2014-2015 Winter Forecast (here we go)

[fbrissette]

Yep, unlike you and frisb,

Frisb ???? How about 'frisbee' while you're at it ! Wouldn't be your first distortion of reality anyway...

 

[jack97]

Frisb ???? How about 'frisbee' while you're at it ! Wouldn't be your first distortion of reality anyway...

Sorry...typo due to my haste to finish the post so that I can read more about how that heat is missing....haha.

 

[fbrissette]

Sorry...typo due to my haste to finish the post so that I can read more about how that heat is missing....haha.

To help you out with your readings.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...tralianled-research-finds-20140720-zuuoe.html

Here's the link to the paper. Look at Figure 6.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html

If you take the ensemble mean (mean of all models as is usually done) you average out natural variability and you are left with the climate change trend. By selecting the climate models that are in phase with the current ENSO they reproduce the temperature plateau very well.

 

[jack97]

To help you out with your readings.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...tralianled-research-finds-20140720-zuuoe.html

Here's the link to the paper. Look at Figure 6.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html

If you take the ensemble mean (mean of all models as is usually done) you average out natural variability and you are left with the climate change trend. By selecting the climate models that are in phase with the current ENSO they reproduce the temperature plateau very well.

lol.... are you kidding me? I asked for a something more definitive about the heat hiding in the ocean but I get a propaganda paper on the CMIP5 sets of models. Lead author states the following;

By selecting climate models in phase with natural variability, the research found that model trends have been consistent with observed trends, even during the recent “slowdown” period for warming, Dr Risbey said.

So this begs the question, how many of the models got selected, by the figures, I think 3 to 4 models made the cut, iirc the set has 20 to 30 models.


Second, per the abstract, they have to sequence the phase of the El Niino oscillations.

We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations.


Third , the pause seems to start around the mid 1970s, its off by ~ 30 years, not even close to the observations.


So in the contrived model world, in order for a climate prediction, one would have to pre select the right models and have the proper oscillations sequence.... well this means we have to make a prediction for the climate prediction. It's no wonder that one of the author teaches at School of Experimental Psychology. It truly reeks of massaging a message instead of a rigorous scientific paper.

Wouldn't be your first distortion of reality anyway...

Now I get it, distorting reality does not apply to you or a AGW researcher.

 

[fbrissette]

I asked for a something more definitive about the heat hiding in the ocean but I get a propaganda paper on the CMIP5 sets of models. Lead author states the following;

This paper is ultimately about heat and the ocean. Forget about climate change just for a second. Some components of natural variability (like ENSO) are NOT linked to changes in solar activity. We get cooling and heating periods with constant solar radiation. Where do you think the solar heat goes ? The ocean absorbs and releases the heat to go along with it's decadal variability. It's not a new concept.

Second, per the abstract, they have to sequence the phase of the El Niino oscillations.

We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations.


Third , the pause seems to start around the mid 1970s, its off by ~ 30 years, not even close to the observations.


So in the contrived model world, in order for a climate prediction, one would have to pre select the right models and have the proper oscillations sequence.... well this means we have to make a prediction for the climate prediction. It's no wonder that one of the author teaches at School of Experimental Psychology. It truly reeks of massaging a message instead of a rigorous scientific paper.

It is amazing that you would be so critical of climate model when you clearly have zero understanding of how they work.

The only forcing climate model use is solar radiation at the upper atmosphere and the composition of the atmosphere (mainly greenhouse gases and aerosols). Climate models are not assimilating any data (as do weather models) and as such are completely disconnected from the earth real sequence of events (with the exception of major solar eruption, where the input of large amount of aerosols will provoke a cooling effect). In other words, in the sequence of natural variability, warm years don't happen at the same time in the model and on the earth. Wet and dry years will also happen at a similar rate but NOT at the same time. Natural variability in the models is out of phase to that of the real earth because nothing is connecting the real earth to the earth simulated by the climate models - it's like a similar planet in a parallel universe (in weather models, near-real time observations from stations, weather balloons and satellites is assimilated in the model so that the model and real earth are in phase).

So what happens when you use the ensemble mean as is done by the IPCC ? You average out the natural variability of all the climate models (non of which are in phase except by chance) and you end up with the climate change signal which is a steadily increasing line. This is pretty basic stuff. If you select the few models where ENSO is relatively in phase with the currently observed sequence on earth, you end up with a plateau similar to the one currently observed.

None of the models are perfectly in phase (they are NOT supposed to be in phase !!!!) so you cannot expect them to fit the observed line perfectly!!! because that CAN'T !!! And ENSO (the criteria for selection) does not control all of the natural variability. The fact that those models are closest in phase to the observed ENSO cycle on the earth does not mean that they are better, it's just the luck of the draw.

So to recapitulate:

- the ensemble mean from CMIP5 models CANNOT show a plateau (this is obvious to anyone who knows about climate models). I repeat, the ensemble mean CANNOT result in a plateau. It just CAN'T. Yet, you and your friends insist on using this graph to show that climate models are bad, when in reality you are only showcasing your ignorance.

- if you look at each individuals members, most show plateaus due to their own natural variability (which is realtively similar to the natural variability observed on earth in terms of time scales) - however, these plateau CANNOT happen at the same time unless it is by chance.

- if you take the models that are the closest in phase to the current ENSO cycle observed on the earth and you average them out, you do you get a plateau similar to the one currently observed on the earth. Expecting the plateau to be exactly like the one we have on earth is NOT possible !!! Expecting this simply means you have no clue about what climate models do.

This is no new science in this paper, but it is a clever way of showing the above concepts in a practical way.

As to observations on ocean heat uptake, do your own search. You have proven over and over again your inability at reading and understanding basic concepts in science papers, including the ones you offer on your own and that supposedly back up your point of view.

This thread is a perfect example as to why scientists are so reluctant to enter the public debate. Nothing to gain beside the increase in post counts.

Frisbee

 

[jack97]

It is amazing that you would be so critical of climate model when you clearly have zero understanding of how they work.


None of the models are perfectly in phase (they are NOT supposed to be in phase !!!!) so you cannot expect them to fit the observed line perfectly!!! because that CAN'T !!! And ENSO (the criteria for selection) does not control all of the natural variability. The fact that those models are closest in phase to the observed ENSO cycle on the earth does not mean that they are better, it's just the luck of the draw.

So to recapitulate:

- the ensemble mean from CMIP5 models CANNOT show a plateau (this is obvious to anyone who knows about climate models). I repeat, the ensemble mean CANNOT result in a plateau. It just CAN'T. Yet, you and your friends insist on using this graph to show that climate models are bad, when in reality you are only showcasing your ignorance.

- if you look at each individuals members, most show plateaus due to their own natural variability (which is realtively similar to the natural variability observed on earth in terms of time scales) - however, these plateau CANNOT happen at the same time unless it is by chance.

- if you take the models that are the closest in phase to the current ENSO cycle observed on the earth and you average them out, you do you get a plateau similar to the one currently observed on the earth. Expecting the plateau to be exactly like the one we have on earth is NOT possible !!! Expecting this simply means you have no clue about what climate models do.

This is no new science in this paper, but it is a clever way of showing the above concepts in a practical way.

As to observations on ocean heat uptake, do your own search. You have proven over and over again your inability at reading and understanding basic concepts in science papers, including the ones you offer on your own and that supposedly back up your point of view.

This thread is a perfect example as to why scientists are so reluctant to enter the public debate. Nothing to gain beside the increase in post counts.

Frisbee

You and the modelers (IPPC) are asking that the western world bankrupt and ruin their economies just to satisfy the political agenda based on the outcomes of models that do not reflect reality. BTW, money generated in a robust economy usually fuels more research. Such as research to address real environmental issues.

And yes, it been known for quite some time that the models have limitations, there have been papers published on this topic. Yet the IPPC still wants to ruin the economy, which is troubling.


Equally true is that models are based on faulty principles and will never be accurate. The observations just proves this. In addition, there are scientist (Christy, Lindzen, Curry and I can list more) that have talked about how the models are wrong. Its the AGW scientist and researchers who are dogmatic about this topic and just wants to massage the message to misdirect the scientific truth.

This paper is ultimately about heat and the ocean. Forget about climate change just for a second. Some components of natural variability (like ENSO) are NOT linked to changes in solar activity. We get cooling and heating periods with constant solar radiation. Where do you think the solar heat goes ? The ocean absorbs and releases the heat to go along with it's decadal variability. It's not a new concept.

haha... yep, it's not a new concept. And based on your acknowledgement the lack of accuracy in the models, I find it more amusing that Trenberth and Fasullo have based their missing heat on the outcomes of these models..... maybe the models are faulty and there is no missing heat.

 

[dlague]

Well here is another promising forecast! Let's hope they pan out. The El Niño character keeps getting referenced in all the forecasts.

http://liveweatherblogs.com/index.p...er-rochester-salem-merrimack-keene?groupid=61



.......

 

[deadheadskier]

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

Why do you feel compelled to do this in literally every single thread about weather these days? It seems to me that if there's a slight opportunity in any thread to crowbar in your beliefs on AGW, you take it.

And in asking this question, this is not me trying to "moderate" such discussions and telling you to stop. By all means, if discussing AGW is what turns you on, go for it. It just seems you are on a mission from god to try and disprove AGW.

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

agreed

I find most AGW conversations have become no different than most major political and or moral arguments of the day; capital punishment, gun control, abortion, etc. You've got two sides that will never change their opinion on the subject or the opinions on the other side, so around and around they go ad nauseam.

 

[dlague]

:beer:

Can't we all just get along? So back to this winter forecast - excitement, could care less, sad?

 

[fbrissette]

:beer:

Can't we all just get along? So back to this winter forecast - excitement, could care less, sad?

Sorry. No excitement for me since the scientific value of seasonal forecasts for the North-East is nil.

Bad years always have good days, and great years always have bad days. My philosophy has always been the same - I get rid of my teaching load in the fall trimester, try to minimize meetings and commitments during the winter term, ski every snow storm, hit the backcountry on below average days. Works for me !

 

[jack97]

It just seems you are on a mission from god to try and disprove AGW.

I'm not on a mission from god.... I'm on a mission from the guy below.

 

[jack97]

Well here is another promising forecast! Let's hope they pan out. The El Niño character keeps getting referenced in all the forecasts.

http://liveweatherblogs.com/index.p...er-rochester-salem-merrimack-keene?groupid=61



.......

:beer:

Can't we all just get along? So back to this winter forecast - excitement, could care less, sad?

Last I checked, the index is still in favor for the nino event, the strength is still a guess. But some believe the PDO's phase will make this a moderate to neutral event. Another item is the ocean may have overall gotten colder or losing heat since early 2000, this has been confirmed by several papers and yet invalidated by others. If long range forecaster (JB and Aleo) believe in the former, they will most likely believe we will have a winter similar to last season or worse

 

[fbrissette]

Another item is the ocean may have overall gotten colder or losing heat since early 2000, this has been confirmed by several papers

For crying out loud, this BS has got to stop.

 

[jack97]

For crying out loud, this BS has got to stop.

haha.... typical hypocrisy on your part. You cite a propaganda paper yesterday and now today you call me out on citing papers that the ocean is cooling but yet leave out that I mentioned papers that have invalidate this cooling. I tried to state a balance reply but you have to focus on the one thing you do not agree with.

OK, if you want to go for a couple more rounds I can cite them from rigorous scientific journals but it will quickly lose the interest of other posters and make this into a real piss war.

And btw, there's several interesting papers that may invalidate the missing heat suggestion.

 

[Cannonball]

Can we all just agree to stop feeding this troll?

 

[jack97]

Can we all just agree to stop feeding this troll?

WTF.... a cooling trend will make for a better winter for skiing and riding. I stated that there are papers that state a cooling ocean and papers that invalidate this, imo a balanced reply.

It's you and frisbee that can not accept the other part.

 

[Edd]

You and the modelers (IPPC) are asking that the western world bankrupt and ruin their economies just to satisfy the political agenda based on the outcomes of models that do not reflect reality....

Yet the IPPC still wants to ruin the economy, which is troubling....

These statements come off as conspiracy theory nonsense. You may want to re-phrase them so they sound less delusional. Read them back to yourself objectively. This is the point where the anti-climate change crowd shows their hand. The concern isn't long term global health. It's short term profit.

 

[jack97]

These statements come off as conspiracy theory nonsense. You may want to re-phrase them so they sound less delusional. Read them back to yourself objectively. This is the point where the anti-climate change crowd shows their hand. The concern isn't long term global health. It's short term profit.

Yep, I hear ya.. it is about short term profits, however that may set an economic trend that may take many years to recover. That will hurt in general.

The issue I have is as of 2008, US has spent close to 80 billion on climate research. given how the models work and their results, that money could have been better spent else where. The IPCC never cared about the accuracy of the models, it was never about science.

 

[jack97]

Getting this back to the Winter forecast thread.... JB called it this week end. He thinks the planet is going to be cooling for the next 20 to 30 years. Just to be clear that I do not distort reality... cooling in terms of the temps abnormality having a negative trend. How this relates to winter is it would be the back drop for some very cold weather.



statement around 3:00 mark
http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-july-19-2014

 

[Not Sure]

Getting this back to the Winter forecast thread.... JB called it this week end. He thinks the planet is going to be cooling for the next 20 to 30 years. Just to be clear that I do not distort reality... cooling in terms of the temps abnormality having a negative trend. How this relates to winter is it would be the back drop for some very cold weather.



statement around 3:00 mark
http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-july-19-2014

Simalar to 1967....Hmmm 1968 would be better
http://www.uvm.edu/~empact/data/gendateplot.php3?table=SummitStation&title=Mount+Mansfield+Summit+Station&xskip=7&xparam=Date&yparam=Depth&year%5B%5D=1967&year%5B%5D=1968&width=800&height=600&smooth=0&csv=0&totals=0