Happy Thanksgiving to you.
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Curious George
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “I don’t think I am saying anything complicated here.”
No, its not complicated it just isn’t correct. The atmosphere responds extremely quickly and the CO2 equivalent gas forcing is a very gradual process. What you are doing is picking a mixture of temperature data and smoothing periods then having a eureka moment. Land responds faster to solar and volcanic forcing than the oceans which appear in the Tmax part of the land Tave. If you want to compare GHG impact you would be better off comparing SST to Tmin. From ~1910 to present, there isn’t “significant” land lead of SST. Prior to 1910 there is enough instrumental error you cannot really determine much of anything.
Since the “lead: you are seeing is primarily due to Tmax, you are misinterpreting the meaning.
It is not very complicated.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Falling prices are good for the economy overall but not good for the economies of oil and gas producing areas.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Jim D
captd, the forcing has been steadily increasing and fairly fast for the past few decades. It should not be surprising that the land has warmed faster, I and I think you agree that it is not surprising, and that it is because of thermal inertia differences. It is very hard to warm the ocean as quickly. You have this way of disagreeing while essentially agreeing, which is somewhat irksome. It’s not a eureka moment, just obviousness. You can also see how a detrended CRUTEM4 NH (land) leads the AMO (ocean). This is also understood in terms of thermal inertia. Just obvious, you would agree?
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, If the evidence was in both Tmin and Tmax, that would indicate there is a more land based Co2 equivalent forcing. If the lag were more obvious in Tmin that Tmax that would be stronger evidence. But when it is ONLY in Tmax, that is not evidence of CO2 equivalent forcing.
There are more sources other there than wood for tease. Try this one.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs2.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
You can register with your institution or try mine, Redneck Physics :)
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Jim D
Tave is the most directly comparable temperature signal with the SST. Once you start looking at Tmax and Tmin you are bringing in other factors like the land drying out and increasing the diurnal range, which don’t help in the interpretation. It is the mean that matters for the soil thermal storage which is Tave that you compare with the ocean surface layer storage. It’s just apples with apples. Soil warming clearly leads ocean warming on this basis.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Rob Ellison
see gone….
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
No labels on the axis but that is BEST Tmax, Tmin and ERSST normalized and detrended with offsets so you can compare. See how SST and surface temperatures diverge prior to 1910? The after 1950 Tmin and SST settle into pretty good synchronization. Tmax really under and over shoots because of all the things that impact solar energy reaching the surface. So much so that the DTR started changing slope around 1985. DTR shouldn’t increase if CO2 or positive cloud forcing is the culprit. The difference isn’t really big enough to write home about, but it isn’t consistent with CO2 related forcing. Now BEST, since it and C&W aren’t “real” data sources, isn’t updated like the big guys, so that end in 2013.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “Tave is the most directly comparable temperature signal with the SST”
REALLY? What a novel idea. Is that because it tends to look like what you want?
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by John Smith (it's my real name)
Tonyb
thanks for good info
ONI looks like it’s determined from SST
at least that’s whats on the NOAA graph
how’s that Nino prediction business going?
OHC looks like a complicated construct
as in an intellectual construct
does OHC have actual material existence?
almost sounds like the answer is “42”
that one’s gonna take me awhile
billions of Hiroshima bombs of heat
OHC should be getting up there
1872
man, the data set looks short, incomplete, and taken with differing measuring sticks
do we know how many decades any of these cycles last?
30 years arbitrary, no?
drawing grand conclusions at this point escapes me
but I’m trying
I am sure the Royal Navy has more perfectionist than the US Navy
at least I hope so
we’re celebrating one of the re-branded pagan holidays here
Probably the feast of something or other
:)
I miss Green Man
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
A new poll shows both Democrats and Republicans want more wind power.
http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber=6997
I’m glad.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by R. Gates
“I just gleaned a great idea on this thread: use 30-year averages. Then there is no “pause”. 30 is a magical number. 50 and 100, too.”
—–
10 year average works as well for tropospheric surfsce temps. No hiatus. Every decade warmer than the previous.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Jim D
Tave represents the energy going deeper into the soil, like I said. This is like SST. It is what counts in energy budgets and the forcing. If you want to look for longwave effects, it is better to get at that in polar areas and see what kind of warming they are doing relative to the tropics, for example.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by oz4caster
Hi Judith. Thanks for the opportunity to add to the discussion. I believe science is all about discussion, testing, and validation. I just recently discovered your blog from CCNF where I was reading what John Nielsen-Gammon has been posting. I'm a meteorologist with about 40 years experience and first met John about 15 or 20 years ago and have great respect for his scientific intellect and insight. I've been trying to learn more about the Earth's climate history because it seems to me that we cannot accurately predict the future without fully understanding the past.
I find the climate reconstructions using oxygen isotope ration analyses from glacial ice cores and ocean sediment cores to be very interesting in looking across the last few million years of climate history. I'm sure these reconstructions have plenty of flaws, but they do show similar patterns and provide at least a general overview of our highly variable global climate over longer time scales. It appears that over the last few thousand years the global climate has been relatively stable compared to the frequent wild swings over the past few million years. It also appears that we have a very poor understanding of what has caused the much larger variations in the past although there are plenty of hypotheses. Until we can more confidently predict these past wide variations over scales of at least hundreds of thousands of years, I have little confidence in future predictions.
After looking at the climate reconstructions, the thought occurred to look at the last several interglacial periods to see how our current interglacial compares and to use this information to serve as a crude persistence climate forecast for the next few thousand years. To this end I made the graph below (which hopefully will show up in this comment).
<a href="http://oz4caster.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/interglacial-comparison" rel="nofollow"></a>
Happy Thanksgiving.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by oz4caster
Oh well. Looks like the html I added in the comment didn’t post the graph. Here’s a link to my post on “Interglacial Comparisons” with the graph included.
http://oz4caster.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/interglacial-comparison
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Jim D
Yes, since the 80’s rise from the 70’s each decade has beaten the previous decadal record by nearly 0.2 C, which is a whole standard deviation, not just marginal increases, but shattering previous records by a statistically significant margin. In fact with the long solar lull and no strong El Ninos the 2000’s decade already looks like an easy target for this decade to beat by a large margin, but we have six years to go to find out.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by JCH
Boats are not especially forgiving, so sloppiness gets weeded out.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Steven Mosher
Note to willard.
open thread. see how simple?
week in review is different.
see how simple? you know its an open thread when it says open thread
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by brent
Happy Thanksgiving from OPEC :: ))
Saudi Arabia to keep politics out of OPEC, will let market stabilize price
Saudi Arabia’s oil minister said he believes the oil market will stabilize itself and raised the question why OPEC is expected to play a unilateral role in the global energy market, and not the US.
“The market will stabilize itself eventually,” Ali Al-Naimi,the country’s oil minister, told reporters on Wednesday ahead of Thursday’s OPEC meeting, Bloomberg News reported. Both American and European oil blends fell Wednesday afternoon. Brent Crude dropped below $78 per barrel and WTI dipped below $74 per barrel.
“Why should Saudi Arabia cut? The U.S. is a big producer too now. Should they cut?” Naimi asked
http://rt.com/business/209151-saudi-arabia-oil-stabilize/
The Sellside Chimes In On The Crude Crush: “This Will Reverberate For Years”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-27/sellside-chimes-crude-crush-will-reverberate-years
Oil Prices Collapse After OPEC Keeps Oil Production Unchanged
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, Soil moisture and everything but CO2 is still climate related. Your claim is that land surface temperature leads SST and that is a “signature” of CO2 equivalent forcing. I claim it is a product of selective smoothing and data selection/data limitations.
That is a little cleaner and I used 27 month cascade smoothing so the peaks aren’t shifted and the “normal” cycle of ocean variability is still present. There isn’t much of a “signature” there at least to my eye. Tave would just shift a few peaks here and a simple smoothing would shift them a bit more.
Now if you got a bit more “statistically” minded, you could do some lag correlations, but tossing out a simple 30 year average and yelling “EUREKA!” isn’t all that thorough.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
