kap55:
I think I got lost in your description. It seemed that your results depend upon the choice of temp series rather than the detrending procedure?
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by opluso
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
David: A P.S. I used to own a cottage who’s wall and timbers outdated the founding of the USA. The local historian was fascinated by the end walls showing conversion from sleeping lofts to upstairs rooms visible in the stone work.
Had an inglenook fireplace with bread oven and stone seating alcove.
Magic place that wasn’t visible on purchase, except perhaps to those with eyes to see the patterns in the plaster. Bought it as a one cold water tap, outside loo and got to bring it carefully up to modern standards.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by JCH
Oplusa - not at all. While the GMST shot up, right along with the feckless and mechanism-free AMO, the Eastern Pacific, a vast area of the surface of the earth, cooled, which offset some AGW: progressively from ~1985. This based upon GMST observations that were likely wrong - to the low side. Karl fixed part of it; there are likely more upward adjustments coming. <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1910/mean:60/mean:120/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1910/mean:60/mean:120/detrend:-0.65/scale:0.20/plot/esrl-amo/from:1910/mean:60/mean:120/detrend:-0.75/offset:-0.2" rel="nofollow">No matter what, a cooling of a vast area of the Pacific surface, the declining green trend starting around 1985, is offsetting AGW.</a>
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Michael
Jim,
You win the internetz with that.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by popesclimatetheory
The ice core data is also not the same as global temperature.
Ice core temperature’s are the temperature of the water, the oceans mostly, that the water came from.
Ice core data is the temperature of the thermostats that are used in earth temperature regulation.
It is not the same as global temperatures, but is is the best of any proxy for the past 800 thousand years.
↧
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by The Sense of Scientific Style | Skeptical Swedish Scientists
[…] Walrus are booming too, back to maximum 1890s levels. However, the US Sea & Sky dept (NOAA) says too little sea ice is causing decreases in polar bears and walrus. Hmm … Here we have Contradictory Global […]
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Me, I’ll, start from the large scale evaporative heat engine, driven by a white hot, not yellow because the sky is blue, infra-red heat source.
Water/ice controlled with a long feedback loop. Spinning down to entropy with zig-zags on the way. An ‘ice skater’ twirling on the ice, faster with icy hands to the poles, slower with warm hands to the waist.
Energy transfers between the Equator and the Poles by cold, cold water with the majority of the temperature changes limited to the water/ice interface.
An unseen outcome that we all know intellectually to exist.
With an approximately 60 year period signal.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Norman Page
Craig No useful climate forecasts can be made without taking into account the natural millennial temperature cycle which peaked at about 2003.The situation is summarized in this exchange with Dyson.
Climate and CO2- Exchange with Freeman Dyson
” E-mail 4/7/15
Dr Norman Page
Houston
Professor Dyson
Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial solar driven periodicity .
The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the activity peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.
The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.
I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.
Best Regards
Norman Page
E-Mail 4/9/15
Dear Norman Page,
Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson”
For a simplified account see also
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-epistemology-of-climate-forecasting.html
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Turbulent Eddie
What matters is changes in direction:
1974 to 1985
So first, the Eastern Pacific warmed from 1974 to 1985, as did the surface of the earth. Then, from 1985 to 2014, the trend in the Eastern Pacific changed direction and it cooled: a vast area of the surface working against AGW for ~18 years.
More evidence that this is hooey.
Salinity anomalies in April, at least, were normal to slightly below normal for the region of cold anomaly:
Evidently, Greenland outflow does normallyt freshen the ocean, but the extent appears to be quite restricted to the coastal area ( tight gradient of absolute salinity outward ):
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by John Carpenter
“Are you saying that most definitions of GHE are wrong? Is the real definition so secret or so complex that it can only be understood by the likes of Hansen, Schmidt and Mann, the eminent climatologists?” – Mike Flynn
Yes, most definitions that are given are over simplifications of the GHE.
“Real scientists manage to define things like the second, the meter, the coulomb, the Kelvin, the Watt and so on. You can’t even define the Greenhouse Effect rigorously!”
GHE is not a unit of measurement like a meter, second etc… so it’s definition is a bit more rigorous if done completely. And it has been poorly defined by many, which is what leads to total complete misunderstandings from someone like you. It is not a secret either. You can find it just as easily as I have, but you have to READ MORE and LEARN. If you want a more rigorous definition or a complete mathematical derivation, then go read Raymond Pierre Humbert.
Quit making things up to suit your own little world. You can believe anything you want, but if you go about accusing all hard working (climate) scientists who have the highest educations from excellent schools as frauds and fakes, then be prepared to back those assertions with actual facts. You offer none. You have absolutely nothing to back up your claim. You offer absolutely zero alternative explanation. At least Clive Best tries. But you, no. If it were so simple and true that there is no GRE, then why do only a fringe group of cranks believe what you assert? If it were so simple and true, why don’t you write up your idea in the form of a proper scientific paper, like the proper scientific minds you so revere, and submit it to a proper scientific journal. Your Nobel Prize awaits you Flynn. You could be the hero of the world. But no, you won’t. First because you can’t. You have never written or published any scientific papers. Second, you know what would happen if you were able to get as far as submitting a draft for consideration. It would get rejected. It would get rejected by every single journal you would submit to. It would even get rejected by the pay to publish journal you haven taken Craig Lohle to task about.
Flynn, you make things up to rationalize your poor understanding of science. You are so far from understanding what the actual scientific arguments are, yet you parade around here like the know-it-all in chief. Jo$shua questions my motivation as to why I would choose to engage with you at all. My reply was moderated away, oh well. So let me just say that I would like to see your level of understanding of what the science behind the GHE is about to be elevated. Don’t hide behind calling actual scientists fakes and frauds and insulting climate science as buffoonery as a mask covering your own misguided and misunderstood concepts of what the actual science is. Take the mask off and READ MORE about it. Read the hard parts. Try to understand and open your mind. I’m sure you are capable. Then you might, just might, be able to contribute here in a positive way. In a way that is constructive and additive.
If your reply is yet another retort of similar made up hyperbole, then I am done with you. May you wallow in your world of fantasy for ever more.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by ulriclyons
With “internal regulator”, there would be no multi-decadal oscillation. Anyway what I am saying is that a decrease in forcing will cause a rise in the global mean surface temperature at multi-decadal scales, which is a powerful negative feedback and not simple regulation. By at least three pathways, directly from the warming North Atlantic (AMO) and Arctic, from the associated drying of continental interior regions, and from reductions in upper troposphere and lower stratosphere water vapour coupled with increases in lower troposphere water vapour.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by popesclimatetheory
There is an upper bound on temperature that is strongly enforced by more snowfall when the a Polar ocean is warm and thawed.
There is a lower bound on temperature that is strongly enforced by less snowfall when the a Polar ocean is cold and frozen.
In between, all the other forcings can work, but they cannot push temperature out of bounds. There are all kinds of correlations, but none extend out of bounds.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by AK
I see a faint light dawning in your eyes.
Forget it, nut.
Keep going like that, and you might even abandon the Warmist fantasy world, and accept reality.
I’ve been saying just that, over and over again, since, AFAIK, before you ever started commenting here.
What I don’t need is some nut like you coming along and trying to justify the same thing I’ve been saying on the basis of your denial of science. All you do is tend to discredit real skeptics by association.
↧
↧
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by Mike Flynn
Steven Mosher,
Oh dear. You wrote –
“What is not arguable
1. Adjustments are needed . . . ”
And yet you say one option is to do no adjustments, but you reject this because it will not produce the result you wish. Really?
You have determined what people want (telepathically, one assumes), and then proceed to give them what they want.
Why not just accept that the historical temperature is not of much use for anything? So yes, I’m arguing that your own reasoning seems a bit flawed. You obviously don’t agree. If it keeps you content, press on by all means.
There is no CO2 greenhouse effect, so I suppose it really doesn’t matter, does it?
Cheers.
↧
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by thomaswfuller2
Happy New Year, Judith.
↧
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by Mike Flynn
Steven Mosher,
Are you pulling the Warmist ploy of deny, divert, and obscure? Are you going to deny what you said on a previous occasion, or claim you didn’t really mean it, because you were really talking rhetorically?
You mention 400 ppm as somehow dangerous, but of course you cannot say how dangerous it might be. We just have to take your word for it that we all need to do is obey the nearest Warmist hand waver.
More CO2 seems positively beneficial. Maybe you have evidence to the contrary?
Cheers.
↧
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by AK
↧
↧
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by JCH
2014 was the warmest year. 2015 is the warmest year. The Met Office is saying 2016 will be another warmest year. NASA and NOAA both indicate the El Nino ain’t goin’ away for many more months. You are looking like a possible threepeater.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by climategrog
climategrog, you seem to be disputing that the forcing has changed according to the curves from the IPCC plotted in the paper.
You seem to be have trouble reading. Perhaps you should quote what I actually wrote rather than what it “seems” you want to read into it.
The forcing has changed more simply than the temperature, but clearly not linearly. If you detrend you should use a forcing that increases like that,
Ah, now we get to the heart of your problem. That is not detrending. Detrending attempts to remove some ‘secular’, long term variation with an arbitrary mathematical function, often linear, sometimes a low order polynomial. This is sometimes done to artificially make a dataset stationary prior to spectral or other analysis. It is not an attempt at attribution.
However, this has often been abused in climatology where any and all linear trend is arbitrarily attributed to AGW and all other variability is de facto a non trending “oscillation”.
The kind of “detrending” you suggest similarly *assumes the cause is know and is trying to fit it. At least it has the merit of being honest about what is being done. That is called a regression analysis not detrending.
The problem with that idea is that it can lead to false attribution. For example, changes in the stratosphere suggest the major eruptions at the end of 20th c. had persistent a *warming * effect on lower climate.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
If you regress against CO2 forcing and think that will correctly detect the magnitude of the CO2 effect, the volcanic effect will get falsely attributed to CO2. This will lead you to and exaggerated estimation of the climate sensitivity to CO2 which will fall apart in periods when there are no volcanoes affecting the chemistry of the stratosphere. eg post Y2K.
If prefer your open approach, at least we can assess it’s strengths and weaknesses, just be clear this is called attribution and regression , not detrending.
The trouble in climatology is that this perverse attribution process is passed off as an objective “detrending” which a priori makes any natural variability a non-trending “oscillation”.
It is a process which induces the result, it is not investigative science.
↧
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by Peter Lang
Well done, Professor Don. :)
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
