North pole to melt this year?

BTW, if heat added to the system is your barometer, then there is no way that they should have factored out solar variance...that is a direct contributor to the heat in the system. However, it IS exogenous, so by their methodology it's acceptable to exclude it...
 
This would only be true if the ocean and atmosphere was not retaining more and more heat (ie warming) because of the radiance imbalance. The ocean is not losing heat over time or even remaining static.
 
The ocean acts, over time, as a heat sink. It is a net absorber of heat as demonstrated by the continued warming trend. It absorbs less heat during an El Nino and absorbs more heat during La Nina. It is not a "source" of heat. The only way including El Nino and La Nina as non-noise might make sense is if the ocean were warming and cooling during these events which it is not. The heat retention is trending up because of the radiative imbalance caused by the greenhouse effect. The fact that this may cause more El Nino events is hardly novel and also does not change the nature of temperature trends in the atmosphere and in the ocean.
 
The ocean refers to the entire giant body of water covering 70% of the earth's surface that acts as a giant heat sink. As I understand it, El Nino is caused by warmer surface waters in a significant area of the Pacific. This event does not "cause" the ocean (that giant body of water) to lose heat over time because the overall body of water is retaining more and more heat reflecting the radiative imbalance of the planet. This is actually the absolutely most significant impact of the greenhouse effect because water absorbs and retains way more heat than the atmosphere. We have records reflecting the heating of the upper 2,000 meters of the ocean. It is a one way trend. I will also readily admit that the records for this, while pretty good over time and if you understand them, are still being improved. We also need records of the deeper ocean.

lyman-models.jpg
 
And lets step back and examine this from a math and/or scientific perspective.

The reason you remove the short term distortion (up and down) caused by sun cycles, volcanoes, and ENSO is because over time these items average out and do not alter the long term trend. If the paper AwK linked is correct (and this certainly is the hypothesis of the scientists) that El Nino events will increase in length, number, and intensity in the future then the adjustments made in my linked paper actually reflect too little rather than too much warming.

The primary utility of this paper and methodology is to obtain statistically significant trends on far shorter intervals by eliminating short term variables. It also prevents the cute "trick" of using a strong El Nino starting point or La Nina ending point to try to claim global cooling or the absence of statistically significant evidence over some relatively short time interval. This is called cherry picking. This is not really a problem over a 30 year interval where the cycles occur numerous times.

And I do not think any legitimate scientist would agree with limiting the data to 15 years when you have 30 years just as I do not believe any legitimate scientist would dispute that a statistically significant trend over 30 years includes the 15 year subset.

Trend is all that matters.
 
Those that have legitimate questions from Paso and want to learn something I find interesting. Those that think they know better or want to correct him are hilarious.

Ice extent is high this March looking at the past 10 years due to low temperatures and wind patters. We have continued to see a trend of ice loss over the summer months and it is not pedicted that this small bit of ice growth in March will be a new trend.
 
mop and, to a lesser extent, AwK are disputing that trend is all that matters. They are purposefully picking a time frame that starts with a large El Nino and ends with a La Nina in order to claim that temperatures are flat or the increase is not statistically significant. I think 15 years is an adequate time frame provided the data is properly adjusted. Alternatively, you can look at a longer time frame. Temperature records have some known noise which makes shorter intervals less reliable. I don't really know how short a term could be although provided the noise was removed the paper that I linked suggests 11 years.
 
PMOD_TSI.jpg


This is the solar cycle that they smooth (ie place in the middle). You might note the we are at a minimum and yet temperatures are rising. I believe the adjustment is relatively small (like maybe .04 of a degree C).
 
Claiming that looking at a 15 year "trend" with a single data set that is not statistically significant and where you cherry pick the beginning and end points tells me all I need to know about how honest and/or interested in math or science you are. It is a completely illegitimate and dishonest inquiry.
 
actually, i am the only one on this thread that has looked at it in all 5 of the widely accepted datasets. what did we find? we found one that showed COOLING, 1 that showed flatline and 3 remaining that showed quite modest warming, but much less than we had seen leading up to that point.
 
And what do all those data sets show over the last 30 years?

And what events occurred in 1998 and 2010 that would distort the short term "trend"?
 
Paso:
Sorry if this is some side issue, but thanks for those graphs. Two questions. First, do we really have reliable data about the sun's activity in the 1800s? When I see a graph that goes back that far, I suspect that some recent period is from modern precise measurement techniques, and the rest has been extrapolated from some primative guesswork based on ice cores or tree rings or something, with someone extrapolating it using major assumptions (such as assuming that the trends are overall flat). Is there an easy explanation for how that data is collected?

Second, on the yellow and orange graph, it looks like the high sides of the cycles are much stronger over the past 50 years than for the 50 years before. I have to admit, I am not sure what this graph measures, but does that indicate that these past several decades have had increasing heat input from the sun?

If what you meant before is that you have to undo some of this wave to make sense out of shorter trends, I think I see what you mean. We need to straighten out that wavy line. But, then I need to know what delay there is in the effect and whether the effect tails off after 20 months, 60 months, etc., and in what shape of tail. The small amount of adjustment you said is made makes this not that big a deal, but it makes me curious.

More what I was driving at, though, is that there is no good basis to assume over a longer time period than these cycles that the overall energy the sun puts on us (which probably consists in more factors than are measured on that one graph), that that energy input, is level over time.
 
As I understand it, the records go back to 1880 because TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) is related to the number of sunspots and so counting sunspots (which they have done since 1880) gives an accurate value for TSI. I believe in the 70's or maybe even 80's we started calculating it by satellite measurement. You might notice that it is not a huge difference between the peaks and valleys. I believe the energy difference translates into around .04 degree C which is not enough to throw off the long term trend, but enough particularly if coupled with a La Nina and maybe a volcano to mask the short term trend.
 
it dawns on me paso, you have repeatedly asked something like the following (paraphrase coming): "why use a shorter timeframe when we have a longer one?" then you have repeatedly used a shorter timeframe than we have. here is the GISS back to 1880 (as far back as it goes):

GISS from 1880

notice that over 130 years warming is less than .8 degrees celsius, which is a trend of .06 degrees Celsius per decade. Is this fair?
 
it's funny to see that even the Director of the Max Planck Institute in Germany agrees that current observations are divergent from models. Unlike Paso and GT, he can admit when climate observations are not sticking to the models. This is from a German Skeptical website called "No Trick's Zone" and is presumably a translation since the article is in German:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
And here is 2010:

The Link

The chart does not display very well (way too big), but the temperature data was right smack dab in the middle of the projection. I am pretty sure 2011 fell a bit below but still well within the 95% range.

Here is 2011 (and I was right):

The Link
 
two things about your response amuses me. one is that your graph SHOWS the lack of warming from 1997-2012 that you have been denying for 4 weeks.

The second is that you didn't respond to my suggestion that we use the entire 130 year record from GISS. Why is that i wonder? Do you not like the idea of using the .06 Celsius trend per decade when we use the LONGER and more compete data set? I thought it was you who had repeatedly claimed that we would be amiss to not use the longer data set when we have it right? Or would you prefer to start with 1979? i guess you find it more compelling to start at the very end of a 3 to 4 decades long temperature decline eh?
blush.gif
blush.gif
 
ah so after 4 weeks of having this discussion, you hide behind that again? so why not use the 130 year trend? go ahead and explain. explain why YOU said to use the longer trend, but really want to cherry pick the most recent warming of 20 years and ignore the past 15 years, or the 40 years (or the 95 years) before that? i can understand how this would make your case, but that is a rather pitiful way to make it now isn't it?

so why not use the 130 year record to arrive at our trend? better yet, since you have such a deep and profound understanding of these things. what is the 130 year trend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top