|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 19, 2022 1:51:09 GMT
An excellent paper. Replication of results will be very bad for Charles Oscar II. The old-timers may get some vindication. Even though they didn't push it too hard after results showed a turnaround from their projections, which new-timers grabbed and made their own ... just in the opposite direction. We'll see if the current set will do the honorable thing, and eat crow (or other) when the time is right. Any falsification will be handled in-house. And the times they are a-changing (Dylan).
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 12, 2023 18:47:54 GMT
An update on my global warming prediction from 2007 as detailed in the MaxCon 1.0 thread......
My original prediction was that the average UAH global temperature anomaly for 2007-2037 would be remain flat at the 1977-2007 uptrend number for 2007. Using the latest UAH version data this results in a prediction of a 0.1C average for 2007-2037. Through the end of 2022, the average is just that, 0.1C.
I recently updated the prediction for the overall 2007-2037 average slightly to 0.2C because the original prediction was based on a continuation of the then current atmospheric CO2 growth levels. CO2 has grown faster and I've adjusted accordingly.
The prediction is looking very good so far and I don't think you will find a better one anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 12, 2023 20:16:56 GMT
An update on my global warming prediction from 2007 as detailed in the MaxCon 1.0 thread......
My original prediction was that the average UAH global temperature anomaly for 2007-2037 would be remain flat at the 1977-2007 uptrend number for 2007. Using the latest UAH version data this results in a prediction of a 0.1C average for 2007-2037. Through the end of 2022, the average is just that, 0.1C.
I recently updated the prediction for the overall 2007-2037 average slightly to 0.2C because the original prediction was based on a continuation of the then current atmospheric CO2 growth levels. CO2 has grown faster and I've adjusted accordingly.
The prediction is looking very good so far and I don't think you will find a better one anywhere.
Any feel on the range of swings in between? |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jan 13, 2023 1:31:13 GMT
An update on my global warming prediction from 2007 as detailed in the MaxCon 1.0 thread......
My original prediction was that the average UAH global temperature anomaly for 2007-2037 would be remain flat at the 1977-2007 uptrend number for 2007. Using the latest UAH version data this results in a prediction of a 0.1C average for 2007-2037. Through the end of 2022, the average is just that, 0.1C.
I recently updated the prediction for the overall 2007-2037 average slightly to 0.2C because the original prediction was based on a continuation of the then current atmospheric CO2 growth levels. CO2 has grown faster and I've adjusted accordingly. The prediction is looking very good so far and I don't think you will find a better one anywhere.
It will surprise me if the growth of CO2 is shown to have any effect at all.  PS: At age seventy-seven, in order to see whether I'm eventually correct, there will need to be internet access in the next place (harps or burning embers).  |
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jan 13, 2023 3:28:54 GMT
An update on my global warming prediction from 2007 as detailed in the MaxCon 1.0 thread......
My original prediction was that the average UAH global temperature anomaly for 2007-2037 would be remain flat at the 1977-2007 uptrend number for 2007. Using the latest UAH version data this results in a prediction of a 0.1C average for 2007-2037. Through the end of 2022, the average is just that, 0.1C.
I recently updated the prediction for the overall 2007-2037 average slightly to 0.2C because the original prediction was based on a continuation of the then current atmospheric CO2 growth levels. CO2 has grown faster and I've adjusted accordingly. The prediction is looking very good so far and I don't think you will find a better one anywhere.
It will surprise me if the growth of CO2 is shown to have any effect at all. PS: At age seventy-seven, in order to see whether I'm eventually correct, there will need to be internet access in the next place (harps or burning embers). You're bringing me down, Ratty |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 13, 2023 5:43:33 GMT
An update on my global warming prediction from 2007 as detailed in the MaxCon 1.0 thread......
My original prediction was that the average UAH global temperature anomaly for 2007-2037 would be remain flat at the 1977-2007 uptrend number for 2007. Using the latest UAH version data this results in a prediction of a 0.1C average for 2007-2037. Through the end of 2022, the average is just that, 0.1C.
I recently updated the prediction for the overall 2007-2037 average slightly to 0.2C because the original prediction was based on a continuation of the then current atmospheric CO2 growth levels. CO2 has grown faster and I've adjusted accordingly. The prediction is looking very good so far and I don't think you will find a better one anywhere.
It will surprise me if the growth of CO2 is shown to have any effect at all. PS: At age seventy-seven, in order to see whether I'm eventually correct, there will need to be internet access in the next place (harps or burning embers). Elon may get his HARP system operational. Mark 2046 on your calendar. |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 13, 2023 16:31:39 GMT
An update on my global warming prediction from 2007 as detailed in the MaxCon 1.0 thread......
My original prediction was that the average UAH global temperature anomaly for 2007-2037 would be remain flat at the 1977-2007 uptrend number for 2007. Using the latest UAH version data this results in a prediction of a 0.1C average for 2007-2037. Through the end of 2022, the average is just that, 0.1C.
I recently updated the prediction for the overall 2007-2037 average slightly to 0.2C because the original prediction was based on a continuation of the then current atmospheric CO2 growth levels. CO2 has grown faster and I've adjusted accordingly. The prediction is looking very good so far and I don't think you will find a better one anywhere.
It will surprise me if the growth of CO2 is shown to have any effect at all. PS: At age seventy-seven, in order to see whether I'm eventually correct, there will need to be internet access in the next place (harps or burning embers). Ratty, are you a greenhouse gas effect denier? |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 13, 2023 19:31:23 GMT
An update on my global warming prediction from 2007 as detailed in the MaxCon 1.0 thread......
My original prediction was that the average UAH global temperature anomaly for 2007-2037 would be remain flat at the 1977-2007 uptrend number for 2007. Using the latest UAH version data this results in a prediction of a 0.1C average for 2007-2037. Through the end of 2022, the average is just that, 0.1C.
I recently updated the prediction for the overall 2007-2037 average slightly to 0.2C because the original prediction was based on a continuation of the then current atmospheric CO2 growth levels. CO2 has grown faster and I've adjusted accordingly.
The prediction is looking very good so far and I don't think you will find a better one anywhere.
Any feel on the range of swings in between?
The CO2 warming at the current growth rates in atmospheric CO2 is maybe 1C per 100 years. That is 0.01C per year. The wide daily, monthly, yearly and decadel swings in global temperatures are caused by something other than CO2. I haven't found a way to predict temperature swings any shorter than the quasi 60-year cycle with any degree of accuracy. The 30-year averages I use smooth out the large unpredictable short term swings.
Maybe your study of ENSO will result in a demonstrable method for predicting yearly and multi-year temperatures. If so, that will be very useful because ENSO is clearly a major driver of temperatures over monthly and yearly periods. The government's efforts to predict ENSO are not very successful as you know.
As to your specific question concerning the range of swings, I would expect pretty wide ranges as has been the case over the past several decades.
You did accurately predict the beginning of the current La Nina and you also have documented the quasi 60-year cycle. Are you ready to make a multi-year prediction?
|
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jan 13, 2023 23:52:44 GMT
[ Snip ] Ratty, are you a greenhouse gas effect denier? Simple answer: Yes-ish for the CO2 portion of greenhouse gasses. Complex answer: There is a myriad of factors influencing climate/temperature. CO2 may be one of them but its influence is dwarfed by others. Lindzen and Archibald have suggested that CO2's effects are logarithmic and that a large part of its effect is achieved after reaching 20ppm.   I'm not academically equipped ** to argue the point but would be interested in hearing more. ** failed primary school teacher, very re tired |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 14, 2023 21:26:11 GMT
[ Snip ] Ratty, are you a greenhouse gas effect denier? Simple answer: Yes-ish for the CO2 portion of greenhouse gasses. Complex answer: There is a myriad of factors influencing climate/temperature. CO2 may be one of them but its influence is dwarfed by others. Lindzen and Archibald have suggested that CO2's effects are logarithmic and that a large part of its effect is achieved after reaching 20ppm. I'm not academically equipped ** to argue the point but would be interested in hearing more. ** failed primary school teacher, very re tiredI would summarize the charts above as (1) showing there is a significant overall CO2 greenhouse gas effect of several degrees (picture the sum of all the solid bars which is the total of the incremental effects), and (2) the effect of additional CO2 is relatively small due to saturation. I would contrast that to the denial of a greenhouse gas effect or statement that there may not be a greenhouse effect.
Here's why I think this is important.
I became interested in climate change years ago when I started to read claims that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) was happening fast and we needed to quickly eliminate the use of fossil fuels. There were many scientists who questioned CAGW and amongst those there was a small number who questioned whether CO2 had any warming effect at all. Somehow Al Gore and others were able to focus the argument on CAGW vs no warming (deniers). The majority of scientists didn't believe either side. Science showed that CO2 caused warming, but CAGW was an unknown hiding behind models. So CAGW gained acceptance by default. Al Gore got rich. Climate scientists took advantage of the attention and increased it by overstating the warming.
In the ensuing years, the true deniers of the greenhouse gas effect have dwindled. The proponents of a very slow rate of warming have grown. The idea of "tipping point" which would lead to a global catastrophe has been pretty much eliminated from the discussions and the term CAGW is rarely seen. The public concern about global warming has subsided. You don't hear the term deniers very often.
There is still reason to believe the models are overstating warming but putting forth faulty science ultimately helps the other side.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jan 15, 2023 1:26:17 GMT
Simple answer: Yes-ish for the CO2 portion of greenhouse gasses. Complex answer: There is a myriad of factors influencing climate/temperature. CO2 may be one of them but its influence is dwarfed by others. Lindzen and Archibald have suggested that CO2's effects are logarithmic and that a large part of its effect is achieved after reaching 20ppm. I'm not academically equipped ** to argue the point but would be interested in hearing more. ** failed primary school teacher, very re tiredI would summarize the charts above as (1) showing there is a significant overall CO2 greenhouse gas effect of several degrees (picture the sum of all the solid bars which is the total of the incremental effects), and (2) the effect of additional CO2 is relatively small due to saturation. I would contrast that to the denial of a greenhouse gas effect or statement that there may not be a greenhouse effect. Here's why I think this is important. I became interested in climate change years ago when I started to read claims that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) was happening fast and we needed to quickly eliminate the use of fossil fuels. There were many scientists who questioned CAGW and amongst those there was a small number who questioned whether CO2 had any warming effect at all. Somehow Al Gore and others were able to focus the argument on CAGW vs no warming (deniers). The majority of scientists didn't believe either side. Science showed that CO2 caused warming, but CAGW was an unknown hiding behind models. So CAGW gained acceptance by default. Al Gore got rich. Climate scientists took advantage of the attention and increased it by overstating the warming. In the ensuing years, the true deniers of the greenhouse gas effect have dwindled. The proponents of a very slow rate of warming have grown. The idea of "tipping point" which would lead to a global catastrophe has been pretty much eliminated from the discussions and the term CAGW is rarely seen. The public concern about global warming has subsided. You don't hear the term deniers very often. There is still reason to believe the models are overstating warming but putting forth faulty science ultimately helps the other side.
Because I am a contrarian/sceptic and because of the hype associated with the CO2 effect on temperature that pervades media reporting, I'm inclined to look in different directions, For example ... The List Grows – Now 85 Scientific Papers Assert CO2 Has A Minuscule Effect On The Climate Do you have an opinion on adiabatic heating? ( Nikolov and Zeller, Holmes) |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 15, 2023 4:18:11 GMT
Simple answer: Yes-ish for the CO2 portion of greenhouse gasses. Complex answer: There is a myriad of factors influencing climate/temperature. CO2 may be one of them but its influence is dwarfed by others. Lindzen and Archibald have suggested that CO2's effects are logarithmic and that a large part of its effect is achieved after reaching 20ppm. I'm not academically equipped ** to argue the point but would be interested in hearing more. ** failed primary school teacher, very re tiredI would summarize the charts above as (1) showing there is a significant overall CO2 greenhouse gas effect of several degrees (picture the sum of all the solid bars which is the total of the incremental effects), and (2) the effect of additional CO2 is relatively small due to saturation. I would contrast that to the denial of a greenhouse gas effect or statement that there may not be a greenhouse effect.
Here's why I think this is important.
I became interested in climate change years ago when I started to read claims that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) was happening fast and we needed to quickly eliminate the use of fossil fuels. There were many scientists who questioned CAGW and amongst those there was a small number who questioned whether CO2 had any warming effect at all. Somehow Al Gore and others were able to focus the argument on CAGW vs no warming (deniers). The majority of scientists didn't believe either side. Science showed that CO2 caused warming, but CAGW was an unknown hiding behind models. So CAGW gained acceptance by default. Al Gore got rich. Climate scientists took advantage of the attention and increased it by overstating the warming.
In the ensuing years, the true deniers of the greenhouse gas effect have dwindled. The proponents of a very slow rate of warming have grown. The idea of "tipping point" which would lead to a global catastrophe has been pretty much eliminated from the discussions and the term CAGW is rarely seen. The public concern about global warming has subsided. You don't hear the term deniers very often.
There is still reason to believe the models are overstating warming but putting forth faulty science ultimately helps the other side.
Totally agree ... with one big exception ... parts of the highlighted sentence. Perhaps certain discussions are moderating, but not those of the far Left and their enablers in the fourth estate. There, catastrophic is still very much the watch word. And where not, it is global warming or climate change with the usual implications. It is impossible to peruse a range of weather or news articles without being pounded by the dreaded "cat". Tipping points still make the rounds too. I cannot detect that the message tempo is declining. I remain forever hopeful that science will carry the day over fanaticism.
Perhaps you have noticed a trend in politics or business that might yet save us from the worst excesses of the true believers and their charlatans. Please share.
|
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Jan 15, 2023 7:39:40 GMT
The Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update hadleyserver.metoffice.gov.uk/wmolc/WMO_GADCU_2022-2026.pdf produced with the World Meteorological Organization - highlights a 93% chance that the five-year average global temperature for 2022-2026 will be higher than the average for the last five years (2017-2021). Some of the report’s key findings include: The annual mean global near-surface temperature for any year in the next five years is predicted to be between 1.1°C and 1.7°C higher than pre-industrial levels. The chance of at least one year exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels between 2022-2026 is about as likely as not (48%). However, there is only a very small chance (10%) of the five-year mean exceeding this threshold. The chance of at least one year in the next five years exceeding the current warmest year, 2016, is over 90%. The chance of the five-year mean for 2022-2026 being higher than the last five years (2017-2021) is also over 90%. |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jan 15, 2023 8:15:28 GMT
The Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update hadleyserver.metoffice.gov.uk/wmolc/WMO_GADCU_2022-2026.pdf produced with the World Meteorological Organization - highlights a 93% chance that the five-year average global temperature for 2022-2026 will be higher than the average for the last five years (2017-2021). Some of the report’s key findings include: The annual mean global near-surface temperature for any year in the next five years is predicted to be between 1.1°C and 1.7°C higher than pre-industrial levels. The chance of at least one year exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels between 2022-2026 is about as likely as not (48%). However, there is only a very small chance (10%) of the five-year mean exceeding this threshold. The chance of at least one year in the next five years exceeding the current warmest year, 2016, is over 90%. The chance of the five-year mean for 2022-2026 being higher than the last five years (2017-2021) is also over 90%. I seem to be overusing this these days ....  |
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jan 16, 2023 3:34:02 GMT
Average SOI for last 30 days 20.32
From the Long Paddock site.
It seems to me that La Nina is persisting. Triple dip?
I sort of feel that something fundamental is changing in our weather systems.
Solar cycle weak as water
Planetary magnetic field declining rapidly
In particular, our records have no precedent to follow for effects of the latter.
|
|
