Mr Sleet
-
Posts
380 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Mr Sleet
-
-
One of the big problems with the paper is in the preamble, where it is stated that "Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago" - a claim for which I have seen no evidence. As the paper continues it makes a whole slew of assumptions with little or no justification. Without any kind of corroborative evidence (either in real-world observations or within the climatological literature) it would appear that this paper is simply alarmist in nature and to be taken with a pinch of salt.
CB
There is lots of evidence that CO2 is sensitive to global temperatures ie as global temps rise or fall so CO2 levels rise or fall, generally lagging behind the
temperature effect.Its due to the solubility of CO2 in the oceans being higher at lower temps.As global temps ( and ocean temps) fall, then CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by the oceans to a greater extent.
So I agree that there is no evidence to support the claim that falling C02 levels caused the cooling; quite the reverse in fact. This paper should be recycled.
-
here we go...
where does it stop nobody knows...
Gray Wolf knows
-
Yup! ,plus more of the multiyear ice so another year of the minimum ice levels being broken.
I'd also expect to see the northern and northwest passage navigable this year as the drifted pack causing the multiyear to jam last summer off the Eurasian coast will have melted by August (seeing as this area has suffered large positive temp anoms all winter then the 'spring thaw' will have less work to do before setting about the chunks of multiyear beached in the shallows).
So, all this years winter ice melted and more 'multiyear' lost.
With yesterdays reports on Ward Hunt shelf I would not be surprised to see further fragmentation of the 5 remaining ice shelfs in NW Canada now they face open water.
Of course the other area of interest will be the losses from the Greenland ice sheet. Lets keep a watch on sea temp anoms down the west and southwest coast of Greenland picking out these 'meltwater pulses'.
OK GW- respect for sticking to your guns- you may be right but I don't think so. Anyone else like to make a prediction ?
-
Hear, hear Stu !
If the only 'jolly things ' on the thread are our bits of fun then surely no harm done!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80417142503.htm
So we now have the mechanism that helps drive rapid ablation of ice sheets (both Greenland and Antarctica) and maybe our attention should also turn towards the Greenland ice sheet and it's recent rapid ablation as this does directly impact the globe with the jumps in sea level it can drive.
I do like OSW's post.....things won't be as bad as GW predicts......but seeing as the multiyear is almost done for expect more of it to go this year! Wasn't that what i was saying???
Seeing as so many folk are feeling reassured at the ice extent this year does anyone care to 'predict' how much of this 'single year ice' will make it through summer to become multiyear ice? The only acceptable sign of recovery will be ice retention over summer so who's willing to chance the 'eggy face' by telling us how much (%) increase in multiyear we can expect this year.
OK I'll play
I would say that the minimum extent will be up by between 1 and 2 million sq km on the 2007 minimum. I think you have said GW that you expect the whole lot to go -yes ?
-
What is the concentration of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere?
385 ppm. Excellent for my begonias
-
If you didn't understand the rebuttal then how could you have understood the original article to the extent that you can accept and agree with it?
CB
CBOB 1 Dev 0
-
An official rebuttal from Shaviv:
That's quite a serious rebuttal. It confirms my observations that some scientists ( and I speak as one who has made a good living out of it for 23 years) believe in something too strongly ( ie have already made up their minds, subconsciously) when they design their experiment and analytical means, so that their objectivity is lost.
-
I think for the time of year this cold shot has been close, if not in the exceptional cold bracket. The SE must have been rather close to its coldest CET max for a awful long time I'd have thought.
Still a 2.3C day CET would be pretty decent in winter...indeed to put it into even better context there was just ONE colder day in Jan 08!
Today should see another big drop though not as extreme as yesterday. I'd guess that todays CEt has come in somewhere between 4-5C and tomorrow will probably also come in around that mark I think.
According to Beeb weather forecaster last night ( 10:30 pm), monday night/tuesday mornings' minimum was the coldest on record for (April) in the South West. No more detail added !
-
I'm pretty sure the chart I posted shows a very strong link between CO2 and temp.
I didn't say it shows CO2 causes temp change
But very clearly it disputes your chart and contention that there is no connection at all between CO2 and temp
Essan, have you been a pedant all your life or do we have the NW forum to thank for that ?
-
Then prepare for a 'pretty dramatic drop'.
The ice around the fringes will be gone in no time at all and then the inner mass (which is well fragmented already) will begin to drift and ablate in rapid order.
By the time we're into July ice levels will be down to the inner core and it will be then that the remnant multiyear will need watching.
Last year it jolted free of it's anchorage to the north of Greenland in late Aug/early sept and I suspect it will not have a great purchase on the sea bed this year leading to an even earlier 'drift'. If the multiyear were to drift far enough north then it would become trapped in the major clockwise circulation, that now appears increasingly common, and melt back further in late Aug early Sept.
The remnant multiyear would then pose the 'icebreaker' threat to the forming pack in early/mid winter as it drifted around the pole and would continue to disrupt the ice throughout the winter months leading to novel melt patterns next spring (Polynya's in the central ice mass).
I will agree that's certainly possible, but I doubt it, we'll see.
-
Perhaps you could explain the chart
You might like to include things like reduced solar radiance, snowball earth, mountain building, life, and continental plate configuration .....
For example, if the sun is 30% dimmer, the continents are positioned differently, there are no ice caps anywhere and there are no trees on the planet would we expect the relationship between CO2 and temp to be identical to today?
Anyway here's my chart:
Just coincidence?
I understand what you are saying Essan
back to you.With your chart it is the old chestnut , the CO2 rises after the temperature not the other way round.
I still say at the mo " no CO2 link" to climate change
The chart needs a label at the Permo-Triassic boundary: "95% of fossil forming life went extinct here. You have been warned!"Very interesting BV, thanks.
More here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Trias...xtinction_event
-
Temperature responses to quasi-100-yr solar variability during the past 6000 years based on δ18O of peat cellulose in Hongyuan, eastern Qinghai–Tibet plateau, China
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN
It's the Sun wot did it.
-
If you have something similar or different please put it up with an explanation.
-
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
Here's somewhere to start,Roo.
No idea what's going to happen in terms of magnitude and time scales,Dev. For sure,it's a different scenario to the 'warming' one we've been fed for many,many years now.
I wouldn't take solace in that likelihood LG, a 20 year cool down would still be a "downward blip in an ever upward trend" for some
My advice- take a leaf out of Government's book and don't take AGW or this board too seriously.
-
From Cryosphere Today website. Onwards and upwards for the ever colder Antarctic.
-
From Cryoshere Today website.
If anything, things are flattening out. Would need to be a pretty dramatic drop to beat last years minimum.
-
The theory is that when the sun is relatively inactive (lack of sunspots), the Earth's magnetic field is modified in such a way that more cosmic rays are able to reach the lower atmosphere. This in turn theoretically leads to increased low cloud cover (LCC) caused by ionization effects in the atmosphere.
I personally find this a little tenuous at best:
1. The paper published recently by Sloan and Wolfendale directly contradicts the correlation presented by Svensmark et al. So two papers, one for one against - not conclusive IMO.
2. If you assume that the hypothesis does hold, what is the true magnitude of the cooling effect? One could argue that more LCC could equally lead to more heat being trapped as opposed to less. e.g on a cloudy day in summer whilst the sun is not visible it can clearly be felt despite the cloud cover.
3. The effects of other factors on cloud formation may well skew any correlation with their formation due to cosmic rays.
Whilst I feel that this particular issue is somewhat unlikely to show any demonstrable link between the sun and climate sensitivity, I still believe that there is a link. My feelings are that any short to medium term effect of the sun on our climate is linked to a host of factors including:
* The sun's irradiance varying during periods of activity and inactivity leading to a modification of the actual electromagnetic spectrum of IR, UV and light. It is possible that although sunspots are shown as black spots it may be that these areas emit less UV and more IR leading to increases in long wave (IR) radiation reaching Earth. (vice versa during inactive periods)
* Variations in charged particles and UV leading to changes in the natural carbon cycle, in turn leading to variations in CO2 levels both in the atmosphere and in the sea. These changes caused mainly by the effect of direct sunlight on ocean based flora.
The above is just my opinion and food for thought in direct response to the published paper. It should be bourne in mind that the paper demonstrates that the sun's activity is apparently not correlated to LCC formation and nothing more or less.
Wysi
Thank God wysi, someone who can think clearly- top post. :lol:
-
The BBC article isn't suggesting that it disproves global warming- just acknowledging that there's a possible case for that argument, while still noting that there's plenty of evidence the other way.
The BBC article isn't saying either of those, it is just saying that global temperatures haven't risen since 1998 (fact) and 2008 is expected to be cooler globally than 2007. ( forecast)
Simple really !
-
First part of the article says:
"Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said."
Looking further into the article, the Hadley Centre are forecasting the global yearly temperature anomaly to be +0.4C.
"Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century."
That would actually put it about equal with 2007 (+0.3970). The 8th warmest year recorded.
I honestly think the headline 'Global Temperatures to Decrease' is stretching things a bit.
Well if the global temperature in 2008 is lower or forecast to be lower than 2007, it is a fair headline. Much fairer than yesterdays " no Sun link to climate change" shocker.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm
BBC official acknowledgment.
-
Come again? This wasn't you in your unbiased mode then
Hang on, cosmic rays are supposed to influence the climate via interaction with the solar wind? Nothing to do with the Sun???
So, you wouldn't expect an instant response to CO2 either? What with all those other natural effect we might see temps rise in a non linear fashion? Isn't that what we see?
That link was bit of fun , chill out man ( or in your case, warm up ..)
I didn't say "nothing to do with the Sun". It should be obvious that the study actually looked at the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation/climate change, the Sun can have an effect on the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth. So this study may rule out one indirect mechanism.It doesn't rule out the Sun per se. So to say "No Sun link" to climate change is wrong and misleading, but would probably be taken at face value by Joe Public.
No, I wouldn't expect an instant temperature response to CO2 .
-
How can evidence for 'a significant solar influence' be 'mounting' on a day when a study saying the opposite comes out? You can say that if a study backing up significant solar influence comes out, but it's well pushing it to claim that today.
OK Dev, I have read the article and I have no axe to grind either way, I have an open mind : but 2 points
1) The headline " No Sun link" to Climate Change is wrong. To be scientifically accurate, it should say " No cosmic ray" link to climate change. The Lancaster team have only looked at one mechanism by which the Sun could play a part- namely it's influence on cosmic rays from outside the solar system reaching the Earth.
2) It is quite simplistic to say (Rutherford Appleton lab)that solar activity has decreased slightly over the last 20 years so global temps should have gone down too. There is plenty of thermal inertia in the sytem and I wouldn't expect an immediate response- remember we have not warmed up appreciably for the last 8 years and very recently there has been a cooling. So I think that there is a bit of media spin going on here.
-
Actually it is more likely that Earth is on a cooling trend and the ice will increase for at least a few years.
Seems more feasible to me
-
Bering sea doing very nicely thanks, still increasing- remarkable B)
from Cryosphere Today website.Could be important for the melt ahead, if the ice stays for a longer time in the Bering sea, it could seriously reduce the melt in the East Siberian sea compared to last year.
'Trees' or 'Ocean'...
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
No.If it's dissolved in the ocean ( there will be an reversible equilibrium at the interface of sea and air ie molecules will swap places ) it cannot contribute to atmospheric warming.