The Weather Outlook

Remove ads from site

Stephen Wilde
04 January 2011 22:42:59
"They're vital for climate change attribution studies and give their own clues as to climate sensitivity."

I agree with that but seem to come to a conclusion that some find inconvenient.

Basically the speed by which the normal run of volcanic activity is negated gives us a clue as to how well the system can also negate an attempt at climate disruption from any source.

The air circulation system just shifts a bit to provide a negative response that always seeks to restore the sea surface and surface air temperature equilibrium.

Hence my contention that any warming effect from extra CO2 is easily negated by an imperceptible shift in the air circulation systems with a consequent miniscule change in the speed of the water cycle.

So the climate response to any change that seeks to disturb the sea surface/surface air equilibrium is highly sensitive but because the response is always negative the outcome is an extremely stable and insensitive system overall.

That is why the oceans have remained liquid for billions of years despite huge volcanic disruption and catastrophic asteroid strikes. The system always bounced back in due course. Even a 30% increase in solar output has made little difference so a teensy bit of CO2 is likely a complete irrelevance.

Stu N
04 January 2011 23:39:05



The air circulation system just shifts a bit to provide a negative response that always seeks to restore the sea surface and surface air temperature equilibrium.

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 

Yes the circulation shifts but it's heading towards a new, colder equilibrium (hence the cooling!)*. This is not an example of an enhanced homeostasis of the Earth system. Studies have shown water vapour feedback is positive following eruptions (i.e. enhances cooling). The climate goes back to normal simply because the aerosols are gone within a few years. It's not evidence that a radiative forcing can't change the climate; estimates of sensitivity from volcanic activity are highly dependent upon the lag used (or time constant, to give the proper name), but do not disagree with estimates from other sources.

However these considerations aren't helped by the fact that volcanic forcings following an eruption change rapidly both temporally and spatially.

* PS. so how does this give evidence that we're currently not heading towards a new, warmer equilibrium?

Stephen Wilde
05 January 2011 09:32:46

If a volcano causes warming of the air the system will shift to cooling of the air in order to try to restore the sea surface/surface air temperature equilibrium. If it causes cooling of the air the system will shift to a warming response in the air for the same reason.

Increased/decreased water vapour feedback is part of the system response and demonstrates a faster/slower water cycle. So if the initial volcanic effect is warming of the air alone to cause increased evaporation from the oceans then the water cycle ramps up with increased cloud and higher albedo so that the response overshoots a bit before stabilising later.

However the precise scale and the sign of the response is variable depending on the characteristics of each eruption and the response changes quiokly over time.

The underlying temperature equilibrium is set by pressure and density differentials at the ocean surface. The temperature at which equilibrium is achieved will only change if the temperature of the oceans is changed. A change in air temperature alone is not enough because the ocean dominates. Water warms air but air will not warm water. Warmer air just changes the speed of the water cycle without changing the equilibrium temperature. Warmer water will change the equilibrium temperature.

That is why I regard the IR issue that we discussed previously so important.

So if GHG warming is limited to the air the equilibrium temperature of sea and air combined does not change. All one sees is a faster water cycle.





breezy
06 January 2011 02:08:01

1) Also, the aerosol cloud cannot efficiently trap heat higher up because it's too diffuse. 20MT spread globally in the stratosphere again cannot be compared to a thick volcanic fog sitting over Europe for weeks on end.

2) I do not deny that the aerosol cloud warms, in fact I already noted that it does. Trouble is it warms the stratosphere, not the troposphere or surface (apart from the limited case of the polar night when it can conceivably have a measurable effect). See the paper I linked to on the previous page, it very clearly show stratospheric warming following the eruptions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 You are yet to actually present evidence of a lack of cooling after volcanic eruptions (the graph for Krakatoa did show cooling) and indeed are yet to provide a solid reason why there shouldn't be cooling. Is this left as an exercise for the reader?

Originally Posted by: Stu N 

There are contradictions there regarding what you say about the stratosphere and troposphere.

The temperature graph for Krakatoa showed 3 months cooling then warming then cooling, there is no way you can say beyond doubt that any of this was forced by the volcano. I do need to show why there is no cooling, just that there is no significant cooling is sufficient. It`s not as if you have presented any conclusive evidence of cooling after eruptions. Like I said before, I am more interested in the cooling and then warming leading up to the events that actually set them off !

 

 

FredBear
06 January 2011 07:24:51

As someone who has watched the satellite records for 10+ years I find it amazing that the tiny(?) change in temperature of the earth's surface can produce such a big change in the arctic ice. One factor that leads me to believe in GHG warming is that it was predicted that it would occur in the 19th century, long before global temperature could be monitored as it is now. Subsequently, it has been calculated that the effects of GHG warming would be greatest towards the poles - and we have seen a decline in sea-ice area/volume in the Arctic. (However sea-ice area in the Antarctic tends to show a slight increase so far, even if ice shelves have collapsed and temperatures increased in some areas! - maybe ice volume is going down!?). Fickle weather dictates what we can do day to day, but it is climate that provides our basic living conditions.

However, it would appear to me that the driver of weather is the energy (heat) stored in water - as clearly seen in cyclones in tropical areas. It can still be seen in cold areas (eg.in lake-effect snow in North America), where it is the wind that strips the water vapour out to cool the water, the water-vapour then condensing to release latent heat to the air. GHG warming can only affect the long wavelength IR radiation from the water and earth's surface and to a lesser extent that from the air (since the bulk of it will be colder than the surfaces beneath) and the same incoming radiation in sunlight.

The slightly warmer air will tend not to cool the underlying water so much, allowing currents, such as the Gulf Steam, to maintain higher temperatures to more northerly latitudes. (But surely any increase in wind velocity/storms would quickly negate this effect?).

Therefore I see there are 3 factors increasing the melting of polar ice:-

a)   Warmer water melting it from below.

b)   Warmer air melting it from above.

c)   Decreased albedo from reduced ice cover feeding back into a) above.

The complicating factors include:-

1)   What changes will occur in cloud/mist/fog/aerosol cover - affecting albedo?

2)   What changes will occur in wind speed/direction - affecting melting, storms -> ice compaction/breakup?

3)   What changes will occur in currents - affecting heat transport, ice transport?

I believe that there is a valid concern that human activities can affect global temperatures and that it is right to be cautious about continuing to rely on growth (or even business as usual) to maintain living standards. In the UK we have seen the squandering of North Sea oil at cheap prices, until we have ended up as an importer at high prices with no security of supply, which is where we were before the oil was discovered! We cannot afford to do the same with the global climate - there is no cheap way back if we foul things up.

Mike

Gray-Wolf
06 January 2011 09:31:59

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Above is the Dec report for the Arctic and it makes plain the even the weather patterns that used to favour ice growth/retention now destroy ice (as we saw with the 'plume' of Paleocrystic in south Beaufort last summer.

Insofar as 'global temps' go how much do the 30c positive anoms over autumn (open water at 0c instead of ice with -30c above) impact temps? Last summer saw many of the sea areas clear of ice allowing the 24hr sun to warm the waters. Come autumn this heat has to go somewhere before the water can freeze so we delay when 'freeze' can occur leading to 'odd' weather around the N .Hemisphere. In time the 'anom' will cover the whole basin and 'cold' may not arrive in the Arctic until Dec leaving us with permanent 'Indian Summers' (and not the 'polar plunges' we have now with only 'sections' of the Basin 'hot' allowing the normal cold air to amass before being displaced south....to us!)

Koyaanisqatsi

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.

VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

polarwind
06 January 2011 10:09:07

As someone who has watched the satellite records for 10+ years I find it amazing that the tiny(?) change in temperature of the earth's surface can produce such a big change in the arctic ice. One factor that leads me to believe in GHG warming is that it was predicted that it would occur in the 19th century, long before global temperature could be monitored as it is now. Subsequently, it has been calculated that the effects of GHG warming would be greatest towards the poles - and we have seen a decline in sea-ice area/volume in the Arctic. (However sea-ice area in the Antarctic tends to show a slight increase so far, even if ice shelves have collapsed and temperatures increased in some areas! - maybe ice volume is going down!?). Fickle weather dictates what we can do day to day, but it is climate that provides our basic living conditions.

However, it would appear to me that the driver of weather is the energy (heat) stored in water - as clearly seen in cyclones in tropical areas. It can still be seen in cold areas (eg.in lake-effect snow in North America), where it is the wind that strips the water vapour out to cool the water, the water-vapour then condensing to release latent heat to the air. GHG warming can only affect the long wavelength IR radiation from the water and earth's surface and to a lesser extent that from the air (since the bulk of it will be colder than the surfaces beneath) and the same incoming radiation in sunlight.

The slightly warmer air will tend not to cool the underlying water so much, allowing currents, such as the Gulf Steam, to maintain higher temperatures to more northerly latitudes. (But surely any increase in wind velocity/storms would quickly negate this effect?).

Therefore I see there are 3 factors increasing the melting of polar ice:-

a)   Warmer water melting it from below.

b)   Warmer air melting it from above.

c)   Decreased albedo from reduced ice cover feeding back into a) above.

The complicating factors include:-

1)   What changes will occur in cloud/mist/fog/aerosol cover - affecting albedo?

2)   What changes will occur in wind speed/direction - affecting melting, storms -> ice compaction/breakup?

3)   What changes will occur in currents - affecting heat transport, ice transport?

I believe that there is a valid concern that human activities can affect global temperatures and that it is right to be cautious about continuing to rely on growth (or even business as usual) to maintain living standards. In the UK we have seen the squandering of North Sea oil at cheap prices, until we have ended up as an importer at high prices with no security of supply, which is where we were before the oil was discovered! We cannot afford to do the same with the global climate - there is no cheap way back if we foul things up.

Mike

Originally Posted by: FredBear 

Greetings FredBear - welcome to TWO.

What I find interesting about your post is that it is holistic in approach. This is something imo, that is not considered enough in many contributions in the climate forum

Do you have any comments about the holistic approach and content in this link? -

http://www.nytimes.com/2...pinion/26cohen.html?_r=2

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)

"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat

Dave,Derby

FredBear
06 January 2011 13:26:29
Afraid the link

http://www.nytimes.com/2...pinion/26cohen.html?_r=2  )

in post 332 above does not connect anymore.

polarwind
06 January 2011 13:45:13
http://www.nytimes.com/2...pinion/26cohen.html?_r=2 " href="http://www.nytimes.com/2...pinion/26cohen.html?_r=2">http://www.nytimes.com/2...pinion/26cohen.html?_r=2 )

in post 332 above does not connect anymore.

Try this -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=3

Here is relevent part -

Annual cycles like El Niño/Southern Oscillation, solar variability and global ocean currents cannot account for recent winter cooling. And though it is well documented that the earth’s frozen areas are in retreat, evidence of thinning Arctic sea ice does not explain why the world’s major cities are having colder winters.

But one phenomenon that may be significant is the way in which seasonal snow cover has continued to increase even as other frozen areas are shrinking. In the past two decades, snow cover has expanded across the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, especially in Siberia, just north of a series of exceptionally high mountain ranges, including the Himalayas, the Tien Shan and the Altai.

The high topography of Asia influences the atmosphere in profound ways. The jet stream, a river of fast-flowing air five to seven miles above sea level, bends around Asia’s mountains in a wavelike pattern, much as water in a stream flows around a rock or boulder. The energy from these atmospheric waves, like the energy from a sound wave, propagates both horizontally and vertically.

As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased.

The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere, just as a bigger rock in a stream increases the size of the waves of water flowing by.

The increased wave energy in the air spreads both horizontally, around the Northern Hemisphere, and vertically, up into the stratosphere and down toward the earth’s surface. In response, the jet stream, instead of flowing predominantly west to east as usual, meanders more north and south. In winter, this change in flow sends warm air north from the subtropical oceans into Alaska and Greenland, but it also pushes cold air south from the Arctic on the east side of the Rockies. Meanwhile, across Eurasia, cold air from Siberia spills south into East Asia and even southwestward into Europe.

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)

"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat

Dave,Derby

FredBear
06 January 2011 17:01:30

Polarwind,

I used to watch the Canadian "Global sea surface anomaly and snow cover" maps, eg:-

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?img=2010122500_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000&title=daily

comparing them for different years by eye, but glitches in viewing and the excellent polar ice mapping encouraged me to refocus on those.

I am not suprised to hear that Siberia has more snow in recent years - with the arctic seas unfrozen any northern plunge of air is likely to produce the equivalent of the Great Lakes "lake effect snow". Once snow is down it traps residual heat in the ground, and the air above cools even more rapidly if there is a lack of cloud cover (This occurred in the more northern parts of the UK this winter, giving record lows.) And of course any extra heat in the ground will encourage a faster thaw in spring.

From what I have seen this year, blocking highs around Britain have diverted the jet stream southwards in the North Atlantic, and our usual dose of warm air has passed up Eastern Canada and Greenland (It would be interesting to know how much more snow has fallen this winter at higher levels of Greenland while the lower levels were catching the unseasonal warmth!).

If I remember correctly, at one time the BBC weather forcasts used to show the position of the jet stream, and these showed a marked difference in temperature between London (to the north) and Paris to the south. Mentally I was always trying to push the jet stream north to get "better" weather!

As for the jet stream, when it meanders southwards it drags cold air from the north and east over Western Europe, and we wonder what has happened to global warming!

Mike

Devonian
06 January 2011 17:03:50

Polarwind,

I used to watch the Canadian "Global sea surface anomaly and snow cover" maps, eg:-

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?img=2010122500_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000&title=daily

comparing them for different years by eye, but glitches in viewing and the excellent polar ice mapping encouraged me to refocus on those.

I am not suprised to hear that Siberia has more snow in recent years - with the arctic seas unfrozen any northern plunge of air is likely to produce the equivalent of the Great Lakes "lake effect snow". Once snow is down it traps residual heat in the ground, and the air above cools even more rapidly if there is a lack of cloud cover (This occurred in the more northern parts of the UK this winter, giving record lows.) And of course any extra heat in the ground will encourage a faster thaw in spring.

From what I have seen this year, blocking highs around Britain have diverted the jet stream southwards in the North Atlantic, and our usual dose of warm air has passed up Eastern Canada and Greenland (It would be interesting to know how much more snow has fallen this winter at higher levels of Greenland while the lower levels were catching the unseasonal warmth!).

If I remember correctly, at one time the BBC weather forcasts used to show the position of the jet stream, and these showed a marked difference in temperature between London (to the north) and Paris to the south. Mentally I was always trying to push the jet stream north to get "better" weather!

As for the jet stream, when it meanders southwards it drags cold air from the north and east over Western Europe, and we wonder what has happened to global warming!

Mike

Originally Posted by: FredBear 

Eminently sensible stuff

polarwind
06 January 2011 17:42:01

Polarwind,

I used to watch the Canadian "Global sea surface anomaly and snow cover" maps, eg:-

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?img=2010122500_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000&title=daily " href="http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?img=2010122500_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000&title=daily">http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?img=2010122500_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000&title=daily

comparing them for different years by eye, but glitches in viewing and the excellent polar ice mapping encouraged me to refocus on those.

I am not suprised to hear that Siberia has more snow in recent years - with the arctic seas unfrozen any northern plunge of air is likely to produce the equivalent of the Great Lakes "lake effect snow". Once snow is down it traps residual heat in the ground, and the air above cools even more rapidly if there is a lack of cloud cover (This occurred in the more northern parts of the UK this winter, giving record lows.) And of course any extra heat in the ground will encourage a faster thaw in spring.

From what I have seen this year, blocking highs around Britain have diverted the jet stream southwards in the North Atlantic, and our usual dose of warm air has passed up Eastern Canada and Greenland (It would be interesting to know how much more snow has fallen this winter at higher levels of Greenland while the lower levels were catching the unseasonal warmth!).

If I remember correctly, at one time the BBC weather forcasts used to show the position of the jet stream, and these showed a marked difference in temperature between London (to the north) and Paris to the south. Mentally I was always trying to push the jet stream north to get "better" weather!

As for the jet stream, when it meanders southwards it drags cold air from the north and east over Western Europe, and we wonder what has happened to global warming!

Mike

Originally Posted by: Devonian 

Eminently sensible stuff

Originally Posted by: FredBear 

Yep, I look forward to further contributions

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)

"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat

Dave,Derby

Stu N
08 January 2011 01:42:18



That is why I regard the IR issue that we discussed previously so important.

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 

Hi Stephen

I have just spotted that the highly technical blog 'Scienceofdoom' has a (so far) 4-part series on this exact topic:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/06/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-one/

 

I am yet to read any of it; I thought the two of us should have a look, take a while to understand what's being said, and then comment here in a few days. As yet I have no idea whether SoD has unearthed evidence for either of our viewpoints, but what can be sure is that SoD will have unearthed evidence for something, and it will be fully referenced and very comprehensive.

All posts on that site come with a high recommendation from me!

Stephen Wilde
08 January 2011 08:48:28
Thanks Stu, I've joined in the comments with this question:

"Part Two doesn’t seem to deal with evaporation at all, merely radiation, convection and conduction.

How then can it be said to deal adequately with Hypothesis A ?"

Hypothesis A is the one that suggests that all the DLR (Downward Longwave Radiation) gets converted to latent energy.He thinks the ocean would feeze if that were the case but I have dealt with that elsewhere by pointing out that the latent heat required is taken from where it is most readily available so that the ocean surface does not get any colder trhan the air above it.

Nor does he mention anywhere the implications of the 0.3C cooler layer across all the ocean surfaces which is itself evidence in support of hypothesis A.

Gray-Wolf
13 January 2011 18:19:13

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003674/index.html

Cor!!! Some 'hoax' eh?

Koyaanisqatsi

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.

VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Marcus P
13 January 2011 23:02:19

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003674/index.html

Cor!!! Some 'hoax' eh?

Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf 

"The past year, 2009..." - this isn't anything new then?

and "The global record warm year, in the period of near-global instrumental measurements (since the late 1800s), was 2005." 2005? 2005. No qualification. Is there still not a consensus that 1998 was the warmest year?

And is not 130 years of AGW still not sufficiently long for us to know the scale of the feedbacks involved? No-one has yet explained why feedbacks can't be sensibly addressed after such a length of time - that, after all, is the main uncertainty about predicted warming.

 

 

Gray-Wolf
14 January 2011 08:29:24

Feedbacks will always be difficult to access. To my mind it involves imagining everything about the climate system (which we do not know) and dynamically altering this midst the plethora of natural cycles (of varying strength/impacts)mixed in with a slowly strengthening human impact.

I find the folk who understand least always think things 'easy'. Once they enter into the complexities they find very little 'black and white' but lots of Grey.......

I'd run the animation again (a few times) to see both the 'natural' cycles and the increasing AGW signal.

Koyaanisqatsi

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.

VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Gandalf The White
14 January 2011 09:08:41

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003674/index.html

Cor!!! Some 'hoax' eh?

Originally Posted by: Marcus P 

"The past year, 2009..." - this isn't anything new then?

and "The global record warm year, in the period of near-global instrumental measurements (since the late 1800s), was 2005." 2005? 2005. No qualification. Is there still not a consensus that 1998 was the warmest year?

And is not 130 years of AGW still not sufficiently long for us to know the scale of the feedbacks involved? No-one has yet explained why feedbacks can't be sensibly addressed after such a length of time - that, after all, is the main uncertainty about predicted warming.

Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf 

Well, clearly not.  The whole area of feedbacks is complicated - just look at the recent study linking the warming in the Arctic to early winter cold in parts of the northern hemisphere.  Aside from that we don't know what feedbacks might kick in at what point and there is no certainty that feedbacks will behave the same way in different conditions.

As for 1998 or 2005 being the warmest calendar year, for any 12 month period the warmest ever was, I think, for the year to March or April 2010.

 

Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



Ulric
14 January 2011 13:33:33

Is there still not a consensus that 1998 was the warmest year?

Originally Posted by: Marcus P 

Wasn't that a claim by militant coal miners?

"Et quidem de Sclavorum gente, quae vobis valde imminet, et affligor vehementer et conturbor. Affligor in his quae jam in vobis patior; conturbor, quia per Istriae aditum jam ad Italiam intrare coeperunt." Pope Gregory I, 600AD
Maunder Minimum
14 January 2011 14:26:23

Just what are all the warmists going to do, once the next few decades of global cooling cut in?

New world order coming.
TomC
  • TomC
  • Advanced Member
14 January 2011 16:36:16

Just what are all the warmists going to do, once the next few decades of global cooling cut in?

Originally Posted by: Maunder Minimum 

That's what was asked 10 years ago and 20 years ago

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

Marcus P
14 January 2011 17:16:34

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

Originally Posted by: TomC 

I guess 1998 sounds rather a long time ago now - 2005 and 2010 as joint equal warmest fits the storybetter, doesn't it. I expect IPCC will change their minds next time around!

TomC
  • TomC
  • Advanced Member
14 January 2011 17:26:21

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

Originally Posted by: Marcus P 

I guess 1998 sounds rather a long time ago now - 2005 and 2010 as joint equal warmest fits the storybetter, doesn't it. I expect IPCC will change their minds next time around!

Originally Posted by: TomC 

Its called science Marcus, 2005 has been the warmest on record in the NASA and NOAA series since 2005. It isn't too hard if you study a little.

polarwind
14 January 2011 17:28:39

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

Originally Posted by: Marcus P 

I guess 1998 sounds rather a long time ago now - 2005 and 2010 as joint equal warmest fits the storybetter, doesn't it. I expect IPCC will change their minds next time around!

Originally Posted by: TomC 

Not thought about it that way before.

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)

"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat

Dave,Derby

Marcus P
14 January 2011 17:32:31

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

Originally Posted by: TomC 

I guess 1998 sounds rather a long time ago now - 2005 and 2010 as joint equal warmest fits the storybetter, doesn't it. I expect IPCC will change their minds next time around!

Originally Posted by: Marcus P 

Its called science Marcus, 2005 has been the warmest on record in the NASA and NOAA series since 2005. It isn't too hard if you study a little.

Originally Posted by: TomC 

So the IPCC isn't science?! Who's right - any opinion?

Remove ads from site