Methuselah
-
Posts
67,599 -
Joined
-
Days Won
210
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Methuselah
-
-
Here goes again: Min -4C, Max +4C, wind 7mph, LP 1034, HP 1036...
Thanx WM.
-
I'm a ramper and I like to ramp. I ramp all night and I ramp all day... :lol:
-
And round and round we go.
To an extent, yes...If you really must play Watts's game of 'Oh yes it is! Oh no it isn't!' we'll be going round in circles forever...I suspect that that is his desire??
That, IMO, is where the LIH comes in: it doesn't rely on denial, but it does try to explain???
-
If I remember rightly, 1976, 1978 and 1981 all had snowfall a week-or-so before Xmas, but warmer SWerly mush intervened after ten to twenty days or so??? I'm sure I can remember a 'mild' spell in February 1963? (I know I can remember rain turing to snow!)...Let's face it - do we really expect (or want!) unremitting snow and blizzards for three months!
What's the use of cold weather if there's no 'battleground' to make it interesting???
-
Well, if the UKMO is really the WORST model we have on-offer today, I'd say that the near-future looks quite bright indeed. Shades, anyone?
-
The cynic in me adds, "because they don't show any warming trend over the course of the 20th century"...
I've had a look through that article (btw WhatsUpWithThat is hardly an unbiased site!). Firstly, using raw unadjusted data is often not the best way to assess a temperature record because some sites move over time, urbanisation occurs around some sites, and instrument exposure can change depending on where the instrument is sited and what type of instrument is used. For example, when compiling my own weather records going back to 1993, I calibrated readings for the earlier years because my old instruments consistently read up to 1C higher than my current AWS, particularly by night. Had I not done this, the Cleadon record would have shown a sudden step-cooling around 2004/2005.
Then, to be fair, they go into an analysis on how the temperature data are homogenised, and discuss the methods used. This is a good way to set about determining the reliability of the homogenisation. But they then refer to the Darwin record (which shows no warming trend), say that the record is homogenised using 5 nearby stations, and conclude that an imaginary warming trend has been added in order to support AGW. But they don't actually say whether or not the 5 nearby stations showed any warming trend, it's just taken as given that they don't. I'm not going to dismiss their analysis out of hand here, but there may well be more to the story than the WUWT article makes out... Of course, the conclusion "the data are adjusted in order to support AGW" is exactly the conclusion they want to support (that's the whole agenda of the site), so that makes me a little suspicious.
Another question, Ian...Why must there be a 'warming' everywhere? Should it not be places south/north of the tropics that exhibit warming? Afterall, the tropics have room for expansion, the poles do not... :winky:
-
Yup, I've read it, and the idea makes sense to me.
It's far better than Watts's (journalistic) lazy-minded nonsense about 'homogenization,' IMO...Most of what I've seen of the man's blogs, suggests (to me) that he knows little or nothing about climate science, how it works, or what it involves?? Either that, or his paymasters prefer red herrings and denial to science??
What I like about the LI (I was hugely sceptical, at first!) is that it clearly demonstrates the poinlessness of denial...IMO, denial is the lazy-man's alternative to explanation?? :unsure:
The LI has the potential to explain!!
-
Fair enough and sorry , I just disagreed with him on some posts, when you are trying to discuss the 6z you can not keep flipping from thread to thread it get's confusing . Will personally try and make sure I stay on topic from now on anyway , and no offence was intended to reef .
Thanks Chris. Much appreciated! :unsure:
-
Yes I think reef is on one this morning, You sit here waiting for comments on your post then you realize it has been deleted. I have looked and looked again and you are right, with that sort of flow it would be Snow just getting deeper and deeper. London wouldn't handle it. I have a great deal of respect for you TEITS because I don't know if you remember but you predicted this 3 weeks ago .
Chris
Please guys? Try and remember that we are trying our best to keep posts confined to the relevant threads...I realize that our decisions may appear to be arbitrary on occasions; but, you'll all be doing yourselves a favour by posting in the right place...
Either that or, come the first snowflake, we'll all be in mayhem! :blink:
Help us to help you? :blink:
-
Hey Matt! You might find the Leaky Integrator thread quite interesting? The purpose of the LI is to explain the recent warming, with or (mostly) without manmade forcings...
-
BTW I am still waiting for the global temperature graph from any source that shows cooling from the start to the end of the decade !.
My guess would be that we may have to wait a wee while (if not forever!)???
-
Ah, but do you agree that the Sun is responsible for the current warming trend?
CB
Yes. But not all of it??
-
I suppose you could describe the LI simplistically by saying that the Sun is the main driver of climate: it is responsible for the current warming trend. That trend is modulated by ENSO, albedo, vulcanism and everything else.
CB
And, that is how I see things, too...
-
Yes. I, for one, find the correlation pretty compelling... :blush:
If I might ask a (silly?) question: would it be possible to get a first estimate of GHG forcing, by somehow combining the GHG function with that for the cumulative function for the natural effects? Could such a combination of functions be 'manipulated' using valid statistical methodology to get a correlation even better than 0.91???
More to the point: would such an exercise be of any use whatsoever??
-
Cloudy, wet and breezy, 7C...
-
So, you can explain climate without any CO2 GH effect? I'm not sure?
So, are you saying CO2 isn't the GHG we think it is? Again, I don't think you are?
So, what do you think the effect of CO2 is? Do you accept the usual view that doubling it's conc from 280ppm would cause ~1C warming effect? Do you think going from zero CO2 to 280 ppm is about a ~7C warming effect? I do
I do find the LI model quite fascinating. Especially, as we all know that global temperatures have been much higher, in the past, than they are now (without any input from us!)??? So, in that respect at least, it should come as no surprise that any 'good' model should be able to account for that... <_<
That said, CO2 is a GHG, we are adding it and it must, at some point, be included??
But, surely the best point to start is with Nature...We need to understand Nature first, IMO? Only then can we ever hope to understand what our 'tinkerings' do...
CB have you yet included aerosols in the LI?
Fly spray???
-
IME, whenever there's a dominant HP in the Greenland-Iceland region, there's always the potential for a very snowy outbreak; most such outbreaks occur under such synoptics...That said, it doesn't always happen that way?
I can recall many such instances from the late '60s/early '70s: several days of rain/sleet/wet snow in MK on persistent NE winds...There were blizzards in '69 and '70 - but not EVERY TIME the wind swung NE???
IMO, it's the overall synoptics that matter?? <_<
-
Did you read the article where they compared the raw data to the altered data (in quite some detail) per chance?
But, I was under the impression that the raw data still hasn't been released - I thought that that was the problem??? If it has, I'd better go look at it - hadn't I??
PS: Who are 'they'???
-
IMO, all we really have, just now, is a slow and unpredictable transition to colder non-zonal weather-conditions. And NO-ONE knows exactly how that transition will pan-out??
-
Let's hope it's not like the MOD data when that's released........ ALL BLANKED OUT! Sorry I'll get my coat!!
Don't forget your parasol! -
I wonder where (behind what conspiracy?) Watts et al will hide once the MetO releases all that data???
Alamo time???
-
I'll eat my hat if we get anywhere near as much snow of this 'cold spell' compared to the one last Feb. But that said, it would be great to be proved wrong.
Well, I'm expecting exactly the same snow-depth...0mm!! (23 telfords?) :unsure:
-
Hockey stick?
:lol: :lol:
Aye Steve...But, I thought that the HS was based on tree-ring data (from 12(?) trees)? How can that be accounted-for by the change from analogue to digital thermometers? :unsure:
-
No what I am saying is, if they say global temps have risen in the last 30yrs higher than at any point since records began. And the method of gathering that information has changed in the last 30yrs, surely that must bring into question the results for better of for worse.
That's a fair question...But, if the new technology was systematically biased (with respect to the old) wouldn't there be a 'step-change' coinciding with its implementation? And, wouldn't statistical analysis reveal it quite quickly?? VP?
Don't forget your parasol! 
Today's Weather And General Chat
in Weather reports
Posted
Dry and sunny, 0C...