2014-2015 Winter Forecast (here we go)

[Not Sure]

It's quite common to see in these threads.

Weather and Climate are easy to understand ,
Weather .....If it's raining and you go outside you get wet, If it's sunny and you go out you get sunburn. ect.....

Climate ......If you stay out in the rain and the sun for a long period of time your skin gets wrinkly and your hair gets bleached.

 

[jack97]

Analogs are used in WEATHER forecasting. They cannot be better or worse than CLIMATE models. They are NOT used for the same thing.

Analogs are based on natural cycle, both long term and short term. In terms of the PDO and AMO, Gray, Aleo, Bastardi and Curry (there is prolly more but that's what I can think of for now) have stated that based on the phases of these cycles, the globe will be heading for a cooling phase for several decades. Most have stated when the pause occurred, this was due to the PDO changing phase. Gray on the other hand was ahead of this curve with this prediction.

Time will tell whether the above is correct or not. However this seems more plausible than the heat from AGW is hiding in the ocean.

 

[fbrissette]

Analogs are based on natural cycle, both long term and short term.

You cannot have climate analogs (at least not in the sense you are arguing about). We have barely enough data to cover a 50-year period. There is a reason they are called 'weather analogs'.

In terms of the PDO and AMO, Gray, Aleo, Bastardi and Curry (there is prolly more but that's what I can think of for now) have stated that based on the phases of these cycles, the globe will be heading for a cooling phase for several decades.

This ain't science, this is looking at a crystal ball.

However this seems more plausible than the heat from AGW is hiding in the ocean.

The ocean uptake of a lot of heat is backed by more and more scientific data. But of course, the work of thousands of scientists around the world (all part of the conspiracy) is nothing compared to the words of the mighty Bastardi who has never done any research nor has published a single paper his entire life.

 

[jack97]

This ain't science, this is looking at a crystal ball.

haha... shows your ignorance to other hypothesis, dominate natural causes is supported by a plurality of emeritus and department professors.

The ocean uptake of a lot of heat is backed by more and more scientific data. But of course, the work of thousands of scientists around the world (all part of the conspiracy) is nothing compared to the words of the mighty Bastardi who has never done any research nor has published a single paper his entire life.

show the cause of this ocean uptake. without a plausible cause and effect this in itself is gazing into the crystal ball.

 

[fbrissette]

haha... shows your ignorance to other hypothesis, dominate natural causes is supported by a plurality of emeritus and department professors.

I am simply asking you to show the science. You are saying that we are going into SEVERAL decades of cooling in terms of PDO and AMO. Show the observations/models that support this. If you cannot (and you won't), then you are looking at a crystal ball with all your friends.

Show the science. Can you do that ?

 

[dlague]

Well, anyway, the winter forecast does look promising! Makes me happy! :beer:

 

[jack97]

I am simply asking you to show the science. You are saying that we are going into SEVERAL decades of cooling in terms of PDO and AMO. Show the observations/models that support this. If you cannot (and you won't), then you are looking at a crystal ball with all your friends.

Show the science. Can you do that ?

from NOAA, AMO compared to Arctic temp abnormality





Aleo's plots when he was at intellicast

http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/172_5.gif



If you do an image search you will find more plots where they use various formulas for plot fitting the PDO & AMO to the temp abnormalities. The web page from the image below has an interesting paper on SST in general.

 

[jack97]

Well, anyway, the winter forecast does look promising! Makes me happy! :beer:

If JB and Aleo are right about this..... you and I will be very happy. My concern is that if the solar activity continues to decrease for longer periods of time (over a decade) then it might be too much happiness for me to bear.

 

[jack97]

Show the science. Can you do that ?

Speaking of showing the science, is the Trenberth and Fasullo paper the most definitive of the ocean's uptake, it seemed like it started this suggestion that the heat is hiding in the ocean. Is there a more conclusive paper from the 1000's of scientist studying this missing heat problem.

 

[fbrissette]

from NOAA, AMO compared to Arctic temp abnormality

View attachment 13006



Aleo's plots when he was at intellicast

http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/172_5.gif



If you do an image search you will find more plots where they use various formulas for plot fitting the PDO & AMO to the temp abnormalities. The web page from the image below has an interesting paper on SST in general.

View attachment 13007

I am asking for science (show me a paper, not a bunch of graphs) showing that we are heading toward SEVERAL DECADES of cooling. Those graphs don't mean what you think they mean.

You don't like tree rings or other means of reconstructing the past when it comes to global surface temperatures but you are happy using graphs that go back in time using the same data when it apparently suits your need.

As to papers related to ocean heat or the ocean as a sink go to google scholar and search. You'll find there'a lot of people who do research besides the very vocal Jones, Mann, Trenberth and cie.

 

[jack97]

I am simply asking you to show the science. You are saying that we are going into SEVERAL decades of cooling in terms of PDO and AMO. Show the observations/models that support this. If you cannot (and you won't), then you are looking at a crystal ball with all your friends.

Show the science. Can you do that ?

I am asking for science (show me a paper, not a bunch of graphs) showing that we are heading toward SEVERAL DECADES of cooling. Those graphs don't mean what you think they mean.

You don't like tree rings or other means of reconstructing the past when it comes to global surface temperatures but you are happy using graphs that go back in time using the same data when it apparently suits your need.

You ask for observations, those graphs are observations. In addition, the last plots came from a Chinese journal;
http://www.iapjournals.ac.cn/aas/article/2014/0256-1530-31-316.html


Plots shows a neg slope temp abnorms, that's a cooling in trend given the alarmist are using positive slope as a warming trend.

 

[Cannonball]

You ask for observations, those graphs are observations. In addition, the last plots came from a Chinese journal;
http://www.iapjournals.ac.cn/aas/article/2014/0256-1530-31-316.html


Plots shows a neg slope temp abnorms, that's a cooling in trend given the alarmist are using positive slope as a warming trend.

Just so we are on the same page. The research article you just posted is starting from an explicit understanding (they state this clearly) that:
- The emission of greenhouse gasses are resulting in global warming
- That long term global surface temperatures are rising
- That long term sea surface temperatures are increasing and that is "attributed to greenhouse warming"

The point of the study is to breakdown the individual short-term[FONT=Verdana, ����] oscillation (the stuff you've been posting) in order to help refine the details of the [/FONT]long-term[FONT=Verdana, ����] warming trend created by greenhouse gas emissions. Their bottom line is pretty explicit: "[/FONT]Clearly understanding multi-decadal oscillations enables climate scientists to estimate global warming change signals with more certainty." This is a very good and straightforward study, it is perfectly in keeping with what virtually every climate scientist has been publishing, and it is exactly the opposite of what you have been claiming. You couldn't have found an article that does a better job of disproving your own arguments.

 

[jack97]

Just so we are on the same page. The research article you just posted is starting from an explicit understanding (they state this clearly) that:
- The emission of greenhouse gasses are resulting in global warming
- That long term global surface temperatures are rising
- That long term sea surface temperatures are increasing and that is "attributed to greenhouse warming"

The point of the study is to breakdown the individual short-term oscillation (the stuff you've been posting) in order to help refine the details of the long-term warming trend created by greenhouse gas emissions. Their bottom line is pretty explicit: "Clearly understanding multi-decadal oscillations enables climate scientists to estimate global warming change signals with more certainty." This is a very good and straightforward study, it is perfectly in keeping with what virtually every climate scientist has been publishing, and it is exactly the opposite of what you have been claiming. You couldn't have found an article that does a better job of disproving your own arguments.

you crack me up..... this is too much entertainment. This tells me you have not published or have not read research articles. Greenhouse gases and (alarmist warming) IPPC is mentioned in the introduction section to set forth the purpose of the paper. Go read the discussion and conclusion, section 5 if you can follow numbers. This section mentions CO2 as a centennial warming. IMO, they added this to curve fit the warming trends of the temp abnormality plots. BTW.... it should be warming in the interglacial.


"In addition to the SST trend changes, our analysis furthershowed the contribution of multi-decadal oscillations to the trends in thetropospheric warming. While the thermodynamic response to CO[SUB]2[/SUB] warming tends to produce a spatiallyuniform centennial warming, the transition of PDO-like oscillations fromnegative to positive phase contribute significant tropical warming and weakerextratropical cooling in the troposphere (Fig. 8. On the other hand, thetransition of AMO-like oscillation from negative to positive phase gives riseto warming trends in the Northern Hemisphere and the opposite in the SouthernHemisphere, and the range of the Northern Hemisphere warming is greater thanthat of the Southern Hemisphere cooling (Fig. 10). "


And the end goal of their paper was this,

"Clearly understanding multi-decadal oscillations enables climate scientists to estimate global warming change signals with more certainty. Such knowledge is also crucially needed for developing decadal climate prediction systems."

 

[Cannonball]

^Yup, that's what it says: There are short-term oscillations (decades long) in smaller-scale parts of the globe (southern vs northern hemisphere) that occur within the long-term (centuries+) warming trend at the largest-scale (the global climate).

It's pretty straightforward and simple. And it is exactly what the IPCC and virtually all climate scientists are saying. Which explains why this article heavily cites the IPCC. I'm not sure how you are seeing something different in this. You are even highlighting the exact things that are contrary to your point. You're essentially just arguing with yourself now.

 

[jack97]

It's pretty straightforward and simple. And it is exactly what the IPCC and virtually all climate scientists are saying. Which explains why this article heavily cites the IPCC. I'm not sure how you are seeing something different in this. You are even highlighting the exact things that are contrary to your point. You're essentially just arguing with yourself now.

Yep, unlike you and frisb, I like reading all sides both AGW and natural. A couple of things on why I see it different, curve fitting is a tricky thing, Aleo placed the sun spot activity and he can get the same trend. Once can used estimates of the different revisions of the surface temps and still make a good curve fit. All one needs is a montonic response for the long term trend.

Second, ice cores records show that co2 has lag temps, this would still be true starting from 1914 up to 1960-1970 according to the alarmist while to the present by others. However, there is a long term trend no one is in agreement with that started over a century ago. That could be a topic for another pissing match between the three of us.

As I stated, the point made by the authors was that AMO and PDO should be used to minimize the uncertainty in climate prediction. If you want to banter more about why I chose to cite an AGW paper which undercuts my pro natural stance then you are more arrogant than I give you credit for.

 

[Not Sure]

Your Tennis match is intersting but I'd like to look at the whole mechanics of the term "Green house gas "
C02 is blamed for AGW. being a clear gas ,How does it trap energy? did a little searching and found an intersesting theory on how it "traps energy"
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110113081142AAkqK9q
But the explanation leaves out or does'nt explain how it would not be reflected on the first pass through our atmosphere,
it mentions H20 as having a reflective property also . I can attest to that as having flown into areas shaded by cirrus clouds.
Convection shuts down rather quick. Also cloudy nights tend to be warmer , so more clouds equals warmer temps.
Also are there any studies of jet con trail percentage of sky cover reflecting energy? They can flaten out and grow quite large.
Hmmmm?

 

[deadheadskier]

I think we've crossed a threshold where no weather thread on AZ can exist without AGW being brought up.

I wonder if the same thing occurs on golfing forums. Regional summer forecasts are predicted and folks chime in on why or why not Humvees are to blame.

:lol:

 

[jack97]

Your Tennis match is intersting but I'd like to look at the whole mechanics of the term "Green house gas "
C02 is blamed for AGW. being a clear gas ,How does it trap energy? did a little searching and found an intersesting theory on how it "traps energy"
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110113081142AAkqK9q
But the explanation leaves out or does'nt explain how it would not be reflected on the first pass through our atmosphere,
it mentions H20 as having a reflective property also . I can attest to that as having flown into areas shaded by cirrus clouds.
Convection shuts down rather quick. Also cloudy nights tend to be warmer , so more clouds equals warmer temps.
Also are there any studies of jet con trail percentage of sky cover reflecting energy? They can flaten out and grow quite large.
Hmmmm?

Lindzen, MIT emeritus prof and Spencer lead scientist at UAH for satellite observation wrote papers about this cloud feedback process. They also mentioned from other lectures that it is not a well modeled process in the GCMs used by the IPCC for climate prediction.

Spencer also has interesting insight on why the GCM models were predicting the troposphere hot spot which would be the true indicator of the greenhouse effect where as the satellite and weather balloon has not observed this.

 

[jack97]

I think we've crossed a threshold where no weather thread on AZ can exist without AGW being brought up.

I wonder if the same thing occurs on golfing forums. Regional summer forecasts are predicted and folks chime in on why or why not Humvees are to blame.

:lol:

lol.... I'll take credit in derailing this thread toward falsifying AGW. I take no shame in doing so.

BTW, in terms of golfing, most regions in US have had a cool summer so I doubt they are complaining. JB is saying this cooling is going to last and we are heading for a bad winter... meaning a good winter for skiing/riding. Fingers cross for the later.

 

[Cannonball]

I think we've crossed a threshold where no weather thread on AZ can exist without AGW being brought up.

Yeah, it's pretty predictable at this point. And as is often the case: Predictable = dull