BornFromTheVoid
-
Posts
11,369 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
27
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by BornFromTheVoid
-
-
But if you watch it on iplayer, he wasn't misquoted at all. Anyway that's not for here and besides I don't rate Lockwood that highly as he's been playing catch up with Landscheidt for many a year and still hasn't got to grips with UV output and their influences on pressure patterns.
Nobody has got to grips with the influence of UV variations on our weather, it's an active area of research.
Lockwood's area of expertise is the solar variability and its influence on climate and weather (with dozens of peer reviewed publications to his name), while Landscheidt didn't show much expertise when it came to climate, I very much doubt he'd would want to catch up to Landscheidt at all!
Landscheidts predictions weren't great
-
3
-
-
Latest weekly ENSO update
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Continues to predict ENSO neutral for the foreseeable future.
-
3
-
-
Mike Lockwood has responded to being incorrectly cited as predicting a new little ice age by Paul Hudson in a recent BBC article.
http://www.carbonbri...e-ice-ageâ€/
Another Maunder minimum would have a very small effect globally
What is most interesting for me is the current decline in solar activity. The "exceptional" low minimum in the 11-year solar cycle seen in 2008/9, and the subsequent weakness of the current solar cycle, are both part of a steady decline that has been going on since about 1985. This has returned the sun to conditions last seen around 1910.
If we compare this to records of solar activity derived from isotopes stored in tree trunks and ice sheets we find this decline is faster than any in the last 9,000 years, increasing the probability that the sun will return to Maunder minimum conditions within about 50 years.
So what do we think the effect of a return to Maunder minimum conditions on global mean temperatures would be? The answer is very little.
In a paper with scientists from the Met Office's Hadley Centre, we used an energy balance model to show the slowing in anthropogenic global warming associated with decline in solar irradiance to Maunder minimum levels.
We found the likely reduction in warming by 2100 would be between 0.06 and 0.1 degrees Celsius, a very small fraction of the warming we're due to experience as a result of human activity. Other scientists such as Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf from Potsdam, Germany had reached very similar conclusions.
I've also used observations from the last 50 years to investigate the effect of solar activity on global temperatures - and like several other authors, I find only a very minor effect.
-
2
-
-
Mike Lockwood has responded to being incorrectly cited as predicting a new little ice age by Paul Hudson in a recent BBC article.
The article is very interesting, and he explains clearly the implications and uncertainty associated with declining solar activity.
The sun's activity rises and falls on an approximately 11-year cycle, but also varies on century-long timescales. It's this research I talked to BBC weatherman Paul Hudson about in an interview for the BBC's Inside Out programme.Unfortunately, I now find myself in the position of being cited as predicting that the current rapid decline in solar activity will plunge the world into a "Little Ice Age".This is very disappointing as it is not at all supported by the science. ......The decline in solar activity right now is incredibly interesting. It can tell us a great deal about how solar variability arises and it is giving us new insights as to what the sun during the Maunder minimum was really like.Our research tells us very clearly that this decline has only very small implications for global climate, but it does also indicate that Europe may have to get used to a higher frequency of colder winters. These conclusions in no way contradict each other and I think they are both interesting and important.-
4
-
-
1.3C the min here, currently 8.7C, so it will easily be the coolest day of the Autumn so far.
-
does anyone know where I can get global monthly temp anomalies from the past
Here are a few
UAH Satellite Based Data from 1979 http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
NASA's GISS LOTI Ground Based Data From 1880 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
HadCRUT4 Data from 1850 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
Woodfortrees has a very handy interactive charting tool that lets you compare lots of data sets and do some decent analysis on them http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
-
1
-
-
Post 444
The blocking for January to March have been on the CFS consistently for weeks now, while the blocking shown for December has been been decreasing. Best not to judge trends by looking at individual runs here and there.
-
3
-
-
Your right.Also The people who said no blocking...Models are starting to show blocking...
Edit 200th Post
What models are starting to show northern blocking?
-
1
-
-
Here's the weekly 12z CFS update.
Below is the final November graph.
It seems something changed quite dramatically around the 11th of October, from showing moderate to strong +ve SLP anomalies to our north to mainly neutral or negative anomalies after. A lot of variability overall, which will detract from it's predictive value, but perhaps if November end up with average SLP to our north, then it may show some use.
Below is the latest December chart.
The last 7 days have averaged 1.1 or weak +ve SLP anomalies, with 1 -ve run, 1 neutral and 5 +ve (previous week was 1.3, with 2 -ve and 5 +ve). The slow downward trend continues, but the 10 day average remain +ve.
Below is the January chart
January remain firmly in the moderate blocking category. The last 7 days have averaged 2, moderate +ve SLP anomalies, with 2 runs showing neutral and 5 positive (previous 7 days averaged 2.3, with 6 +ve and 1 neutral). The long term trend is slightly negative, but the 10 day averaged has climbed quite a bit over the last 2 weeks and if this continues, the trend line should even out.
Some highlighted charts from the last week.
Best
January from the 12z CFS on October 31st
Worst
December 12z CFS from October 28th
-
8
-
-
10.0C to the 2nd
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_mean_est_2013
Yesterday was 9.7C. Minimum today is 6.2C while maxima look like reaching close to 11C, so a drop to 9.5C is likely tomorrow.
After that, the 06z GFS has the CET at
8.5C to the 4th (5.4)
8.3C to the 5th(7.7)
8.4C to the 6th (8.5)
8.4C to the 7th (8.7)
8.4C to the 8th (8.4)
8.3C to the 9th (7.3)
8.0C to the 10th (5.4)
A start quite close to the 61-90 average, above the 1772-2012 average and below the 81-10 average.
-
Upper air values look like remaining close to or a little above average across the Arctic Ocean over the next few days, which should send us above 2006 (which drops to lowest on record during November). We are though, now reaching the point where the majority of the growth needs to start coming from outside the Arctic Ocean, from areas such as Hudson Bay, Baffin and Barents/Kara seas. Temperatures in these areas are forecast to be largely above average over the next week (with the Baffin sea slightly below average) so combined with the +ve SST anomalies, we will likely see a significant slow down in growth during the week with us moving closer to the last 6 years, but probably not dropping below any of them yet.
-
1
-
-
Current weather is really beginning to feel winter-like, a beautiful bite to the air.
-
With a min today of 6.3C and maxima around around 12.5C, we should see a drop to something around 9.9C on tomorrows update.
After that, the 12z GFS op run has the CET near
9.4C to the 3rd (8.4)
8.6C to the 4th (6.2)
8.4C to the 5th (7.8]
8.6C to the 6th (9.1)
8.5C to the 7th (8.2)
8.5C to the 8th (8.7)
8.5C to the 9th (7.9)
-
Errr evidence based research, where is the evidence that warming may start once the oceans decide it's time it wasn't going to be so greedy with all that hidden heat content. That's an assumption based on zero evidence.
The warming continues SI. The climate systems continues to accumulate heat
the oceans are warming
Pacific Ocean Accumulating Heat Faster Than at Any Time in the Past 10,000 Years
the air is warming
the sea level is rising
the ice is melting
The evidence is there for all to see.
-
2
-
-
Ok, as you have asked me I'll make this my last foray into here before I leave. There was no need for the second line of your post though btw.
I had thought I had already effectively answered this question over the page, but I use the word 'artificial' as a reference to any suggested manmade forcings that are not naturally cyclical such as solar cycles and phases. I can only refer to uncertainties in terms of research to feedbacks and so claiming substantive evidence is subjective in accordance with opinion. Links are placed every day all the time on these threads in terms of suggested evidence for this, that and the other - whether 'sceptical' or anthropromorphic in belief and it becomes a futile exercise posting these to those who don't have like-minds when they are simply going to be dismissing them anyway.
Cloud feedback research has been posted on various occasions before with evidence to suggest how amplification warming signals may be produced on the one hand, but other research has suggested the possibility of negative feedbacks being present instead. Research into this, like all else, is always ongoing.
I happen to agree with the view that cloud feedbacks present one of the most potentially determinate forcings in terms of whether/or how much AGW is a real presence and how much, if any, impact it will have on future climate variability. I think that some kind of very minimal artificial feedback has always existed but that at the same time natural variability has also always been a much greater forcing to override any such artificial (read manmade) forcing. I am yet to be persuaded that the status quo has changed that much for all the reasons I have given.
Endlessly supplying links is not going to change any perceptions unless people are left to evolve their own opinions over time and they are certainly not designed with the sole purpose of feeling compelled to satisfy the requirement of another member who holds a different opinion. That was, I believe, one of the intentions of the separate threads so that people should be free to chose to post links if they wish to, when they are able to, or at a time that is convenient to them - not simply to feel obliged to comply with the instructions and requirements of another member.
When there is no obligation in this way, then the type of open mindedness I keep referring to can occur spontaneously - as I have found of late in cases I have already referred to
The second line of my post seemed apt at the time, given your opinions of everyone you deem to be on this side of the debate, other than FB.
With regard to the climate, the main man-made forcing appears to from CO2 and particulate pollution, nothing about that. As for the subsequent feedbacks, there is always going to be a level of uncertainty involved in any measurement or prediction. But the evidence is almost unequivocal that the feedbacks will be positive, just how strongly positive is the issue. I don't think you'll find anybody here would dismiss scientific research of any kind out of hand, so there is certainly no need to hold back from posting data to back up your opinions. Any sceptically inclined person would insist on evidence as a foundation to opinion.
Clouds and aerosols do appear to be the biggest area of uncertainty presently. The current understanding has improved, but even with considerable uncertainty, it's not a case of whether -ve /aerosol cloud feedbacks could stop warming, but whether is will slow it a moderate amount or a small amount. When looking at cloud feedbacks alone the main claims for a strong -ve cloud feedback have been gradually fading over the years, as more and more data/research has come through. Currently, the best estimates are for a small +ve feedback from clouds, based not on assumptions now, but evidence. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter07.pdf
I personally find it difficult to roconcile the gradual Milankovitch cycles induced cooling from 8,000 years ago until the 19th century, then the rapid warming, heat accumulation within the climate system, and current large radiative imbalance, with a continuation of the climates natural status quo.
It is simply the scientific, better yet, the sceptical way, to produce evidence for your opinions. The graphs, papers, data, etc, are all easily searchable and take little effort to post a link here. The problem with just posting (potentially baseless) opinions and getting put off at requests for evidence, is that it allows myths, falsehoods, conjecture and assumptions to propagate at the expense of evidence based research, which is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. All of which has nothing to do with open mindedness imo.
-
2
-
-
Ian.
IMO the saddest part of this sorry business is how easily so many highly intelligent people are taken-in. I know many people - more intelligent than myself - who have a 'blind spot' when it comes to dealing with anything remotely algebraic...Why do I find that sad? Because, without algebra, such people are left open to the art of verbal persuasion...
It reminds me of the old adage: give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach him how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime.
...give a man religion, he'll die praying for a fish.
-
1
-
-
Maybe you haven't read my post properly perhaps - *read cloud feedbacks f.e*. If I have any further posts at some other time I will return to the other thread as according to the rules, to which I have been trying to keep to. I came over here initially simply to read Fergus post(s) replies to me because so far I have found them to be the only ones on 'this side' of late that have any value to them and thought that I would acknowledge this over here *she says as a 'sceptic'*
They are especially refreshingly welcome because they are minus any of the usual tedious Punch and Judy antics that run through most of the rest of them....
And the latest offer from GW can remain unreplied to.
Any chance of a comment on the theorised artificial feedbacks you've been mentioning?
I hope it's not the case that asking for examples and evidence is viewed as hostility?
-
Just a very quick example....correlating MEI against 1000mb temperature does not detect any strong relationships in our part of the world.
Similar story for 500hPa heights:
I did a fairly detailed post on this last year, which you might find of use http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/74491-winter-2012-2013-part-2/?p=2373163
Seemed the strength, rather than phase, is what matters most.
-
2
-
-
Interesting but with regards to temperatures is there any forecasting skill?
From Cohen & Jones 2011 -
Even exact knowledge of the winter Niño 3.4 index provides no forecast skill for the Eastern US and virtually all of Eurasia
I don't think the temperature values are of much use, I only really posted them for interest's sake. Temperature forecasts are much tougher in general than getting the broad pattern I find.
Does that paper mention why they only tried correlation from 1997? Seems there's plenty more data than that.
-
It's definitely worth reading, and is pretty much spot on in it's assertions. AGW or no AGW is not the real issue, uncontrolled corporate capitalism, (and the myth of perpetual growth), is the biggest threat to planet earth.
Whisht now, stop criticising capitalism or go move to North Korea you commie
-
Yes everyone is saying its mild but for past two days we've had single figure maxes. Forecast for next five days does not exceed 9c. With a max of 6c tomorrow and 0c min tonight. So below average actually.
The map show below average temeratures for much of Ireland, smithyweather. It would appear to be in agreement with you!
-
Indeed- those anomaly maps would probably point to a mild wet December, a cold and possibly snowy January, and then a fairly mild and dry February, so something for almost everybody. The range of years, though, suggests that the relationship is quite weak.
Agreed. It could be that when ENSO is weak/neutral, other factors begin to dominate our weather to a much greater extent.
Narrowing it further to a combination of neutral ENSO and +ve QBO gives this for DJF
Those combination of years produce a winter CET average of 3.8C
-
3
-
-
Looks like we equalled the record warmest day for October 15th, at 14.0C. The whole month only saw 2 days below the average of the entire series, the 10th (8.4C) and 11th (9.9C).
We now need November to finish on 8.2C to reach the top 10 (joint 7th) warmest Autumn on record and 8.5C for joint 5th warmest. The 06z GFS would have us in the high 9s by the 8th, so a very mild November certainly can't be ruled out.
-
1
-
-
That was quick, confirmed as 12.5C (-0.15C correction), joint 10th warmest on record. Congrats to Polar Gael!
-
2
-
Arctic Ice Discussion 2013-14: the refreeze...
in Climate Change
Posted
Over the last 7 days, the average increase has been +92k/day, above the 02-12 average of 88k/day, but well below the average of the last 6 years, 115k/day.
The average daily increase (2002-12) is 68k/day over the next 7 days, with the average of the last 6 years being 74k/day for the same period.