My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[CraigD]

Perhaps we need a Climate Audit approved stamp for AGW related research :evil:

You're esentially calling for a peer-review process here; but just by your peers, it seems (though the folks at climateaudit might object to that characterization).

I’m not very familiar with climateaudit.com, but from what I’ve seen of it, and the general acclaim it won in 2007, I’m impressed that it’s a valuable science contributor, and a stand-out model of how both how to participate in science without being invited, and, on the part of NASA:GISS, how to welcome and respond to good uninvited input. As a result of Stephen McIntyre’s respectful and high quality work with GISS, a significant error in their analysis was corrected, and the GISS’s accepting McIntyre’s recommendation to make their code and documentation available online.

 

That said, I doubt that ClimateAudit has the resources to review all the climatology literature, or the skills to review any but raw temperature and possibly other instrument data. As best I can tell, when it comes to actual work, ClimateAudit is essentially a synonym for McIntyre, so its output is limited to that of a single person with the same academic background as me (a BS in Math), though 12 years earlier, and with more distinction, having won top national high school math honors (vs. my meager statewide college computer programming 1st place team win). That a single, independent worker can make such a contribution is, IMHO, inspiring.

 

That McIntyre’s worked in the mining industry leads many, I think, to suspect him of bias, but his work appears to me to stand on its own.

[Cedars]

Those warm local temperatures were concurrent with a robust polar cap. Treelines tell us about summertime highs (not winter highs). Well, that's another story too. Mainly....

 

The temperature ranges indicated by that article match very closely with the global concensus on Holocene temperatures:

Yep, warmer from 7000-2000 years ago... just like the paper says.

This follows the typical shape for any interglacial period, except for the very recent past--suddenly we're off the scale (relatively)--certainly out of the regular pattern for an interglacial.

==

If that rate keeps up for another ten years, the new treeline will have exceeded the highest Holocene treeline from the past 9000 years.

~ :)

 

One cannot look at the history of climate and confine it to the limited time offered in the above. One must look at the bigger picture. Like the last 5 million years:

 

Plenty of remarkable ups and downs.

65 million years:

 

500+million years:

Image:Phanerozoic Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

Could you please point out to me what is "normal" (assuming the earth doesnt revolve around people)? What appears unprecedented is how cold its been (i mean the big picture, not the teeny piece of the last 30 years)

 

As far as your reference to saplings. If they make it to treeline status, we'll see. There is a reason the authors referred to them as saplings rather than the official tree line. That reason being many saplings sprout and few make it to actual tree (age wise) status. Additionally, it will still be only caught up to past treelines (since the end of the last ice age). Those trees lasted in that very high position for many, many years.

 

*note Pictures above from same source as Essays original picture. GlobalWarmingArt.com

[Essay]

One cannot look at the history of climate and confine it to the limited time offered in the above. One must look at the bigger picture.

Like the last 5 million years:

....

Plenty of remarkable ups and downs.

65 million years:

....

500+million years:

....

Could you please point out to me what is "normal" (assuming the earth doesnt revolve around people)? What appears unprecedented is how cold its been (i mean the big picture, not the teeny piece of the last 30 years)

 

As far as your reference to saplings. If they make it to treeline status, we'll see. There is a reason the authors referred to them as saplings rather than the official tree line. That reason being many saplings sprout and few make it to actual tree (age wise) status. Additionally, it will still be only caught up to past treelines (since the end of the last ice age). Those trees lasted in that very high position for many, many years.

 

Good reply! I knew I was stretching it when I referred to the "new" treeline (of saplings).

Good catch! Yes the Arctic may be on its way to recovery and the temperatures may decline before those saplings establish an official treeline, but....

 

You have to admit that the jump in elevation during the 20 years between 1980 and 2000 is dramatic--compared to the much smaller rise during the previous 100 years.

 

Maybe it's significant or maybe not--it's just one snapshot--and....

...it was also just one parenthetical aside, in a much larger picture.

 

~ :phones:

 

p.s. Great charts! I'll get to the importance of scale and mode later. These charts are a good starting point for a conversation centering around questions such as what is a good time frame to establish a "normal" baseline, or what mode of atmospheric chemistry is driving the climate, or what modes of circulation are driving the climate, etc. [hint: continental drift, and the rise of... oxygen, certain mountain ranges, and the grasses].

[Cedars]

You have to admit that the jump in elevation during the 20 years between 1980 and 2000 is dramatic--compared to the much smaller rise during the previous 100 years.

Dramatic?

 

Not when considering the world is still crawling out of the effects of the little ice age.

 

Page 11 shows a graph of what is believed to be the established (old growth) forest above the 2000 sapling edge lasting over 1000 years. And that was 5,000 years ago. Not so long after the end of the last ice age. Some of the old trees sampled were estimated to be 350 years old at the time they died.

 

Ask me in 300 years if this is dramatic, or just another cycle.

These charts are a good starting point for a conversation centering around questions such as what is a good time frame to establish a "normal" baseline, or what mode of atmospheric chemistry is driving the climate, or what modes of circulation are driving the climate, etc. [hint: continental drift, and the rise of... oxygen, certain mountain ranges, and the grasses].

 

The point was simply, there is no normal.

[Essay]

Dramatic?

Not when considering the world is still crawling out of the effects of the little ice age.

...the established (old growth) forest above the 2000 sapling edge lasting over 1000 years. And that was 5,000 years ago. Not so long after the end of the last ice age.

"Yes the Arctic may be on its way to recovery and the temperatures may decline before those saplings establish an official treeline, but...."

"If that rate keeps up for [just] another ten years, the new treeline will have exceeded the highest Holocene treeline from the past 9000 years."

...and yet all the long-term climate parameters indicate we should currently be well below those Holocene maximums. Something is changing the result for the cumulation of natural forcers.

 

 

...Ask me in 300 years if this is dramatic, or just another cycle. :coffee_n_pc:

 

The point was simply, there is no normal.

Either way, dramatic change or "another cycle," it'll be more than we want to try and "adapt" to....

===

 

Sorry I can't respond better now (or for a few days), but I do agree with the "what is normal" question.

It's clear that there are a lot of different climate modes that are "normal." Most of these would not be conducive to maintaining civilization as we know it.

 

I think we can now ask what climate we want to choose as normal; or maybe it'd be better to ask which climates we want to avoid--prevent from becoming normal.

 

It seems that we are currently (unintentionally) geoengineering our climate with our various pollutants....

...so am suggesting we choose intentionally (for a change) to biogeoengineer a more stable (less unstable) climate,

and adjust our strategies as natural forcers change.

 

Learning to control our environment is the adaptation that we excell at, as a species.

If we don't prevent a large change in the environment, we will adapt as a species eventually--but not quickly as a civilization--not as a collective humanity.

 

...and try to deacidify and reoxygenate the oceans too.

===

 

I don't worry about GW because of little shifts in treelines or sea level. I worry about unintentional forcing of the atmospheric and oceanic chemistry that will change the sustainability equations for our species.

 

I worry most about triggering another glaciation, as the climate snaps back--reacting to the forced instability.

 

~ :computerkick:

[Cedars]

Either way, dramatic change or "another cycle," it'll be more than we want to try and "adapt" to....

===

 

It's clear that there are a lot of different climate modes that are "normal." Most of these would not be conducive to maintaining civilization as we know it.

 

I think we can now ask what climate we want to choose as normal; or maybe it'd be better to ask which climates we want to avoid--prevent from becoming normal.

Not trying to be insulting but... strikingly similar to the god complex or a Superiority complex.

 

Geologically, its a given that all our coastlines (as we know them) will disappear. That is the natural order of events. Florida is half the size it was and is nothing more than a sandbar. And we should have turned New Orleans into an aquatic park after Katrina and allowed the Mississippi river to re-route (as its been trying to do for almost 100 years).

 

It seems that we are currently (unintentionally) geoengineering our climate with our various pollutants....

...so am suggesting we choose intentionally (for a change) to biogeoengineer a more stable (less unstable) climate,

and adjust our strategies as natural forcers change.

It may seem that way to you. I always laugh when someone suggests engineering a more stable climate (big picture) when we cannot predict with great accuracy, the weather in a year. The things you propose to control / regulate are chaotic. Non-linear.

 

As far as whether 'most of the [past] climates not being conductive to civilization as we know it'. Baloney. The majority of the most productive soils of the world are located in less than optimum climate conditions to fully utilize their potential.

Learning to control our environment is the adaptation that we excell at, as a species.

If we don't prevent a large change in the environment, we will adapt as a species eventually--but not quickly as a civilization--not as a collective humanity.

No. Creating tools is what we did. We never controlled our environment, we used tools to keep the environment away.

...and try to deacidify and reoxygenate the oceans too.

===

Post something of substance and I will respond. But first please refresh you information on what makes water acidic. Its the PH thingy going on. The minute change in ocean ph is not acidic, it is less alciline (sp?). There is a LONG way to go before the ocean is 'acidic'.

 

I know of no aquatic life form that is affected by the degree of change being printed as having occurred. Meaning the degree of variance is larger than the measured change. For some reason aquatic species have evolved with a +/- factor built in to allow their survival in a varied PH condition. hmmm...

I don't worry about GW because of little shifts in treelines or sea level. I worry about unintentional forcing of the atmospheric and oceanic chemistry that will change the sustainability equations for our species.

I think your worry is misplaced. The real issue with sustainability is the sheer number of people competing for limited resources. We shall eat ourselves into sustainability issues long before we boil over. And imagine what a little ice age would do to world food supplies.

I worry most about triggering another glaciation, as the climate snaps back--reacting to the forced instability.

 

~ :computerkick:

Ah, the global warming causes global cooling theory.

 

This is why people spend years on a therapist's couch. Disaster looms! You see evil all around you. Half kidding aside...

[REASON]

We shall eat ourselves into sustainability issues long before we boil over.

 

Maybe, but we'll definitely be killed by all those terrorists that hate us for our freedoms first. :computerkick:

[Cedars]

Maybe, but we'll definitely be killed by all those terrorists that hate us for our freedoms first. :computerkick:

 

Just cant stay on topic can you? I am still waiting for a response to this:

But it continues to get stranger. There are 4 different people reporting these kinds of things.

From April 2008:

On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomoly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964

 

Raw Data vs Adjusted Data:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...comparison.png

 

More on the data above:

How not to measure temperature, part 79 - could you, would you, with a boat? Watts Up With That?

 

So why adjust the temperature upwards from the N.M example?

Note the New Mexico example. Now the skeptic sites agree that some adjustments are needed. But the RAW data shows a decline in temps. The adjusted data flips this around so now it appears to be a slight increase.

 

The climate audit info is also bizarre.

 

And finally a reference skipped over as though it was never posted (note posted prior to the babe ruth analogy):

 

Rolls Eyes.

[CraigD]

Learning to control our environment is the adaptation that we excell at, as a species.

If we don't prevent a large change in the environment, we will adapt as a species eventually--but not quickly as a civilization--not as a collective humanity.

No. Creating tools is what we did. We never controlled our environment, we used tools to keep the environment away.

It’s inaccurate to base ones understanding of the current affect of humans on the Earth entirely on past precedent, because there are many more humans on Earth than in the past, and our output of carbon into the atmosphere is many times greater.

 

We may not be “controlling” our environment now, but we are IMHO significantly affecting it. We’ve a long way to go before we equal the impact, of, say, ancient bluegreen algae, but we are unarguably exceeding the impact of any previous human population.

...and try to deacidify and reoxygenate the oceans too.

===

Post something of substance and I will respond. But first please refresh you information on what makes water acidic. Its the PH thingy going on. The minute change in ocean ph is not acidic, it is less alciline (sp?). There is a LONG way to go before the ocean is 'acidic'.

Recent increases in concerns about reductions in ocean pH are due in large, I think, due to reports in the popular press of recent reports of Tim Woottoon’s study of change in pH in the ocean around Tatoosh island, Washington state, USA, such as this 11/25/08 Discovery Channel article and this 11/24/08 National Geographic article, which show, since monitoring was started there in 2000, a much faster reduction in pH, by a factor of about 10, than predicted by the most accepted models.

 

pH is the negative log base 10 of ratio of positive hydrogen ion to all the hydrogen in a water solution. The lower pH is, the higher the concentration of H+ ions, and the greater the acidity of the solution. The higher pH is, the lower the concentration, and the lower the acidity of the solution. A pH of 7 – that is 1 H+ for every 10,000,000 H - is considered neutral. The word “acid” refers to a solution with pH less than 7, “alkaline” or “basic” to a solution with pH greater that 7, or something that can be dissolved into water to increase its pH. “Acidic” and “alkaline” are thus simply names for ranges of the pH scale – a solution cannot be made more acidic without being made less alkaline, and vice versa. Note that negative ions are not counted, because they can be assumed to have total negative charge about equal to the positive hydrogen ions.

 

The average surface ocean pH is currently about 8.10, an alkaline solution. However, prior to about 1800, it was about 8.18, and it’s expected that by 2050, it will be about 7.95.

 

How the absorption of [ce]CO2[/ce] by water makes it acidic is well-understood: a molecule of carbon dioxide combines with a molecule of water to make a molecule of carbonic acid ([ce]CO2 + H2O \leftrightarrows[/ce][ce]H2CO3[/ce]), which forms a molecule of bicarbonate ([ce]H2CO3 \leftrightarrows [/ce][ce]HCO3^- +H^+[/ce]), which forms a molecule of carbonate ([ce]H2CO3^- \leftrightarrows [/ce][ce]CO3^{2-} +H^+[/ce]). These reactions are reversible and at equilibrium for a give temperature and partial pressure of [ce]CO2[/ce] gas, so increasing atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce] concentration decreases pH, and heating water releases [ce]CO2[/ce] gas and increases pH.

 

This primary concern with the decrease in ocean pH is that marine life that depends on sodium bicarbonate, such as muscles, barnacles, and, most critically, coral, can die off. Although muscles and barnacles appear to be easily replaced in their ecologic niche by other animals, coral is an important “anchor” organism, the loss of which can adversely affect many other species.

I think your worry is misplaced. The real issue with sustainability is the sheer number of people competing for limited resources. We shall eat ourselves into sustainability issues long before we boil over. And imagine what a little ice age would do to world food supplies.

Though population control is, I think all but a minority or people agree, one of the greatest, or, as Cedars concludes, problems facing humankind, ignoring other problems is, I think, unwise. This is especially true when these problems are interrelated. Increased population leads to greater burning and releases of carbon into the atmosphere.

Ah, the global warming causes global cooling theory.

The hypothesis that global warming will produce regional global cooling is based on the hypothesis that decreased salinity of ocean water due to melted ice will alter ocean currents, in particular the North Atlantic Current, which results in the American Northeast, Ireland, and England being warmer than other locations at their latitude, such as Siberia.

 

It appears to me that this hypothesis is incorrect, as North Atlantic salinity has been decreased by meltwater to as great an extent as assumed by many versions of the hypothesis, without the predicted change in North Atlantic stream current.

 

This hypothesis was the basis of some very silly and alarming scifi movies, in particular 2004’s “The Day After Tomorrow”. Such movies, IMHO, are detrimental to public awareness and appreciation of science. :thumbs_do

 

I think the exchange between Cedars and Essay illustrates a difference in attitude key to the sociology of the acceptance and rejecting of anthropogenic climate change. On one hand, there is a belief that the Earth is big and resilient beyond the power of humankind to affect. On the other, there is an instinct to caution manifest as the belief that, if humans behave as much as possible as they have always behaved, the world will change as little as possible. Both attitudes have, I think, merits, but neither is scientific or accurate.

 

Our best hope for an accurate understanding of the Earth and the impact of humans on it lies, I think, in the sciences of climate measurement and modeling. These disciplines work best, I think, in the absence of social and political influences. I’m hopeful that at the core of these disciplines are working scientists who share my view, and strive to avoid nonscientific biases, and that in due time these disciplines will mature to a point where there will be no sensible disagreement about their conclusions.

[Cedars]

The average surface ocean pH is currently about 8.10, an alkaline solution. However, prior to about 1800, it was about 8.18, and it’s expected that by 2050, it will be about 7.95.

 

This primary concern with the decrease in ocean pH is that marine life that depends on sodium bicarbonate, such as muscles, barnacles, and, most critically, coral, can die off. Although muscles and barnacles appear to be easily replaced in their ecologic niche by other animals, coral is an important “anchor” organism, the loss of which can adversely affect many other species.

 

Hi craig

 

I am just going to respond to this piece of your response for now. Lost a day due to being sick. *I am begining to think all plagues begin with a 3 year old named after their father...

 

"Gazeau and coworkers (2007) reported that calcification rates in the mussel Mytilus edulis and the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas decreased by 25% and 10%, respectively, when grown at 740 ppmv CO2. Similarly, reduced shell growth was observed in the gastropod Strombus luhuanus and two sea urchin species when grown at 560 ppmv CO2 over a 6-month period (Shirayama & Thorton 2005). "

 

Reduced shell growth does not translate into catastrophic shell decline.

 

What these short term studies do not attempt to resolve is species adaptability.

 

"A dramatic example is the work by Fine & Tchernov (2007) in which two species of corals grown in highly acidified water completely lost their skeletons (Figure 3), then regrew them after being returned to seawater of normal pH. The study highlights three points: (a) coral calcification rates can vary greatly in response to changes in pH and aragonite saturation state, ( the naked, anemone-like coral polyps remained healthy, but © the fitness of organisms overall would change because of the loss of the protective skeleton. These results also support the paleontologically sudden appearance of scleractinian corals some 14 million years (Ma) after the Permian extinction event; that is, corals may have continued to exist as “naked corals” until ocean chemistry became favorable for skeletal formation (Stanley & Fautin 2001)."

 

*note without reading up on the scleractinian corals, wouldnt another possibility be the corals used another method to create the skeleton?

 

Another important part to keep in mind regarding the headline news content of the general populations understanding of such things:

 

"Thus far, most of the elevated CO2 response studies on marine biota, whether for calcification, photosynthesis, or some other physiological measure, have been short-term experiments that range from hours to weeks. Chronic exposure to increased pCO2 may have complex effects on the growth and reproductive success of calcareous plankton and could induce possible adaptations that are not observed in short-term experiments."

 

Scientists speed coral growth:

CDNN :: Scientists Speed Coral Growth

 

Recovery after the tsunami:

 

BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Coral springs back from tsunami

 

The above talks about the abandoning of harmful fishing practices. This is also relevant to the reported coral die offs GBR a few years ago. It occurred simultaniously with extreme flooding that launched a host of land runoff pollutants, pollutants which are known to stress and destroy corals.

 

We have very little detail on ocean ph variability. Studies will change our comprehension of these variables with time:

 

"To constrain the natural variability in reef-water pH, we measured boron isotopic compositions in a ~300-year-old massive Porites coral from the southwestern Pacific. Large variations in pH are found over ~50-year cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atmosphere anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems."

 

Unfortunately, this study is locked behind a pay per view so I cannot post more than this.

[Essay]

Cedars,

Thanks for the great reply....

...I'll try to get back to the science in a few days.... :)

===

 

...strikingly similar to the god complex or a Superiority complex.

...but God gave us dominion over the lands for a reason, don't you think?

"...dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air... and over all the earth...." -God

:Alien:

But dominion to steward, not harvest to extinction for the sake of profligacy.

 

Well, maybe a bit too much hyperbole, but despite the audacity, don't you think it's still a fair question?

At some point in our evolution this question must be addressed, I think. Maybe it's now--since we have filled our global niche--that we should start thinking of "all the earth."

===

 

Geologically, its a given that all our coastlines (as we know them) will disappear. That is the natural order of events. Florida is half the size it was and is nothing more than a sandbar. And we should have turned New Orleans into an aquatic park after Katrina and allowed the Mississippi river to re-route (as its been trying to do for almost 100 years).

That's exactly what I was thinking about New Orleans too. Agreed! Most beach dwellers shouldn't be able to get anything but the most expensive insurance. ...or something along those lines.

 

The one thing about coastlines (as I said, I don't care that we loose a few millimeters per year), is that the rapidity that things like this are changing, is an indicator that our forcings have started to influence (or have been influencing for some time) the various global setpoints.

===

 

It may seem that way to you. I always laugh when someone suggests engineering a more stable climate (big picture) when we cannot predict with great accuracy, the weather in a year. The things you propose to control / regulate are chaotic. Non-linear.

 

It also "seems" that way to a lot of folks who have dedicated a major portion of their lives to understanding this sort of thing.

I always laugh when someone suggests that predicting the weather for a particular day isn't a bad analogy for judgeing where the long-term climate is headed.

 

You can be forgiven for missing this big news--as it's only 6 months old:

WGN Weather Center Blog: Weather Forecast Accuracy

Dear Tom,

Your weather forecasts have become noticeably more accurate over the years.

What technological advances have made that possible? Or are you just lucky?

John Carlson, Arlington Heights

 

Dear John,

It can't be denied: On rare occasions, luck is a factor in an accurate weather forecast. However, a reasonably consistent record of accurate forecasting depends on much more: At long last, weather forecasting has truly become a science.

More now than ever before, meteorologists have a better understanding of the

atmosphere's physical processes and of the complex relationships between

air, land and oceans. Add to that astounding advances in communication,

worldwide weather observations and satellite and radar technology.

It's more information than a forecaster can handle, but today's phenomenally speedy computers can process all the data in new, timely and imaginative ways.

===

Posted by wgnweather on August 1, 2008 10:51 PM

"weather forecasting has truly become a science."

 

Well again, a bit too much hyperbole....

 

But I'd say that sure, with any chaotic system (operating within a stable mode) prediction for any specific time (t) will be fairly impossible.

But I'd also say that predicting what direction a chaotic system is heading, and if it is in danger of leaving one stable mode and slipping into another stable mode, is something that can be done with increasing accuracy, "more now than ever before" also.

 

I guess I'm just trying to say the science is a lot more advanced than you might think. Science kinda follows Moore's Law too--just think of the new satellites that are still only a few years old.

===

 

Creating tools is what we did. We never controlled our environment, we used tools to keep the environment away.

Well this is just semantic, but I'd say we, the "tool makers" use our tools to control the environment.

The conjecture is that by cumulatively controlling the environment, we are unwittingly controlling the climate.

 

Post something of substance and I will respond.

Well yep, the whole pH and hypoxic ocean things should be on another thread.

...but Thanks, CraigD!

 

The real issue with sustainability is the sheer number of people competing for limited resources. We shall eat ourselves into sustainability issues long before we boil over. And imagine what a little ice age would do to world food supplies.

...or a medieval warm period....

 

But about starving vs. boiling... we don't have to do either. There are ways to manage things so that diebacks are avoidable.

But if you believe this, about starving before boiling, then I can see why you don't want to divert resources into GW research or mitigation.

 

Ah, the global warming causes global cooling theory.

 

It's not a theory, it's a fear.

I look at the most common, stable mode for our climate (glacial)--and at the more rare, stable mode of a moderate climate--and I think gee, the odds are that something will cause us to slip into the more common glacial mode if we don't stop adding instability to our current moderate mode.

 

I feel sure that this is much more likely, than is slipping into some sort of Venus-like "super-greenhouse mode" and boiling.

 

...but that's just a feeling. I'll try to find some research....

 

~ :)

[Cedars]

 

You can be forgiven for missing this big news--as it's only 6 months old:

WGN Weather Center Blog: Weather Forecast Accuracy

 

"weather forecasting has truly become a science."

 

Well again, a bit too much hyperbole....

 

But I'd say that sure, with any chaotic system (operating within a stable mode) prediction for any specific time (t) will be fairly impossible.

But I'd also say that predicting what direction a chaotic system is heading, and if it is in danger of leaving one stable mode and slipping into another stable mode, is something that can be done with increasing accuracy, "more now than ever before" also.

 

I guess I'm just trying to say the science is a lot more advanced than you might think. Science kinda follows Moore's Law too--just think of the new satellites that are still only a few years old.

===

~ :)

Due to my need for sleep, I wont be able to give a long reply. But I just couldnt ignore this portion.

 

Here is the NOAA Climate Prediction site and a map of what they predicted in october 2008 for the USA. They were forecasting out 3 months. I live in Minnesota. The prediction was Much Warmer than Average:

 

3 Monthshttp://hypography.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2583&stc=1&d=1234231069[/img]

Hmm. See attached image.

 

For the 2-8 of November it was VERY warm.

Then it was average.

Then it was below average.

Here is the actual November report from the Uof MN climate monitoring site:

"Monthly mean temperatures for November 2008 were two to four degrees above historical averages. Very warm early-November temperatures were offset by near-average to below-average temperatures for the final three weeks of the month."

Heres their info from December:

"Monthly mean temperatures for December 2008 were four to eight degrees below historical averages across Minnesota. It was the coldest December since 2000."

Heres the info from January:

Monthly mean temperatures for January 2009 were four to eight degrees below historical averages across most of Minnesota, making it the coldest January since 1994.

 

One of the sources for above:

HydroClim Minnesota - January 2009

 

For the reality of the temps (weekly averages) on the NOAA site:

U.S. Climate Monitoring Weekly Products | Week Ending January 17, 2000

 

So for One week out of 12 NOAA's climate prediction was right on the money! I suppose you can say they are getting better...

 

I have been semi watching their predictions for the last 1 1/2 years. Sometimes they are right. Seldom do the predict cold. Often they exaggerate warm expectations. They delete their prediction graphics often, sometimes very soon after a time has expired.

 

So thats why I dont make future plans based on the best climate modeling we have. :)

[InfiniteNow]

Here is the NOAA Climate Prediction site and a map of what they predicted in october 2008 for the USA. They were forecasting out 3 months. I live in Minnesota. The prediction was Much Warmer than Average:

<...>

So for One week out of 12 NOAA's climate prediction was right on the money! I suppose you can say they are getting better...

<...>

So thats why I dont make future plans based on the best climate modeling we have. :)

 

Just for the record, I addressed this exact criticism type 754 posts ago in post #533:

 

 

Let me give an example that may put this into better context.

 

You are at the beach, and the waves coming off the choppy waters hit a wall on the shore at that beach. None of us would be able to place a line on that wall that predicts the exact height or surface level of the next incoming wave at any specific point on the wall 30 seconds in advance. This is akin to predicting the weather of the coming week.

 

However, we could absolutely place a line on the wall that accurately predicts the mean surface level (+/- chop) four hours in advance as long as we knew know the state of the tide when we'd arrived. That is akin to predicting the future state of the climate, and it is based on measurable trends.

 

Here's another.

Just because I cannot tell you the exact outcome of a specific coin flip does not mean I cannot tell you what the average outcome of coin flips will be over 1,000 tosses (and that includes allowing for the possibility that the coin lands on it's edge).

 

 

 

They are two very different measurements, and I hope you realize why.

 

 

...and again 712 posts ago in post #575:

 

Well, almost. Climate and weather are, in fact, the two most common examples of chaotic systems since they evolve with time and are highly dependent on initial conditions. I think we both agree that it's fair to suggest that these models have many parallels and characteristics of a mathematically defined dynamic/chaotic system.

 

The bigger point, in my view anyway, is the distinction between modelling weather versus modelling climate.

 

As my analogy about the waves on the beach in a former post alluded to, it's much simpler to predict trends accurately over long expanses of time than specific and individual moments or weather events. I may not be able to tell you exactly where on the wall the next incoming wave will hit, but I can tell you the average on that wall that the waves will hit throughout the coming year with enormous validity.

 

This is how we model climate. We are talking about global yearly averages, not what the weather will be like on Thursday, November 27 at 3:42PM Central time in Waupeton, Iowa.

 

This is why a little bit of error in those initial conditions is less worrisome. Is there noise? Yes, absolutely. I concede that, and I'd either be a liar or really stupid if I tried to suggest that models are perfect (and, I don't classify myself as either of those things). However, that noise is reduced rather significantly by modelling the data over years instead of exact moments and locations, especially since the accuracy of our inputs gets better all of the time.

 

 

 

Cedars - You're talking about predicting weather, not modeling climate. You'd do well to learn the difference and adjust your argument accordingly. Or, you can ignore my correction and continue on with your erratic and varied support of the denialist position which seem to come straight off the regular playbook.

 

 

Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics

[modest]

There's a subsection in wikipedia's page for Global climate model on Relation to weather forecasting,

 

Relation to weather forecasting

 

The global climate models used for climate projections are very similar in structure to (and often share computer code with) numerical models for weather prediction but are nonetheless logically distinct.

 

Most weather forecasting is done on the basis of interpreting the output of numerical model results. Since forecasts are short—typically a few days or a week—such models do not usually contain an ocean model but rely on imposed SSTs. They also require accurate initial conditions to begin the forecast—typically these are taken from the output of a previous forecast, with observations blended in. Because the results are needed quickly the predictions must be run in a few hours; but because they only need to cover a week of real time these predictions can be run at higher resolution than in climate mode. Currently the ECMWF runs at 40 km (25 mi) resolution as opposed to the 100–200 km (62–120 mi) scale used by typical climate models. Often nested models are run forced by the global models for boundary conditions, to achieve higher local resolution: for example, the Met Office runs a mesoscale model with an 11 km (6.8 mi) resolution covering the UK, and various agencies in the U.S. also run nested models such as the NGM and NAM models. Like most global numerical weather prediction models such as the GFS, global climate models are often spectral models instead of grid models. Spectral models are often used for global models because some computations in modeling can be performed faster thus reducing the time needed to run the model simulation.

 

Global climate model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

So, it looks like short-term regional weather is modeled in a similar fashion as long-term, global climate, yet short-term regional weather predictions are more susceptible to chaos from initial conditions.

 

I guess that does make sense. It would be easier to predict global average temperatures for all of 2010 than it would be to predict the temperature in New York for the fist week of 2010. So, it's the question that's different, and not so much the method of finding the answer.

 

Then again, the analogy might be appropriate if we change the question. If we're unable to exactly predict the weather in some regional area for the next month because it's a chaotic system then perhaps we cannot expect to exactly predict global climate for the next 100 years because it's a chaotic system. There certainly is feedback in both systems, just at different scales. We would have to know initial conditions very well to predict when the next ice age will happen. Hummm....

 

~modest

[Cedars]

Whoops

 

I forgot to include a link to the NOAA Climate Prediction Center.

 

Climate Prediction Center - seasonal Outlook

 

Heres the next years worth of guesses:

 

Climate Prediction Center - Seasonal Color Maps

 

Starting in March and for the rest of the year they predict no below normal temps in the continental USA. We'll see.

 

Its a bummer that they dump the old predictions so fast.

 

*note While NOAA did not predict the cold for MN, Wisconsin, Last August while roaming Crex Meadows, my crex companion noted How high the muskrats were building their dens. Twas a sure sign of things to come. :)

[Flying Binghi]

Is Wikipedia really a credible reference ? ... i guess it is for school kids -

 

Is Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

 

The Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) said pupils are turning to websites and internet resources that contain inaccurate or deliberately misleading information before passing it off as their own work.

 

The group singled out online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which allows entries to be logged or updated by anyone and is not verified by researchers, as the main source of information...

 

Is Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? | NewsBusters.org

[Flying Binghi]

I'm still wondering where the proof is to support the hysterical AGW claims :)

 

...every time there is a proof presented (the latest was the Antartic warming claims) we discover what appears to be (to me) corrupt metholds used to obtain the 'proof'

 

I only have to go here http://www.climateaudit.org/ to see just how easy it is to rebutt the AGW nonsence :)