I really don’t care.
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by Max_OK
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Max_OK “Will future climate be affected by something not affecting it now? Something new? I hope not.”
Quite possibly. I compared a surface water reconstruction with a deep water reconstruction, Bintanji and Van de Wal 2008, The deep ocean temperature in the North Atlantic lags the surface by ~1700 years.
Pretty consistent lag in the North Atlantic. That is just SD to smooth the curves.
That is normalized temperatures, for another look. Lots of wiggles in the North Altantic.
Not the same wiggle pattern in the Antarctic and Eastern Pacific.
So something new? Just for us, the world has been doing it a long time.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by climatereason
MarkB number 2
As you probably know I’m a historical climatologist wth a particular interest in reconstrcuting the past from contemporary observations, science papers, glacier records and such data as crop and vine maturity dates.
There is no doubt that weather patterns repeat themselves, sometimes enough over a thirty year period to cause a trend that can be termed ‘climate.’
In that respect there might be a ‘cycle’ of repitition, but as for an actual regular cycle of say 22 years or 60 years? No. I’ve not detected it through the tens of thousands of records I’ve looked at covering 2000 years.
Weather seems to be quite random and chaotic although we can discern some truths, one of which is that we’ve seen it all before and the other that severe weather-storms etc-seemed to be much worse during the LIA than they are toda. This is presumably beause the energy gradient between the tropics and poles can be much greater when there is extreme warmth and extreme cold as during the LIA.
Those extremes are smoothed out during a warm period such as the MWP and the modern warming period. Many reports describe how ‘settled’ the weather was (generally) during the MWP. I think we are similarly living in benign times today.
I think those looking for regular cycles -and finding them- are most likely merely demonstrating that computer models are very good confirmation bias instruments.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by Jim D
Watts is using the word “bombshell” to describe a graph which has nothing new. No AR5 projections, just things that have been plotted since AR4. I really don’t know where his bombshell is. He doesn’t explain.
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by David Wojick
That much is obvious MOK. The question is then why you are wasting our time?
↧
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by greg goodman
P.S my message above, posted at 3:51am , stated that VP had not replied to my calculations that I posted on December 14, 2012 at 11:56 am That statement was correct at the time of posting.
At 4:04am VP posted a quick “reply” to yesterday’s comment, which did not address its findings but related one of his bed-time stories for little children.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/04/multidecadal-climate-to-within-a-millikelvin/#comment-276730
A retroactive effort to give the impression he was not ignoring my comment, just before taking umbridge after being called out.
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by Max_OK
bishop-over-the-hill
geezers with reading disabilities
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by David Wojick
The leak is the game changer, not the contents. The IPCC’s usual game is OBE.
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by Max_OK
I like poking fun at skeptics/deniers.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by David Wojick
I do not see the fun in wasting our time.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Jim D
The solar cycle cannot be detected at point sites, which are too noisy to see a signal of one to two tenths of a degree, but is easily seen in the global average surface temperature.
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by curryja
there is a hidden bombshell in this, will tease it out in a forthcoming post
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by Max_OK
A quote from WUWT
“Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing.”
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by Jim Cripwell
Jim D you write “I really don’t know where his bombshell is. ”
Obviously you have not read what Alex Rawls wrote. His comments have been incorporated into Chapter 7 of the 2nd draft of the AR5. Now what is written in Chapter 7 does not agree with the certainty written in the draft SPM.
We always knew that one of the main problems the IPCC was going to have with writing the AR5 was the certainty with which they expressed their conclusions in previous reports. Such expressions as very likely, meaning 90% probable, and the like. Over the years, there have been many scientific reports which undermine this certainty. So would the AR5 agree that past certainties were not as certain as previously expressed, or would the AR5 ignore the science that tends to show that things are not as certain as they were claimed to be? Our hostess used the word “bewildered” on this issue, which I think explains things very well.
So now the issue is, when the IPCC produces the 3rd draft, will the SPM be modified so that it conforms to the science presented in Chapter 7, or will Chapter 7 be modified so that it agrees with the SPM? That is the 64 billion dollar question.
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by lolwot
But what about the correlation Usoskin found? How do you explain that? if the hockey stick is wrong could it correlate with sunspots by chance?
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by lolwot
There’s a good reason why the IPCC doesn’t cite Lassen 91.
And a bad reason why climate skeptics do.
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by manacker
The new study by Herman et al. on change in the Lambert Equivalent Reflectivity (LER) of the Earth’s cloud plus aerosol over the period 1979-2011 shows
- That a reduction on cloud cover over this period resulted in 2.3 Wm-2 added warming of the Earth’s surface
- That most of this occurred over land, the northern hemisphere and over the North Atlantic Ocean (including Greenland).
This seems to reopen the question raised by Roy Spencer of clouds as a significant climate forcing.
N’est-ce pas?
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by JCH
I do not know that tiff is he right word, but Spencer wrote a blog comment about the control knob.
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by manacker
lolwot
If I understood Wagathon’s comment about the “shtick”, it was so construed that it agrees with anything, so the fact that it agrees with Usoskin 2005 is nothing unusual.
But back to Usoskin 2005.
The study apparently found a reduction in solar activity starting around the end of the MWP and continuing into the LIA.
Usoskin et al. compared their solar activity, cosmic ray and temperature reconstructions with two long-term reconstructions of geomagnetic dipole moment that they obtained from the work of Hongre et al. (1998) and Yang et al. (2000). This effort revealed that between AD 1000 and 1700, when there was a substantial downward trend in air temperature associated with a less substantial downward trend in solar activity, there was also a general downward trend in geomagnetic field strength. As a result, Usoskin et al. suggested that the substantial upward trend of cosmic ray flux that was needed to sustain the substantial rate of observed cooling (which was more than expected in light of the slow decline in solar activity) was likely due to the positive effect on the cosmic ray flux that was produced by the decreasing geomagnetic field strength.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N31/EDIT.php
Max
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Jim D
Vaughan and Pekka, I also have some thoughts on the choice of window. As it is, the 6-parameter fit only needs the 2nd and 3rd harmonics (75 and 50 years) for a mK fit. This of course is because the window is 150 years. With a 120 year window your harmonics would be 60 and 40 years and a different fit would result. There is nothing unique about 75 and 50 year harmonics because they are set by the window length and the choice of SAW as a starting point. It is tempting to think that the dominant harmonic wavelengths and phases could be defined more objectively, and perhaps one around 60 years would provide an impressive fit to F3(Hadcrut3) on its own. If you play with a single harmonic and its phase you are down to 5 parameters with the 3 from AGW.
↧
