warming itself may be driven by both the increasing GHGs forcing and slowly-varying natural processes (Solomon et al. 2007). The SST change was found to play a dominant role in determining the land/ocean warming contrast probably via complex hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections”. “Considering large uncertainties in local climate response to GHGs forcing but relatively robust response of the global mean temperature (Solomon et al. 2007), here we examine potential influence of the trend of global mean surface temperature on climate predictability at lead times of up to 2 years”. “The warming trend in the tropics, partly due to the increasing GHGs forcing (Liniger et al. 2007), is about two-thirds of the global warming (Fig. 7b).” And the last sentence of their conclusion: “The intrinsic predictability of global warming, which is arisen from the long memory of ocean warming, provides hope for enhanced prediction of climate anomalies (interannual variations + warming trend) under the increasing GHGs forcing” -
johnd at 07:07 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
muoncounter at 06:32 AM, my money is on JAMSTEC, as it has been for some years now. Regarding computer modeling, the operative word is "can". As I often note,all to frequently, there are some who can produce work that is accurate, but many who can't. It depends on how advanced they are in being able to identify what is relevant and what is not. It has been noted elsewhere of the improvements that have occurred in weather forecasts over the decades. As in every endeavor, all players are not moving in lockstep, rather they are moving up a ladder, and the rung the majority occupy now was occupied by someone else a decade ago, and so it will be a decade from now for the rung that someone else now occupies. That reality applies to all fields. The early bird might be the party pooper, but they do get the worms. -
Paul D at 07:02 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Artificial leaf: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110327191042.htm Interesting idea, produces hydrogen. It isn't clear how efficient it is in comparison to other methods of producing hydrogen. -
Fred Staples at 07:00 AM on 29 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Heat. It is much easier to say what heat is not, than what it is. It is not energy, although it is measured in the same units. Because it is not energy, it cannot be trapped, stored or transferred. The internal energy of a system can be defined and measured; it is a property of a system. Heat is not a property of a system. There is no such thing as the internal heat of a system. Most of the confusion in climate science explanations arises because heat and energy are treated as synonymous. Unfortunately, it is conventional to speak of heat transfer when we mean net energy transfer. It works if we keep the definition in mind. Heat is a process. It is energy in transit. It is the net energy transferred across the boundary of system due to a difference in temperature between a system and the surroundings of a system. The idea of net energy transfer is crucial. At the microscopic level, energy can travel in both directions between a higher and a lower temperature. The rate of transfer will be greater from the higher to the lower, so the net transfer will be from the higher to the lower and, risking confusion, we can call this heat transfer. By definition, therefore, it is uni-directional. Spontaneously, heat transfer will cool the higher temperature system and warm the lower temperature. Eventually, all systems in thermal contact will come to equilibrium at the same temperature. This does not necessarily stop energy transfer. It does stop heat transfer. That is why the “back-radiation” explanations of AGW are misleading at best, or wrong. All the explanations which claim direct warming of the surface from back-radiation violate the second law. Heat, net energy, travels only from a source to a sink; from a higher to a lower temperature. This is the only way that raw energy can actually do anything, either generate useful work or warm something. Heat (useful energy) cannot go backwards. For global warming, the first source is the sun, and the earth is the sink. For the atmosphere, the earth is the source and the atmosphere (at a lower temperature) is the sink. Finally, the atmosphere becomes a source and space (close to absolute zero) is the ultimate sink. Quite simple, indeed obvious. No-one would contradict that, surely. Have a look at the version of the Trenberth diagram at post 50, which is quoted all over the blogosphere: Outgoing Radiation: 396 watts per square meter Direct to Space : 40 watts per square meter Back Radiation : 333 Watts per square meter, absorbed by surface (it says) Quite absurd. The correct version is at page 6 of A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Grant W Petty. The net outgoing radiation is 21% of the solar energy entering the atmosphere, or 71.7 watts per square meter. This is, of course, a surface cooling effect, alongside conduction and convection (23.9 watts per square meter), and evaporation (78.5 watts per square meter). All these combined are atmospheric warming effects. So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake, as this thread suggests in the introduction? G and T are undoubtedly correct as far as most journalistic, political, and blogosphere posts are concerned. However, G and T did not address the interaction between outgoing radiation to space and the lapse rate, which is the favoured explanation of some of the climate scientists and the RC blog. Before we try to decide, we will have to examine the lapse rate. -
Albatross at 06:58 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Michael @18, The MetOffice agree with Hansen. They released their official forecast for 2011 in December 2010: "Although La Niña has stabilised, it is still expected to affect global temperature through the coming year. This effect is small compared to the total accrued global warming to date, but it does mean that 2011 is unlikely to be a record year according to the Met Office prediction based on the three main datasets. Nevertheless an anomaly of 0.44 °C is still likely — with the range very likely to be between 0.28 °C and 0.60 °C. The middle of this range would place 2011 among the top 10 warmest years on the record." Also of note, is the UK Met Office's statement that: "Over the years 2000–2010 that the Met Office has issued forecasts of annual global temperature, the mean value of the forecast error is 0.06 °C." Impressive indeed. Now what are McLean's margins of error when predicting global SATs? -
dana1981 at 06:55 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Yes, the strength and length of the La Nina cycle is really irrelevant here. The point is that McLean is predicting a 1-year temperature drop nearly 3 times larger than any previous 1-year temperature change over the past 130 years. ENSO simply isn't capable of causing a 0.8°C cooling in 1 year. In fact, it took anthropogenic CO2 emissions nearly 100 years to cause a temperature change that large. The prediction is flat-out nuts. -
From Peru at 06:53 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
To moderator: Sorry for the huge sizes of the images, I don't know how to rescale them.Moderator Response:[DB] If you use this as an example, replacing 1 with the left arrow tag and 2 with the right arrow tag & put your desired URL between the double quotes, you will get a clickable, linked, appropriately-sized inline picture in your comment:
1a href=""21img width="450" src=""21/a2
-
From Peru at 06:52 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
The prospects for a cool 2011 are melting away. The La Niña is dying: First, see the Australian BOM graphs on NINO indices: ENSO monitoring graphs NINO 3.4 has warmed to -0.47. This is already NEUTRAL territory, as defined by the range -0.5ºC > NINO3.4 < 0.5ºC. The other NINO indices has also warmed, they are currently at: NINO4: -0.34ºC NINO3: -0.32ºC NINO2: +0.26ºC NINO1: +0.24ºC All neutral. The subsurface temperatures are even more indicative. There is a huge volume of anomausly warm water below the weakly cool surface layer, and is spreading eastwards:
The Equatorial Upper-Ocean Heat Anomalies are now positive (warm). The warm anomaly is in average +0.4ºC:
It seems that is very likely that will will NOT just return to ENSO-neytral condictions in a few months (BOM show neutrality already), but we will enter an El Niño. Seeing the huge volume of subsurface warm water, I suspect that the El Niño will be strong.
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed image sizes. -
damorbel at 06:50 AM on 29 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #865 RW1 you wrote:- 1/"But the temperature is about 288K - not 279K. How is that so?" Apart from the fact that this 'average' temperature is not accurately known (NASA have a webpage somewhere with +-5K on some median temperature) - all gravitatioally bound concentrations of gas have a temeperature that rises towards the (gravitational) centre, in a star it reaches somewhere between 10^10K and 10^15K, hot enough for thermonuclear ignition. Even the paltry 85km of the Earth's atmosphere shows a temperature profile due to the planet's gravity. It is interesting to note that this gravitational temperature increase is a feature of very deep mines where, in addition to the increasing heat from the Earth (which is very variable with depth) a mine of 3km depth can have additional temperature rise of between 10 and 18K purely due to the higher air pressure at that depth. 2/"Do you agree that all of the Sun's emitted energy is radiative?" - Both electromagnetic and particulate radiation. 3/"Do you agree that the Sun's emitted energy is transparent through space to the Earth?" - I think the nswer is yes. 4/"Do you agree that the Sun's emitted energy is transparent through space to the Earth?" - No. the Earth's atmosphere absorbs all UV <0.3 microns, about 10% of the Sun's output and I believe about 30% in the infrared. 5/"Do you agree that space is colder than than the Earth's atmosphere?" - Space does not have a temperature. Different locations get heat from stars in varying amounts. At night the sky without the Sun has an apparent temperature of 2.7K, this is called the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB for short. 6/"Do you agree that the atmosphere of the Earth is colder than the surface of the Earth?" - Over a given location - most of the time (except in the stratosphere). (Havn't I seen this stuff before somewhere?) 7/"Do you agree that the atmosphere of the Earth is colder than the surface of the Earth?" - No. 8/"Do you agree that the emitted 390 W/m^2 is a result of the Earth's surface temperature and nothing else?" - See 7. 9/"Do you agree that the emitted radiation from the surface is mostly NOT transparent to the atmosphere?" - See above. 10/"Do you agree that a lot of the surface emitted radiation is absorbed and re-emitted isotropically by the atmosphere?" - Yes Now be so good as to answer my question:- What % of the heat tranferred to the atmosphere from the ground by radiation:- 14%?......40%?.......90%? (You can make your own suggestion if you like.) -
dana1981 at 06:50 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
actually thoughtfull - I think you've nailed the point that the up-front costs (i.e. buying an EV or solar panels) are significant, but in the long run the net cost is small and we even save money. The problem is convincing people to make the up-front investments, especially in today's political climate where politicians are trying to cut funding from as many programs as possible. Of course that's where the carbon price comes in. But then they say you're taxing people and businesses, and we're also very anti-tax right now. So ultimately you have to put it all together in a climate bill and sell it to the American people. Which Democrats did successfully in 2009 - a majority of Americans supported the legislation, and it passed the House, but the Senate Republican minority blocked it. And then we elected a bunch more of them in 2010. Americans support this legislation, but consider it a very low priority. So ultimately it boils down to the fact that we need to convince Americans not only that climate legislation is a good idea, but that they need to make it a high priority, and make politicians who block it pay at the ballot box. -
Albatross at 06:48 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
muoncounter @17, Sweet :) -
Albatross at 06:47 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
I do not understand why "skeptics" posting here insist on going on about the current ENSO. Even if the current event maintains its current intensity (which is doubtful) and persists into the Boreal winter, annual global SATs will be warmer than those in 1956 or 1985, on that I am willing to wager money. "Skeptics" how much are you willing to wager on McLean? Are you really that faithful? As Dana has noted: "According to NASA GISS, the average land-ocean global temperature anomaly in 1956 was –0.17°C. Matching 1956 would require a 0.8°C drop from the average 2010 temperature. It's true that the current La Niña cycle is a strong one, but it's not that strong!" McLean's prediction was bust the very moment he uttered it. What is telling is that "skeptics" here (and elsewhere) continue to refuse to be true skeptics and call McLean et al. on their utter nonsense or to distance themselves from his BS. Instead they choose to use it as an opportunity to float more red herrings and obfuscate. And FWIW, and again it is not really relevant given the known maximum perturbation that La Ninas have on global SATs, IRI (who use multiple sources of dynamical and statistical guidance) are predicting ENSO neutral conditions by early summer, perhaps sooner.
-
michael sweet at 06:40 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
It is appropriate to compare Dr. Hansens predictions to see who does better. In this article (on page 5) Dr. Hansen predicts that 2011 will be warm but not record setting. He says that if the El Nina shuts off that 2012 might be a record hot year. Perhaps you could add Hansens prediction to figure one so people can see who does better. -
muoncounter at 06:32 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
johnd#14: "There has been no reason given yet that it cannot repeat the 3 consecutive La-Nina years" I take this to mean your money's on McLean? If not, how low do you think the global temperature anomaly for the year will go? "JAMSTEC are one of the most reliable sources for these predictions" Sooo, the computer models they use for their predictions are reliable? But that would mean ... climate modeling can be accurate! -
Rob Painting at 06:07 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Muoncounter @ 13 - "How much will you bet that this prediction will be carefully buried by the denialosphere by then?" And then carefully exhumed by Sks authors and compared to actual observations. Figure 1 in the post is a pearler!. -
Alex C at 05:57 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
CBD brings up a good point with the fact that the satellite data only goes back to 1979. If McLean is using the UAH temperature data, then he is cherry picking. Why not use the GISS data or NCDC data or HadCRUT data, or whatever data set he used to base the 1956 year fantasy off of, as the data for current values? Is it because, conveniently for him, satellite data responds more dramatically to ENSO than ground-based measurements? I also agree that since McLean says "1956 or even earlier," his intent was not "just barely above 1956" but "since that year." He's talking temporally, so the temperature should be even lower than 1956 to account for the 1964 dip. -
actually thoughtful at 05:53 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
The conversation has turned to one of my favorite points regarding climate change. The actual cost is likely to be zero, or even negative (that is profitable). Many people are paying ~100/fillup of their vehicle. Switch that to a Nissan Leaf and 8 solar panels: price per fillup is now zero. Payback time for the solar panels and the extra cost of the electric car? About 5 years Many people pay 600-1800/year for heating. Switch that to solar thermal and pay 150-500. Payback time - less than 10 years for propane and electric, 10-14 for natural gas. And on and on and so it goes. The strongest known force in the universe is an American's desire to avoid a "tax" - so put a tax on carbon and watch how fast the offending item (carbon) is not used. Now some caveats - the Leaf only goes 100 miles per charge, some of the carbon tax avoidance will come out as burning trees in inefficient wood stoves. American cities would be smart to ban wood stoves now, so as not to look the bad guy when we finally get a carbon tax. Now factor in the growth to the economy in switching over, and increased financial stability of all participants (the utility can't turn your heat off when it is solar powered and contained on your property). As a society, we will be dramatically and strictly better off. -
johnd at 05:46 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
muoncounter at 04:47 AM The JAMSTEC ENSO forecast: "The current strong La Nina has started to weaken and would decay further in following boreal spring and summer seasons. The decaying La Nina would show a Modoki pattern. The cold La Nina condition might rebound in fall and persist up to early 2012." There has been no reason given yet that it cannot repeat the 3 consecutive La-Nina years of the 1970's, or even the early 1900's. For over a year, there have been ever increasing comparisons being made between the evolving conditions and 1974. In addition a -ve IOD will continue for the 2nd half of this year. JAMSTEC are one of the most reliable sources for these predictions, possibly through giving due recognition to the importance of the IO. http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d1/iod/sintex_f1_forecast.html.var -
dana1981 at 05:24 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
A price on carbon emissions really wouldn't be that tough for the US. As I've discussed in previous posts, proposed legislation like Waxman-Markey was projected to cost the average American 75 cents per week per person. Gas prices would only rise modestly, energy bills would effectively remain flat as people took advantage of energy efficiency programs funded by the carbon revenues. And overall benefits would significantly outpace costs. And I also linked to a discussion of a real-world example, the RGGI in the Northeastern US. Americans are definitely afraid it will be painful, but studies show it really won't be that bad. -
johnd at 05:13 AM on 29 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Alexandre at 22:39 PM, to avoid getting side tracked we will need to keep reminding ourselves of the topic of this thread, and also that the paper I referenced is relevant to that topic. Regarding your "pretty good projections", whilst I don't mind discussing such a short time frame, generally if anyone other than someone pro AGW introduces examples of less than 30 years, accusations of cherry picking resonate loudly. Your "pretty good projections" are based on a rise of 0.33°C in the global mean surface temperature increase(land and ocean combined) for the 16 years after 1990. My paper indicates the linear trends of global, terrestrial, and ocean mean SAT during 1982 to 2008 as being 0.14, 0.21, and 0.10°C per decade, respectively. This is based on data from the global NCEP Reanalysis which is made available for climate studies. So immediately there is considerable difference of opinion there. Next your study ties temperature and sea level rise directly to CO2. My study has this to say on page 6 -- "With assimilating merely historical SST observations, the SINTEX-F coupled model reproduces realistic interannual variations and long-term trend of the global SAT during 1982-2008. The ENSO-related interannual signals and colder/warmer states before/after the 1997/98 climate shift are correctly captured." Regarding what might be driving such warming, the study notes "Whether the terrestrial warming might be caused by local response to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations or by sea surface temperature(SST) rise is recently in dispute." What the researchers found as part of the study was that depending on the time frame being modeled, it was not necessary to include GHG's in order to find correlation. -
CBDunkerson at 05:00 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Yeah, I knew that came out wrong as soon as I hit 'Submit'. Hence the followup. Basically, >if< the U.S. continued its current emissions then a price on those would significantly impact it and thus there is a 'logical reason' for resistance to putting a price on carbon. However, comparison to other industrialized nations indicates that those high emissions levels are not required to maintain the U.S. standard of living - other countries achieve comparable results with vastly lower emissions. Something of a self-fulfilling prophecy... the U.S. does not want to put a price on carbon because that would be costly with their current emissions... which are outlandishly high because there is no price on carbon. -
muoncounter at 04:47 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
CBD#12: "the remaining ten months would have to average below -0.42 C anomaly" NOAA predicts ENSO neutral by June. So only 3 months remain for this radical cooling hypothesis to work. How much will you bet that this prediction will be carefully buried by the denialosphere by then? -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Philippe, Phil - My personal suspicion is that global warming is due to an overabundance of hotheaded naked ice borers reducing polar ice, increasing albedo. Obviously in this crisis we should organize large hunting parties to reduce this overpopulation of dangerous animals. Oh, and /sarcasm... -
muoncounter at 04:44 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
CBD #41: "I don't think your emissions per capita = lifestyle quality" I certainly do not suggest that; it is almost Gillesian in its illogic. My statement was in response to Jay Cadbury's 'China is to blame'. I suggest that if there is a price to emitting CO2, it will impact the US -- and that is why the US is so stubbornly resistant to paying that price. -
CBDunkerson at 04:43 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
I should clarify... You (muoncounter) are likely correct that these usage figures are a good indication of why places like the U.S. (and Australia, which has similar results) are so averse to regulation. However, the much lower ratings in other locations with similar standards of living would seem to indicate that those fears are misplaced. -
CBDunkerson at 04:40 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
muoncounter: "Which countries stand to lose more of their 'individual lifestyle' if the cost of emitting CO2 increases? Probably those where the per capita rate is highest." United States: 18.9 metric tons per capita United Kingdom: 8.9 metric tons per capita France: 6 metric tons per capita Is the 'individual lifestyle' in the United Kingdom less than half as good as it is in the United States? Less than a third in France? If not, then I don't think your emissions per capita = lifestyle quality hypothesis holds up. -
CBDunkerson at 04:31 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Looking at the UAH results;
it seems like the coolest year thus far was 1985 at about -0.35 C anomaly. Given that the first two months of 2011 were right around 0 C anomaly that'd mean the remaining ten months would have to average below -0.42 C anomaly in order for 2011 to be the coldest in the UAH record... which would of course be a pre-requisite for claiming that it was the coldest since 1956 even if we (as McLean seems to be doing) ignore the surface temp record.
Not as completely implausible as dropping below the 1956 GISS value, but still not going to happen.
-
dana1981 at 04:01 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Daniel - John discussed Forster et al. 2010 in the posts I linked to in the article (toward the beginning).Moderator Response: [DB] Sorry, Dana. Missed that reference. -
Alexandre at 03:58 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
To boldly predict what no man has predicted before... -
Daniel Bailey at 03:53 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
As the redoubtable Albatross shows here, McLean was refuted by Foster et al 2010. The Yooper -
dana1981 at 03:52 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
bibasir - yes, as you discovered, McLean is using UAH data. However, since the satellite record began in 1979, I had to use a surface temperature record to evaluate McLean's comparison to 1956. Djon - the problem is I don't know which data set McLean is using. There may be a surface temperature data set in which 1956 is colder than 1964. This was just a quick and dirty illustration of how bizarre McLean's prediction is, but you may be right and it may even be worse than I discussed. -
Albatross at 03:51 AM on 29 March 2011A climate 'Gish Gallop' of epic proportions
Good idea @ 13 Ken. -
Albatross at 03:48 AM on 29 March 2011Weather vs Climate
At the end of the day, the"skeptic" tactic of conflating weather and climate to confuse lay people is scientifically wrong and a red herring. "Skeptics" here either seem to be trying to detract from that disingenuous tactic by their camp or worse yet, are defending it. ENSO is transient and has been shown to play very little role in modulating long-term temperature trends. See Foster et al. (2010): "The suggestion in their [McLean et al. 2009] conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in that paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations." Foster et al. go state in their conclusions that: "It has been well known for many years that ENSO is associated with significant variability in global mean temperatures on interannual timescales. However, this relationship (which, contrary to the claim of MFC09, is simulated by global climate models, e.g. Santer et al. [2001]) cannot explain temperature trends on decadal and longer time scales." So I challenge skeptics here to, instead of pontificating and talking through their hats, publish a paper which successfully challenges/refutes the findings of Foster et al. (2010). -
CBDunkerson at 03:36 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Given that the satellite data he is referencing doesn't go back that far, McLean likely got the 1956 figure from the ENSO index (fig 2 in the article above) rather than any of the temp records. Of course, using the satellite temp data makes his claim untestable against values prior to 1979... though the likelihood that the annual average will below even that point seems extremely implausible. -
Djon at 03:29 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Dana, If "it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier" is the basis for your analysis, haven't you understated the predicted drop? 1964 was colder than 1956 in the GISTEMP analysis. Also, you have to go back to 1929 to get a colder calendar year than 1964. -
muoncounter at 03:28 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Rob #38: "looking at the per capita output of CO2 for China" Spot on. See the chart of per capita CO2 emissions. Places like the small Middle Eastern states are the worst per capita; the US is #11, China is #80. Which countries stand to lose more of their 'individual lifestyle' if the cost of emitting CO2 increases? Probably those where the per capita rate is highest. Does that help explain why the US is so allergic to any form of regulation? -
bibasir at 03:26 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
P.S. In looking at McLean's site, I see he gets his data from Roy Spencer's site. Spencer shows Feb 2011 temp as -.02, down from a peak of +.5.Moderator Response:[DB] McLean does some of the usual cherry-picks: uses satellite TLT data instead of the longer ground (land+ocean) datasets and places his focus on extremely short periods of time. Here is the whole TLT record:
He seems to be basing much of his estimates on the Oceanic-cycles-control-global-temperatures meme; more on this is available here, such as this:
-
Albatross at 03:23 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Dana, I very sincere thanks for all your hard work. The standard of your work is always high and yet written at a level that resonates with those not as well informed about all the nuances and complexities of climate science. Keep up the excellent work and I look forward to reading (and learning) more. -
CBDunkerson at 03:22 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Actually, I give McLean credit on this one... he hasn't just developed an outlandish theory for why AGW will not be a problem. He has shown the courage of his convictions and stated the likely outcome if that theory is correct. Having gone on record with a prediction, especially such an extreme and near term prediction, suggests that he actually believes what he is saying. Which is a bit scary, but preferable to 'skeptics' who make outlandish claims and studiously avoid examining what the implications of those claims would be. Sadly I don't hold alot of hope that McLean will re-examine his pre-conceptions if this prediction fails as badly as it seems to be doing thus far... but the prediction was made and can always be referenced in the future. Which makes it far preferable to nebulous predictions of lesser warming in unspecified amounts due to cosmic rays influencing cloud formation and other such hand waving. -
bibasir at 03:17 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
You need to comment on McLean's post in a little more detail. I went to the link you provided above, and he says the following. “In June, we predicted global cooling by the end of 2010. In October-February, world temperatures dropped by .5c.” He then shows a graph with a plunging temperature. Obviously, he is getting his temperature data from some strange source. Thus, he will probably say his prediction was correct. Where is he getting his temperature data from? -
citizenschallenge at 03:04 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Have [snip] ever explained a mechanism for how circulating currents that move heat around the planet, can warm or cool the planet as a whole?
Prev 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 Next
