Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
... to those whistling past the graveyard.

For the next few days we have various forms of winter precip in the forecast. Tonight we're under a tornado watch.

A tornado watch, in Indiana, in January! WTF!

PF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
... to those whistling past the graveyard.

For the next few days we have various forms of winter precip in the forecast. Tonight we're under a tornado watch.

A tornado watch, in Indiana, in January! WTF!

PF


It must be the CO2, huh?

Here is some more information for you about the biggest Indiana Tornadoes "between the Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox (roughly December 22-March 21)."

February 25, 1956: 9 tornadoes struck central and southern Indiana, injuring 4 people.

March 6, 1956: 7 tornadoes struck northern Indiana with an additional tornado in southern Indiana. 1 person was killed and 35 were injured, mostly in Grant county where a F4 occurred.

February 10, 1959: 5 tornadoes hit central and southern Indiana, the strongest being F3 in Knox county.

March 6, 1961: 10 tornadoes occurred, injuring 8 people.

March 19, 1963: 4 tornadoes occurred with 3 of them being F2. 2 people were killed in Washington county.

March 12, 1976: 13 tornadoes struck mainly the northern half of the state, resulting in 2 fatalities and over 40 injuries. This is the biggest winter tornado outbreak on record.

March 20, 1976: Occurring barely a week after the March 12 outbreak, this event produced 8 tornadoes including a F4 in Tippecanoe county which tracked into Carroll county. 18 people were injured in all.

March 10, 1986: 8 tornadoes occurred, injuring 48 people. Also, 1 person was killed in Hancock county.....


More from: http://indianadoes.blogspot.com/2011/12/biggest-winter-torna...

You were saying?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
... to those whistling past the graveyard.

For the next few days we have various forms of winter precip in the forecast. Tonight we're under a tornado watch.

A tornado watch, in Indiana, in January! WTF!


Tornados in Jan don't seem to be that uncommon in Illinois, Wisconson, Indiana, etc.

It would be helpful to me if someone compiled a list of things caused by global warming so I could check it out everytime there was a weather event. Right now it seems like people just cherry pick something unusual and blame it on climate change.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
You were saying?


Pucksfool, based on this new information obtained from the googles, can you admit you were wrong to say tornados in january in indiana are unusual?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
It isn't as uncommon as he thought, but it isn't exactly the Tornado season. Sixty years of tornadoes and 18 of them hit in January.


http://indianadoes.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/tornadoes-by-month...

Averages 1 every 3 years but... they cluster so we have 10 in 2008 and 2009... 3 in 1989 and the rest small enough as to not make it into the "biggest outbreaks" list you posted.

Which means that for most of us, there isn't any strong memory of this happening much in January.

Rightly so. Most Januaries it does not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Lessee... after last Summer's drought, heat wave and Hurricane Sandy in the USA, we have this Summer's heat wave...

https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/19257/area14mp/8xh...

drought
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml

and flood in Australia.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23115-australia-lurche...

I wonder what the coming year will bring in terms of extremes, and next summer in terms of heat... and how many times does Mother Nature have to hit some people before they wise up.

It isn't personal, it is more like the ocean. You either respect it, or it kills you. This whuppin is only beginin.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I wonder what the coming year will bring in terms of extremes, and next summer in terms of heat...

I thought all this "climate science" we've been paying for is supposed to tell us.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Jack - Climate Science tells me what to expect in terms of a 30 year trend... it doesn't tell me whether it will rain in Kerikeri tomorrow. I am looking at a string of extreme weather events that is unbroken over the course of a full year. One hemisphere, then the other.

You CAN call it weather. I know it is weather, and I don't know what is coming next as a result, but I also know I haven't seen its like... and it matches well with what Hansen pointed out about loading the dice.

...or putting more bullets in the revolver you use for your game of Russian Roulette.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I thought all this "climate science" we've been paying for is supposed to tell us.
But.... that would be a falsifiable test. It would be actual science.
There'd be no room for demagoguery. Anecdotal evidence would fall to the wayside.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
But.... that would be a falsifiable test. It would be actual science.
There'd be no room for demagoguery. Anecdotal evidence would fall to the wayside.


/facepalm. 30-year trends aren't falsifiable?

Of course, we can't know what pollution will be like in 30 years. But we can simulate what the climate will be like under many different pollution scenarios, and if the appropriate one of those doesn't line up with reality, you can consider the model falsified.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
30-year trends aren't falsifiable? .
WE CAN"T WAIT 30 YEARS!!!
Isn't that the siren song of the alarmists?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
WE CAN"T WAIT 30 YEARS!!!
Isn't that the siren song of the alarmists?


As I understand it, the 30-year trends are already statistically significant and support the AGW hypothesis. So: it's falsifiable, just not falsified.

The things blamed for the short-term lack of warming (aeorosols, deep-sea warming, even ENSO feedbacks) are also theoretically falsifiable, we just don't have enough data yet. Sure, it looks like the warming is going into the ocean, but the error bars on that data are currently wide enough to drive a truck through.

Still, at no point can you really say that the AGW ideas are unfalsifiable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
As I understand it, the 30-year trends are already statistically significant and support the AGW hypothesis. So: it's falsifiable, just not falsified.
The things blamed for the short-term lack of warming (aeorosols, deep-sea warming, even ENSO feedbacks) are also theoretically falsifiable, we just don't have enough data yet. Sure, it looks like the warming is going into the ocean, but the error bars on that data are currently wide enough to drive a truck through.
Still, at no point can you really say that the AGW ideas are unfalsifiable.


So let's say that we find that the lower troposphere over the US has warmed since 1979 at a rate of 0.20°C/decade. And let's further say that ground-based warming shows a rate of 0.30°C/decade. GCMs indicate over land the lower atmosphere should warm at a factor of 0.95x the land rather than 0.67 times. Does this huge discrepancy falsify a) the models, b) the AGW built on the models, c) both or d) something else?

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
/facepalm. 30-year trends aren't falsifiable?

thats not what we were talking about at all. But lets go through it, what 30 year trend would disprove climate change as defined by the IPCC?

Thanks
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Still, at no point can you really say that the AGW ideas are unfalsifiable.

Lets go back to the start of the thread, Pucksfool implied that a tornado warning in IN in Jan was climate change. How do you falsify that?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Pucksfool implied that a tornado warning in IN in Jan was climate change. How do you falsify that?
A) What is the baseline?
B) What change to the baseline is predicted?
C) What change to the baseline is observed?

A tornado warning in IN in Jan is a data point. Period. Of itself it is has no meaning whatsoever.
IF a) there was never a Jan tornado in IN before, and b) Jan tornadoes in IN had been predicted then we might have c) observed a change to the baseline and hence evidence.

However, they do happen from time to time. Therefore, no single event can be said to be a change to the baseline.

Bottom line: The OP was demagoguing. Not unexpected.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
"30-year trends aren't falsifiable? ."
WE CAN"T WAIT 30 YEARS!!!
Isn't that the siren song of the alarmists?



WuLong, we already have waited 30 years. By 1979, we had already convened National Academy of Science committees and councils and research groups on the subject. Before 1979, we investigated and always found one result: the science was too uncertain and we couldn't be sure if human-caused global warming was a real issue. But in 1979, and ever since, the National Academy found that yes, we emit enough greenhouse gases that we will cause significant, measurable warming of the planet.

Now, 34 years later, the planet warmed measurably, noticeably, as predicted, despite a declining solar forcing over those decades.

The 1979 Academy report was produced by a committee chaired by legendary meteorologist Jule Charney.

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.p...

Every US President for decades has agreed that global warming is a real problem that we need to address. And they've made investments and policies that first slowed our emission growth, then made emissions start to fall. It's time to move that policy further along: the evidence grows stronger all the time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Now, 34 years later, the planet warmed measurably, noticeably, as predicted, despite a declining solar forcing over those decades.
Except that it wasn't "as predicted". There was an apparent one-time step function. A plateau. I'm not aware of anyone who predicted this. In fact I remember rants of not only is it accellerating, but the acceleration is accelerating, which is another way of saying "hockey stick".

Show me the specific prediction, with a date.
Show me the observed result, with a date that actually comes after the prediction (no back modeling allowed).

You can't.

Fwiw, here's my prediction: it's going to get warmer, probably on the order of .75C per century. There will be cycles. Sometime is will get warmer fast, sometimes it will hold steady. Sometimes it may even decline, but not in general. This will happen regardless of worldwide industialization.

I've been saying essentially this for, oh, 20 years now.
I seem to be correct. Just sayin'.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Still, at no point can you really say that the AGW ideas are unfalsifiable.

Lets go back to the start of the thread, Pucksfool implied that a tornado warning in IN in Jan was climate change. How do you falsify that?

Pretty much what WuLong said. Compare the baselines to what's happening and what we'd expect without AGW, accounting for statistical significance.


30-year trends aren't falsifiable?

thats not what we were talking about at all. But lets go through it, what 30 year trend would disprove climate change as defined by the IPCC?

Off the top of my head, I can't say for sure. But if I recall correctly, the projected warming trends from IPCC4 for the next few decades under business-as-usual were about 0.18 C/decade, with a standard deviation of 0.15 C.

Assuming a normal distribution, independence between subsequent decades, and no change in solar or aerosol forcings, this gives a 90% probability range of +0.11 -- +0.95 C over the next 30 years. So: If the warming is less than 0.11 degrees, and you have a 95% certainty that the models overestimate the forcing.

Another way of saying it is that, 5% of the time, we'd expect the warming to be this low, even if the average long-term warming was 0.18 C/decade. To get up to a 98% certainty of "the models overestimate the warming", you'd need a 30-year trend of less than +0.01 C.

'Course, the error bars will decrease as our understanding of various forcings improve, and as modeling capability improves.

~w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So let's say that we find that the lower troposphere over the US has warmed since 1979 at a rate of 0.20°C/decade. And let's further say that ground-based warming shows a rate of 0.30°C/decade. GCMs indicate over land the lower atmosphere should warm at a factor of 0.95x the land rather than 0.67 times. Does this huge discrepancy falsify a) the models, b) the AGW built on the models, c) both or d) something else?


The last set of models have already been reasonably "falsified" for regional predictions, as you probably know. It's somewhat up for grabs whether this is a problem with the boundary conditions (so, the models are fundamentally okay on a regional level, and the error lies elsewhere), or the models are wrong, or the models just underestimate the variability. I have my guesses, but I'm not really qualified to speak on it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Now, 34 years later, the planet warmed measurably, noticeably, as predicted, despite a declining solar forcing over those decades.

Except that it wasn't "as predicted". There was an apparent one-time step function. A plateau. I'm not aware of anyone who predicted this.

Well, yeah. You can add random noise to any linear trend and get what looks like step functions and plateaus. You can try this for yourself in Mathematica or Excel; it's quite easy to verify.

IOW, the presence of apparent step functions and plateaus tells you little about the underlying trend.


Fwiw, here's my prediction: it's going to get warmer, probably on the order of .75C per century. There will be cycles. Sometime is will get warmer fast, sometimes it will hold steady. Sometimes it may even decline, but not in general. This will happen regardless of worldwide industialization.

Other than your number (0.75 C per century) and your last sentence, this is pretty much what every climatologist predicts. They all expect cyclic warming, sometimes fast, sometimes slow.

Of course, it's important that they can explain why the predict what they do; that they can explain what's going to cause the warming and the noise. Without a physical mechanism(s), it's not really science.

If I may ask, what physical mechanisms are behind your prediction? Why do you think it'll warm 0.75 C/century?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
So let's say that we find that the lower troposphere over the US has warmed since 1979 at a rate of 0.20°C/decade. And let's further say that ground-based warming shows a rate of 0.30°C/decade. GCMs indicate over land the lower atmosphere should warm at a factor of 0.95x the land rather than 0.67 times. Does this huge discrepancy falsify a) the models, b) the AGW built on the models, c) both or d) something else?
---
The last set of models have already been reasonably "falsified" for regional predictions, as you probably know. It's somewhat up for grabs whether this is a problem with the boundary conditions (so, the models are fundamentally okay on a regional level, and the error lies elsewhere), or the models are wrong, or the models just underestimate the variability.


It not just the CONUS, i.e., a regional problem. Another such discrepancy involves the tropics.

The sun warms the surface, especially in the tropics, and so the atmosphere is continually warmed from underneath. The warmer air rises through convection and then cools at all altitudes through radiation. (The rate of temperature change with altitude is called the lapse rate.) Moist air holds more heat and does not cool off as quickly (a lower lapse rate) effectively making the atmosphere more prone to convection – moving heat into the upper troposphere more effectively.

The tropics are a moist environment and GCMs predict a hotspot in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Last year Fu et al. compared temperature trends there for the entire satellite era. They write:

www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048101.shtml
"But the positive [satellite] trends are only about 0.014 ± 0.017 K/decade from RSS and 0.005 ± 0.016 K/decade from UAH, which are not significantly different from zero. In contrast, the T24-T2LT trend from multi-model ensemble mean is 0.051 ± 0.007 K/decade, which is significantly larger than zero. The trends from observations and multi-model ensemble mean do not fall within each other’s 95% confidence intervals....

"In view of the importance of the enhanced tropical upper tropospheric warming to the climate sensitivity and to the change of atmospheric circulations, it is critically important to understand the causes responsible for the discrepancy between the models and observations."

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Regarding the planet's warming since 1979, WuLong claimed "There was an apparent one-time step function."

I would not call this a one time step function. Not at all. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1979/to:20...


WuLong also says: Fwiw, here's my prediction: it's going to get warmer, probably on the order of .75C per century. ...
I've been saying essentially this for, oh, 20 years now.
I seem to be correct. Just sayin'.


The warming trend 1992-2012 is more like 3C per century. Just sayin'.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1992/to:20...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Pretty much what WuLong said. Compare the baselines to what's happening and what we'd expect without AGW, accounting for statistical significance.

Thats the problem, there is none of that available for tornados in IN in Jan. Pucksfool and others just find some weather they consider unusual and then run with it. People on this board generally eat it up.


Off the top of my head, I can't say for sure. But if I recall correctly, the projected warming trends from IPCC4 for the next few decades under business-as-usual were about 0.18 C/decade, with a standard deviation of 0.15 C.

Assuming a normal distribution, independence between subsequent decades, and no change in solar or aerosol forcings, this gives a 90% probability range of +0.11 -- +0.95 C over the next 30 years. So: If the warming is less than 0.11 degrees, and you have a 95% certainty that the models overestimate the forcing.


None of this is clear in the IPCC report, but I like your attempt. Are you saying that the model mean is the projection we should be comparing against?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Pretty much what WuLong said. Compare the baselines to what's happening and what we'd expect without AGW, accounting for statistical significance.

Thats the problem, there is none of that available for tornados in IN in Jan. Pucksfool and others just find some weather they consider unusual and then run with it. People on this board generally eat it up.

Yeah, it's wrong when either side does it. I mostly just stay out of those discussions, but don't take silence for implied acceptance.


None of this is clear in the IPCC report, but I like your attempt. Are you saying that the model mean is the projection we should be comparing against?

Well, the IPCC summary just gives the expected decadal trend, as well as the long-term projections based on various emissions scenarios. There's more explanation of the statistics and caveats in the references, but I 'xpect this is a decent first-order approximation.

If you can find a ensemble prediction that fits pretty well with the emissions/solar scenarios we get for the next 30 years, then yeah, I'd say use the mean of that for comparison.

If that's falsified, it should tell you that our models are wrong in some important way. Maybe the resolution was too bad, maybe a forcing was ignored, maybe the Yellowstone Supercaldera blew up and spewed a billion tons of ash into the atmosphere, etc. Model falsification doesn't necessarily mean that the AGW hypothesis is "dead", since that'll depend on how and why the models broke.. but it'd probably mean some pretty big changes to our understanding of climate science, AGW included.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The warming trend 1992-2012 is more like 3C per century. Just sayin'.
The max velocity was 2.66C per century in Dec 1999. Just sayin'.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Regarding the planet's warming since 1979, WuLong claimed "There was an apparent one-time step function."
I would not call this a one time step function. Not at all. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1979/to:20......


Hey, Ben, happy balloon day!

If one looks at RSS satellite data, the trend from 1979 to 1994 is only 0.03°C/decade, a slope which is not significantly different from zero. Similarly, the TLT trend over the last 17 years is not significantly different from zero. Hence, a 'step function' in the mid '90s.
www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_A...

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If I may ask, what physical mechanisms are behind your prediction? Why do you think it'll warm 0.75 C/century?
Empirical evidence more than anything else.

I make a habit of throwing the NOAA numbers into a spreadsheet every month to calculate a variety of averages, as well as velocity, acceleration and jerk. I see acceleration and jerk looking very much like sine waves, I see velocity as positive but relatively flat, and I see position looking a lot like a step function.

With the derivatives holding steady over time, I see no reason to expect temperature increase to vary from its (recent) historical norm.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I make a habit of throwing the NOAA numbers into a spreadsheet every month to calculate a variety of averages, as well as velocity, acceleration and jerk. I see acceleration and jerk looking very much like sine waves, I see velocity as positive but relatively flat, and I see position looking a lot like a step function.
With the derivatives holding steady over time, I see no reason to expect temperature increase to vary from its (recent) historical norm.


In 2003 Klyashtorin and Lyubushin modeled global temps from 1861 to 2000. They found their best fit was a linear trend of 0.04°C/decade with a 64 year cycle superimposed. The cycle had an amplitude (peak-to-trough) of 0.26°C. The residuals showed no evidence of nonlinearity or recent acceleration of warming. The 10 years since certainly haven't added any acceleration.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/05-loehleNEW.pdf

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Hey, Ben, happy balloon day!

Thanks DB2!


If one looks at RSS satellite data, the trend from 1979 to 1994 is only 0.03°C/decade, a slope which is not significantly different from zero. Similarly, the TLT trend over the last 17 years is not significantly different from zero. Hence, a 'step function' in the mid '90s.

Global temperature data is noisy. This noise overwhelms the signal of human warming on shorter time scales. That is why the IPCC says we need "several decades" of data for detection and attribution studies.

I see no reason to speculate about a step change of unknown (I guess) origin when the time series is explained superbly well by the known forcings of greenhouse gas increase, ocean current changes like El Nino, solar changes, and volcanoes.
Print the post Back To Top