UV-RAY
-
Posts
3,600 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by UV-RAY
-
-
There's plenty of stuff out there correlating the PDO and global temps. We also have to look at the poleward movement of the jet stream during this time, the reverse now seems to be happening.
-
I'll go for 12.6c, apologies for being late.
-
Yes it cooled between the 40s and 70s but that was down to a switch in the PDO. I think what we have to remember here though is that there is no one theory that fits all and that's the mistake we all make.Warming from solar activity wouldn't cause the stratosphere to cool though (which is and has happened). Also, solar activity was at it's peak for the 20th century while the planet cooled a little from the 40s to the 70s, so it's effects don't seem all that strong.
It's hard to say what effect the sun had on temperatures during the 20th century. We saw rapid warming between 1900 and 1940, when activity was quite low. The cooling the following 30 years when activity climbed to record highs, then warming again as activity dropped.
While I don't think that indicates that high solar activity causes cooling, I think it just shows that it's effect is easily swamped by others climate/weather drivers.
-
Sorry it was poorly worded, yes it's a cycle but coupled with almost constant high solar output over the decades then this surely must have some sort of impact on global temps.As has been explained before, the hot spot in the tropics is a feature of any surface warming in models, not just CO2 induced. The thing that separated CO2 induced warming from say solar(call it the CO2 fingerprint), is the presence of a strongly cooling stratosphere coupled with a warming surface.
ENSO is a reason, not an excuse. ENSO works in cycles, so cannot effect temperature on long time scales, only short timescales. When you see almost every successive ENSO event appear warmer than the last, it means something else is driving the trend. Even the 30 years of what you call "positive phase" was only slightly positive overall.
-
I would say due to the residual heat content in the oceans still working its way through the system.For me, the biggest conundrum (given that all orbital and solar indicators suggest we ought to be cooling) is: why aren't global temperatures falling?
-
Im still looking for the fabled hot spot in the tropics, the rest of your post is really just conjecture GW, nothing wrong with that as long as its not dressed up as facts.Solar just doesn't 'float' as a major forcing in a 'new, and rapid', type of warming. Should we have this level of extreme variability in solar output it would be written large throughout the climate record. Without the 'end of glaciation' type major albedo flip we do not see rapid (decadal) temp rises through the records.
i'm all for Solar being a major force in climate variation but this keeps it's influence within the bounds of 'normal' climate fluctuation. Pair it with other forcings (CO2 reductions prior to LIA) and it play a role in major climate variation events but these pale when we look at the current energy imbalance our planet is seeing.
As BFTV points out 93% of that energy is gobbled by the oceans and air temps are far more fickle with ENSO/PDO playing a major role in temp moderation (by 'wind' it would appear from the latest literature on the subject).
As with Antarctica any year where we do not see the level of warming the forcing demands is another 'year in the bank'. The energy does not dissipate but is stored in other systems awaiting deployment later. As the heat breaks into the Southern Continent we will see just how destructive 'sudden warming' is compared to 'gradual warming'.
The pace of warming is outstripping species abilities to migrate/adapt so spurts of sudden warming will devastate ecosystems.
As I have been at pains to point out Arctic changes are now beginning to add another major energy forcing into the planet and this year will be another where those changes will be manifest. My hope is that the added impetus in the climate system alters the past 6 years jet pattern shunting flooding North and west of mainland UK. It doesn't solve the issue but 'Heatwave UK' will surely silence the "it's not warming" NIMBY's for a few months and allow us to watch the Arctic Drama in peace!!
Thats all very well using ENSO as an excuse but the flip side of that is when ENSO was in its positive phase for thirty years, would that not account for much of the warming also.I don't mind if people complain about green taxes, or what they think are green taxes. It says nothing about the science.
The reasons for the apparent slow down in the surface air warming rate has been explained (ENSO, possibly aerosols to a small extent), and the continued accumulation of oceanic heat has been shown, but many people ignore it and push for the hoax theory.
Yes the world needs energy, but it wants to continue with cheap energy. Fossil fuels on the whole, haven't been getting any cheaper, and aren't gonna last. Also the world could probably do without rapid climatic change, ocean acidification, ground water contaminated with fracking fluids, ecosystems ruined by oil spills, etc.
-
Lol, it should have said in Alaska, sorry for the confusion.Coldest for 208 years? Where?
-
I read an article today highlighting how this year up until now has been the coldest for 208 years, interesting times ahead whatever happens.I wonder, could it be in anyway related to this?http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V006/111TOASCJ.pdf
-
Excellent stuff, you've far too much time on your hands, Lol. Interesting how July has buckled the trend.With regards to recent summers there do appear to have been some changes in the North Atlantic area over the last 40 years. Looking at summer NAO (NCEP figures), after a period of generally positive or alternating years we have had a run of six strongly negative years -
Looking at just June we see the same trend
Now this alone might be used as an example reflecting increased impact of the Icelandic low and flow off the Atlantic, but there is something interesting, if we examine the June sea level pressure for Reykjavik, mean pressures have been increasing contrary to what might be expected by NAO -
So where is the low pressure going? A chart of Lerwick MSLP shows a gradual slight decline over the same period -
The yearly difference between the two locations show a more noticeable trend which may be suggestive of a change in North Atlantic storm tracks towards the UK, with Lerwick actually tending now towards lower pressure than Reykjavik -
Combining this chart with England & Wales rainfall and CET gives this -
pressure temperature rainfall.gifJune rainfall has tended to increase over this period and though this is strongly correlated with NAO at -0.67 (ie lower NAO means more rain) it is even more strongly correlated with a shift in pressure patterns at -0.72. Lerwick pressure alone is -0.46.
CET too is correlated though not quite as highly. As expected a +ve NAO links with increasing temperature correlation = 0.22 and this is opposite for increased Reykjavik pressure = -0.23. Obviously higher pressure closer to the UK has more of an impact with Lerwick pressure correlated at 0.46 but once again the most significant is the pressure difference at 0.53.
However, despite this strong link between lower temperatures and the change in North Atlantic pressure, June CET has still managed to show a slight increase over the past 40 years. Recent poor summers may have actually been ameliorated by general warming trends.
-
I agree, it takes more than an handful of bad summers and a couple of bad winters. It's very much a case of work in progress and waiting for further developments.The first halves of summers 2009 and 2010 were actually very good (in this part of the country at least). Summers 2007, 08, 11 and '12 were indeed crap but I doubt whether four out of six UK summers being poor in any period would be especially unusual.
-
Too add to this I would also say that oceanic heat content plays a key part, we are still flushing out the residual heat content of the positive cycle of the PDO. Also unti the NAO goes into its negative phase any talk of impending LIA needs to be put on ice.The extent and duration of decreasing solar activity is key. We can depend to a large extent on the reliability of solar cycles based on previous climate history, so we need to use this knowledge carefully in terms of evaluating its possible impact on future climate and temperatures. We cannot judge the current glacier situation as an reliable guide to the future because, as we know, the negative phasing of solar cycling is in its earliest infancy. Feedbacks from this need to be measured over decades rather than seasonally and annually.
Also as I have posted before - the stratosphere has a key part to play in terms of how solar activity influences the distribution of ozone between the two global hemispheres. Ozone distribution and transport plays an important role in determing the pre-dominant pressure patterns that dictate the the state of both the tropical and polar stratospheric fields. In turn these pressure patterns are responsible for the distribution and waxing/waning of sea ice at both the Antarctic and Arctic over periods of decades and whether cold air is more frequently bottled up at the polar regions or is sent to mid latitudes.
-
Theres no need to report it I just feel its off topic as are our posts.I have no idea what you think you read, because his post seemed entirely on topic to me. If you think he's being confrontational and off topic, then just report his post.
-
Off course he's entitled to his opinion but this thread isn't the place for it BFTV. It's been an interesting thread up until recently, we've had posters who don't frequent the climate forums contributing and the last thing we need is the usual Punch and Judy show. Can we all please keep on topic.He linked to an article that suggests that humans have influenced the climate for the last 5 thousand years. Then mentions a study which says the regeneration of rain forests drew down CO2, contributing to the LIA, and then suggests that the current change in weather may be related to the albedo flip in the Arctic.
I don't necessarily agree with it all, but it is related to the topic. He's entitled to his opinion without you trying to put him down.
-
No it hasn't, as looking at today's primary drivers infers one thing only and that is not what is being discussed here. Can we not just talk about that rather than make this a pro v against thread.What, other than being related to the cause of the little ice age and change in weather conditions we've seen in recent years?
-
Absolutely nothing to do with the thread title, why is it that some see this thread as a threat?Recent studies show that man has been impacting the planet for over 60,000yrs (charcoal fragments in lake deposits showing man's use of fire to control animals during hunting) with climate impacts noticeable from 3,000bc ( http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23460-humans-indelible-stamp-on-earth-clear-5000-years-ago.html?full=true
).
Studies into the regeneration of the meso-american Rain Forrest, post the decimation of the population there (after Europeans impacted their societies...Cortez the killer an' all that), show a large uptake of CO2 which coincides with the 'cool-down' of the LIA.
Maybe folk should be taking another look at the primary drivers involved in that period of climate disruption in comparison with today's major drivers?
Personally I can see no further than our ongoing Albedo Flip as a cause for the 'energized' weather patterns we have been seeing recently? The flood of 'new energy' in the north that the albedo Flip introduces into the workings of northern Hemisphere circulation appears , to me, to tick all the boxes?
Seeing as this intensified post 07's sea ice crash I'd suggest we do not have long to wait to test the hypothesis after a similar extension in ice loss last summer? If 07' instantly forced this period of 'change' upon us then the coming summer will surely show an intensification of these effects?
-
Indeed and by looking at the NH profile over the lasyt five years we can still see a trend, look at how blocking highs have become entrenched over Russia as one example.only a trend in your part of the world..there is more to the climate of the NH than the UK
-
You need to look at the bigger picture, there is more than one season and if you look at the last five summers there is definitely a trend, whether that means we are heading into a new LIA remains to be seen.I do not understand how a fewcooler winters have people thinking we are heading for a mini ice age.the last few winters are all similarand i will repeat similar to winters of the 80s,just march being as cold as 62?.hardly a mini ice age
-
Indeed RP, I would say that we was in a cool cycle both climate and oceans with the PDO being in its negative phase. But that's not the whole picture and it certainly is a conundrum.Well, a few papers have suggested it, yes. But, that in itself, begs another question: what could have caused the 1960s to be such a cold decade? Not only was sea-ice more extensive than it is today, the Sun was also more active...
-
Blocking over high latitudes as we've seen over the last few years is mostly down to the effects of solar output, ice loss at this time of year isn't a factor due to there bring very little in the way of melting.The latest studies on the temp rises through the later part of the 20th century point to this very conclusion Pete with massive amounts of energy 'hidden' by the huge task of removing 70% of the Mass of the Arctic (how can folk not understand the kind of year up on year , decade up on decade concerted spending of energy that was needed to kill the Arctic sea ice pack???) . Today the energy arriving is greater than then and we have little ice left to melt over the Arctic ocean. The fact Greenland mass loss picked up dramatically after the 07' sea ice crash is no coincidence so tales of some 164yr cycle for Total surface melt over Greenland will be under scrutiny this summer as the predicted albedo crash places even more pressure on the ice to melt ? I also keep seeing the GFS runs seeming to follow my child like predictions of what last years extra ice loss could do to our weather this summer. If this does pan out then Greenland's 'novel' High over it's southern half will give blue sky synoptic's for much of the highest energy portion of the summer further compounding things there? At least we'll see far more H.P. influenced weather......if we're going to have extremes I'd rather be troubled with keeping cool than keeping warm or Dry!!!
-
-
I remember a peer reviewed paper by Dr Robert Essenhigh stating just that.
-
Agree John, this would have been a great thread but this has now become an all too familiar Punch and Judy show.your post would have been much better in my view had you simply posted what the paper gave THEN given your views rather than suggesting dubious 1,2,3 thus colouring your post to start with.I suspect that ANYTHING which suggests GW, AGW, Ice ages will NEVER get an umbiased posting on here-sad really as there are many who would like to see the papers, read them and make up their own minds rather than have some of you, and not just you, try to stuff your views down our throats with bits of the papers mixed in with your views. Not unlike the cherry picking of charts in the winter season.Sorry to sound off but I really would love to have as many papers as possible in one place on here, then different folk in another thread giving their views. I and others might then be able to make our own minds up or continue, as I do at present, to sit on the fence.
-
Indeed, obviously a typo.That's quite a feat as there aren't any annual; IPCC Assessment Reports. The third was in 2001, the fourth in 2007 and the fifth probably next year.
-
Having read each annual IPCC report I think that more than makes me qualified to comment, you post me something that isn't just conjecture and can show me how those temp rises projected by climate scientist will bear fruit over the coming years. Now I want hard evidence not conjecture BFTV, show me how CO2 overrides water vapour which as you are aware is the largest of all greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. Can you demonstrate all positive and negative feedbacks and how CO2 drives these.Is that an admittance that you made false claims about the Met Office climate predictions? Have you really read hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed papers? Really? I'm beginning to think your all talk and no substance SI!
Would Better PR Be Beneficial In Getting The Message Across To The General Public
in Climate Change
Posted