Yorkshiresnows

Its a free world, but, ....all too easy for folks to critisise. What I cannot quite get into my head is that ......... HE GOT IT BROADLY CORRECT !!!!, certainly more so than the MET, more so than that idiot Ian Brown and indeed many others !!! So you'l forgive me (and many others) for thinking a little more highly of him (being a professional) .......... than you. When is your winter forecast coming out so we can see whether you fit the description 'buffoon' ??? Y.S

Well, I think your being a little unfair ... true he has over recent years been calling for cold in the UK and Europe, but over the past 18 months he' s been pretty much spot on., Last year he stated that the main core of the cold would be in Europe, the further East, the colder., but he also stated that he was unsure as to how far west the cold would back, with some models showing the core of the cold further West.. He also called the El Nino to shift to La Nina .... which it has in spectacular fashion, and provided a good call for summer UK. He correctly called the arctic melt season, late melt, then rapid melt etc (its alll on his video blog). He has a good style and has a video blog where he discusses his successes and failures...... you can't really say fairer than that. Comparison with Piers Corbyn is also way out (in my opinion). Y.S

Great Post, Totally agree. Not sure what the previous poster saw of the run in to last winter, but your goodself, BFTP and Joe B were all singing from the same hym sheet. Please keep up the great work. Y.S

<br /><br /><br />Great post Kold and very much agree with your thoughts on BFTP and Roger's efforts. I am ashamed to say that I thought they were frankly daft basing predictions on solar and lunar events. Their forecast accuracy over the past couple of years (and in particular in regards to the position of the Jet stream) has made me eat my words and I very much look forward to their continued contributions to LRFing. So much for us all to learn. Y.S

<br /><br /><br />Nice post. Very much agree. Y.S

Hi Folks, Latest video diary of the arctic ice situation from Joe B: http://www.accuweather.com/video/624373716001/monday-morning-sea-ice-report.asp All the graphs are there to see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ With La Nina conditions set and the PDO negative, next year should see far more favourable conditions for arctic sea ice retention. My view is that with 2010 not reaching the low ebb of 2007 even with a similar El Nino, then this is telling. Cheers Y.S

Hi Folks, For me by far the most accurate fotecast of the Arctic ice situation this year has been by Joe B over on Accuweather. He correctly predicted that the healthy ice of the early Spring would be replaced by rapid melt ........ but not matching 2007 and also that there would be a healthy recovery. He is also predicting a late spring thaw and early autumn re-freeze next year tied into the La Nina and -PDO ....... all predicted well in advance. You can still access some of the early video blogs he issued back in the winter. No death spiral and doom laden posts from that quarter. Guess we will have to see where we go from here .... but looking quite good at the moment. Y.S

<br /><br /><br />Cheers for that. Noticed the section on clouds, ..... and uncertainty. What it does not relate is the importance that this uncertainty could have !! Y.S

Hi There, Here's a broad overview: http://www.arctic.no...essay_bond.html This is also good: http://www.drroyspen...al-oscillation/ This is .... well controversial (and not specifically related to the PDO): http://wattsupwithth...tic-sst-record/ Joe B has a load of stuff on his blog thats worth a look. Here's a video blog from May ..... see the middle section on the PDO's effects: http://www.accuweather.com/video/89017432001/colder-pdo-thickening-ice.asp Y.S

<br /><br /><br />I'm tired of arguing with you. I really think you are talking nonsence. If my thoughts / beliefs are correct then the next few years should show a cooling or a continuing plateau of global temps and the work of Dr Spencer shown to be correct. If not and we continue to warm, ..... well then I'm wrong. Can't say fairer that that. Also, I've read up on a lot more than just the works of Spencer and Taylor, but I refuse to keep 'going round the houses' with you. Y.S

Hi There, My apologies, but I think some of the problems have been in some issues with the way in which I made that last post. I am having issues with posting and what happens to text and graphs when posted together. None of the graphs posted, so a lot of the text does not quite sit right. I provided a link to Roy Spencers blog in which I cut the last part of my post. Here is the link again: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Cheers Y.S

<br /><br /><br />Hi Mycroft Yes, agree these are the most suprising elements (by the way, that was a quote from Roy Spencer that I took from the blog). For some reason, I've lost all the formatting tools from Netweather and all replies give the above jumbled mess !!! .... most frustrating. Y.S

<br /><br /><br />You have your views and I have mine. I've presented evidence for all my claims and I am not stamping these views aS necessarily correct. Only that there is a counter argument backed up by science that deserves certainly more respect that some folks are prepared to give. You have rubbished Roy Spencer's work and publications on here many times, even dismissing him as some sort of nut, and yet I can only presume you have not read much of his work, as he is a leading expert in his field, former NASA scientist and responsible for much of the temperature satellite monitoring programming that went into the NASA Aquar Satellite (the most advance global monitoring system currently available). The deal with the IPCC climate models is correct, the climate system is assumed to be hyper sensitive and all effects of an increase in water vapour content of the atmosphere positive ..... its the only way to project the type of temperature increases the IPCC have with a doubling of CO2 (which on its own would amount to between 0.5 to 1.0 degrees C on the ground). I have never stated that there are no positive feedbacks, just that it is highly unlikely that an increase in water vapour content of the atmosphere is not going to lead to an increase in global cloud cover (which would be highly negative). Also there is a great deal of uncertainty around the very issue of a positive feedback response to water vapour: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ There's multiple other papers you can access and look at, many of which have been posted previously over the summer months, the latest being: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf I've also read the IPCC summary reports. As for misleading people, I'm sorry but I think it is the other way around, but its a free world and folks can make up their own mind. All I've done is presented my view. You can take it or leave it ...... but I would rather you do not levy charges at me such as 'misleading people', you are not a climate expert, but an amateur ... just like myself with his/her opinion. Here is the latest from Dr Spencer on the issue of water feedback: Five Reasons Why Water Vapor Feedback Might Not Be Positive September 14th, 2010 Since it has been a while since I have addressed water vapor feedback, and I am now getting more questions about it, I thought this would be a good time to revisit the issue and my opinions on the subject. Positive water vapor feedback is probably the most “certain†and important of the feedbacks in the climate system in the minds of mainstream climate researchers. Weak warming caused by more carbon dioxide will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which will then amplify the weak warming through water vapor’s role as the atmosphere’s primary greenhouse gas. Positive water vapor feedback makes sense intuitively. Warmer air masses, on average, contain more water vapor. Warmer air is associated with greater surface evaporation rates, which is the ultimate source of almost all atmospheric water vapor. And since water vapor is the atmosphere’s main greenhouse gas, most scientists have reasonably inferred that climate warming will be enhanced by increasing water vapor amounts. After all, water vapor feedback is positive in all of the IPCC climate models, too. But when one looks at the details objectively, it is not so obvious that water vapor feedback in the context of long-term climate change is positive. Remember, it’s not the difference between warmer tropical air masses and cooler high-latitude air masses that will determine water vapor feedback…its how those air masses will each change over time in response to more carbon dioxide. Anything that alters precipitation processes during that process can cause either positive or negative water vapor feedback. Here are some of those details. 1) Evaporation versus Precipitation The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere represents a balance between two competing processes: (1) surface evaporation (the source), and (2) precipitation (the sink). While we know that evaporation increases with temperature, we don’t know very much about how the efficiency of precipitation systems changes with temperature. The latter process is much more complex than surface evaporation (see Renno et al., 1994), and it is not at all clear that climate models behave realistically in this regard. In fact, the models just “punt†on this issue because our understanding of precipitation systems is just not good enough to put something explicit into the models. Even cloud resolving models, which can grow individual clouds, have gross approximations and assumptions regarding the precipitation formation process. 2) Negative Water vapor Feedback Can Occur Even with a Water Vapor Increase Most atmospheric water vapor resides in the lowest levels, in the ‘turbulent boundary layer’, while the water vapor content of the free troposphere is more closely tied to precipitation processes. But because the outgoing longwave radiation is so much more sensitive to small changes in upper-layer humidity especially at low humidities (e.g. see http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-Braswell-97-BAMS.pdf), it is possible to have a net increase in total integrated water vapor, but negative water vapor feedback from a small decrease in free-tropospheric humidity. See #4 (below) for observational support for this possibility. 3) Cause Versus Effect Just because we find that unusually warm years have more water vapor in both the boundary layer and free troposphere does not mean that the warming caused the moistening. There are a variety of processes (e.g. tropospheric wind shear causing changes in precipitation efficiency) which can in turn alter the balance between evaporation and precipitation, which will then cause warming or cooling as a RESULT OF the humidity change – rather than the other way around. This cause-versus-effect issue has been almost totally ignored in feedback studies, and is analogous to the situation when estimating cloud feedbacks, the subject of our most recent paper (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf). Similar to our cloud feedback paper, evidence of causation in the opposite direction is the de-correlation between temperature and humidity in the real world versus in climate models (e.g. Sun et al., 2001). 4) Evidence from Radiosondes There is some evidence that free tropospheric vapor has decreased in recent decades (e.g. the Paltridge et al., 2009 analysis of the NCEP Reanalysis dataset [http://www.drroyspencer.com/Paltridge-NCEP-vapor-2009.pdf]) despite this being a period of surface warming and humidifying in the boundary layer. Miskolczi (2010) [http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf]used the radiosonde data which provide the main input to the NCEP reanalysis to show that the resulting cooling effect of a decrease in vapor has approximately counterbalanced the warming influence of increasing CO2 over the same period of time, leading to a fairly constant infrared opacity (greenhouse effect). Of course, water vapor measurements from radiosondes are notoriously unreliable, but one would think that if there was a spurious drying from a humidity sensor problem that it would show up at all altitudes, not just in the free troposphere. The fact that it switches sign right where the turbulent boundary layer pushes up against the free troposphere (around 850 mb, or 5,000 ft.) seems like too much of a coincidence. 5) The Missing “Hot Spot†Most people don’t realize that the missing tropospheric “hot spot†in satellite temperature trends is potentially related to water vapor feedback. One of the most robust feedback relationships across the IPCC climate models is that those models with the strongest positive water vapor feedback have the strongest negative lapse rate feedback (which is what the “hot spot†would represent). So, the lack of this negative lapse rate feedback signature in the satellite temperature trends could be an indirect indication of little (or even negative) water vapor feedback in nature. Conclusion While it seems rather obvious intuitively that a warmer world will have more atmospheric water vapor, and thus positive water vapor feedback, I’ve just listed the first 5 reasons that come to my mind why this might not be the case. I am not saying that’s what I necessarily believe. I will admit to having waffled on this issue over the years, but that’s because there is evidence on both sides of the debate. At a minimum, I believe the water vapor feedback issue is more complicated than most mainstream researchers think it is. Y.S

Hi Folks Here's the weekly Arctic Ice Report from Accu-weather: http://www.accuweather.com/video/619000794001/monday-morning-sea-ice-report.asp Seems Joe's pretty confident of a recovery in ice throughout 2011. Y.S

<br /><br /><br />Hi TWS Yes, but the whole argument centres around whether Co2 is really a serious player (potent greenhouse gas). If it is then all bets are off and any natural cycle is going to be swamped by the greenhouse signal. If it is not (and this is my belief), then consequently the climate system is less sensitive and it is the natural inherent cycles that will ultimately hold sway. What occurred over the Maunder minimum and how exactly it impacted the globe is very much open to differing views on here. To my mind it was a global event though to what extent the temperature varied from location to location is a tricky one. A paper that I posted earlier on, looked at the Pacific/Indo Ocean warm pool and estimated a 1-2 degree change over this period, implying a global effect of this magnitude, but I would agree that there was likely great variability as a whole. Also, we have only just changed from High solar activity to low (we are still under low solar activity and will ... if predictions are correct be for some time). The PDO has only recently changed state (2007)and hence I would not have expected a sudden shift in such a small space of time (this is not only my view but that expressed by Joe laminate floori over on Accuweather). It is the change in ocean temperatures, predominance of El Nino /La Nina states and possible implications on global cloudiness that can mechanistically affect climatic change ..... it is simply too early to tell if the recent change in states is to have any impact or not. That global tempartures have flatlined (arguably) over the past 10 years and do not hold with IPCC predictions is to me very telling. That the latest CPC forecasts suggest a very cool 2011 is also interesting and if hold true would suggest that we are indeed (at the very least) not following the "CO2 holds all sway" pattern. Of course and as ever, time will tell (this could be a load of old tosh !!). Y.S

<br /><br /><br />That's a very simple one to answer. If the earths recent past consisted of cyclical changes from warm to cold and back again, then it remains a strong possibility that at least a large portion of the warming that we have witnessed in the late 20th century ..... could be down to natural cycles and little to do with greenhouse gas emissions. Cycles such as solar and the PDO then become more relevant factors. Y.S

<br /><br /><br />Hi There The views I express have been made reading up on a load of research papers as well as varous book publications. What I initially found most troubling was that up until the third IPCC assessment report (maybe even the fourth, though I am uncertain on this), that ocean cycles and possible -feedback mechanisms associated with changes in cloud cover were never factored into the IPCC climate models. The projections that they run with assume a HUGE positive feedback effect via water vapour changes to the atmosphere (around 300% !!!) ...... which are controversial to say the least. I've been looking at the work of Dr Roy Spencer as well as others such as Peter Taylor, Theodore Landscheidt and also the issues over the famous hockey stick papers. On top of that I have been following much of what Joe laminate floori over on Accu weather has been discussing on his blog. Much of this is controversial and you will find many on here that take an opposite view to myself ...... fair enough. I would direct you to Roy sepncers Blog: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Anyway, these are just my views and we'll just have to see how thing transpire from here on. Cheers Y.S

For me the bottom line is that: 1) we have warmed - no question, particularly over the latter part of the 20th century ... from 1979. 2) This warming has stalled somewhat (arguably) over the past 10 years (this years El-Nino Spike is reduced compared to1998) 2) The PDO has been in a +state since 1979 3) Accurate monitoring of the global temps started ....... around the late 70's 4) The AMO has been in a +state, combining with the +PDO to create perfect warming conditions (if the Earths oceans are warm ....... !!!) 5) Solar activity has been very high over this same period. So, even without any possible contribution from human derived greenhouse gas emissions ..... I'd suggest that we would have likely seen warming on some scale. The IPCC calculate the effect of the WEAK greenhouse gas (Co2) by assuming that all feedbacks are positive. We have seen good and recent evidence from Dr Roy Spencer that low level cloud feedbacks are not factored in (being heavily negative) and that the assumptions regarding increasing water vapour as a result of a warming climate being all positive are not well understood and a weak link in the whole AGW theory (IPCC fourth summary states this is an area of uncertainty). We also have increasing evidence that solar activity has a part to play ..... and we are currently entering a period of low solar activity ......as foreseen by Landscheidt. We know that past climate has been very likely variable with the MWP and LIA being prime examples (with good evidence posted previously to show that these were global events). The conclusions from some papers suggest that the MWP was warmer than today ....and of course there was the Roman warm period before that (I've dismissed the Hockey stick papers for the trash they are, but folks can make up their own minds on that score ..... see previous threads and posts).. So, we are now in a -PDO (since from around 2007), and low solar activity. Current ENSO is a big La Nina. At the end of the next 30 years we should have a definite answer as to exactly how potent human derived greenhouse gas emissions (predominantly Co2) are. If the climate continues to warm then the cyclical argument is dead. If the next few years show the climate cooling, We need to re-visit what exactly has been going on these past few years. Y.S

Hi CC Spot on, 1000's of posts but the facts always get overlooked in the summer melt / armaggedon thread. Once we have accumalated 30 years of -PDO years data, then we can look back (compare against the +PDO years - from 1979 to 2007 and gain a better understanding of where the arctic ice situation is. For those of us that have a leaning to a possible cyclic nature of events, then we might expect a recovery of sorts over the next few years. Not many folks have commented on the US navy data. Is this because it shows something other than the doomsday scenario ? Time will tell ...... as ever Y.S

Hi Folks, Has anybody seen the following: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/is-the-ice-getting-thicker/ Looks like the US navy has seen the ice thicken in the arctic since 2008. Interesting ....... (Blast ...sorry just seen you have also posted the link). Y.S

But we'll all enjoy it !! I look forward to reading the posts of the vast majority on this tread and its good to see folks coming out of hibernation (if a little on the grumpy side). This winter is still very much up in the air, as to what it delivers ...... which is what makes the leed in such fun. Y.S

Hi Folks, The latest look at the Arctic sea ice data from Accu-weather ..... as well as a nice illustration on measuring temperatures back in the 1930's and 40' in the USA to the present day !!! http://www.accuweather.com/video/611619325001/monday-morning-sea-ice-report.asp You can see all of the graphs yourself without watching the video here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ Current arctic temperature look shows conditions a little warmer than average at the moment. So ... all aboard for the big freeze up !! Y.S

Yes, totally agree with this post. We have had 30 years of +PDO which would be expected to produce warmer arctic conditions (we've been here before ....... many times). Perhaps folks should take a look at the latest CPC forecasts which are backing up the idea of a cooldown in global temps to come throughout the next year (in line with Joe B's thoughts over on Accuweather). The PDO has turned, we have a big strong La Nina in place so going forward for the arctic ... looks better. What is striking to me is that given the strong El Nino, coupled to the backwash of 30 years of +PDO (we only turned cycle in 2007 or so), why we did not see more melt this season than 2007. Here's Joe B's take on it all: http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/index.asp . Lets all be thankful that this seasons melt time is at an end and we can all move on. Y.S

Hi Folks, As you know I have been following good ol Joe over on Accuweather for some time ..... his predictions for this years arctic ice melt have been pretty much spot on. His recent post (I see Blitzen has beat me to posting the link) is here- I've underlined various bits which many of us have been arguing over for some time: "By the way. I see the AGW crew is yelling about the 2cnd lowest ice total ever I remind you it was forecasted here, and it got to exactly where I said. Unfortunately for that crowd, their days of crowing are numbered. ALot of them predicted it to be lower than 07 because they either dont understand what is going on or they are loathe to admit it . The earth is going to cool. THE PDO HAS BEEN WARM SINCE WE STARTED MEASURING THE ICE AND NOW IT HAS REVERSED! The 2cnd lowest total ever is only in the last 32 years, and in the wake of the nino which warms the planet, could not even get back to where it was in 07. Now things are really going to take off the other way in the next 2 years. and then lets see what happens after 30 years of cold PDO, and then when the atlantic kicks in. We wont have to wait. Sea Ice next summer will be back to levels that we were at before 2005 and the following summer will be where they were in the late 90s! And I think they know darn well what is coming, because their precious climate models are showing the cooling now big time in the arctic region. Notice how there is no mention of that. Its got to sting when a human sees something before the model, especially if it shoots holes in their theory. Look at this. The ice melt season next year may not start till May if these models have any clue ( which because of the powerful nina they will once the nina has reached its maturity) - http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images3/glbT2mSea.gifP"]http://www.cpc.ncep....3/glbT2mSea.gif<P Its got to have the warming crowd seeing blue. And lets see some brave journalists in 2013 come over here and question some of our politicians who have been saying the see ice will be gone by then. Its about time someone held their feet to the fire, which is what we may all want to do in 20-30 years to keep warm. Okay, off my soapbox, sorry about that, but the coming cooling is like shooting fish in a barrel. Keep an eye on this site and watch the bottom drop out over the coming 6-9 months on the global temps. http://www.drroyspencer.com/ And by the way, if you cant see the oceans leading the air temp with the bouncing up and down with the nino and nina, then you simply wont admit the obvious. And just wait till the cumulative years of a cold PDO start piling up.. Again the forecast is back to where we were at the start of the sat era of OBJECTIVE measurement, as seen here, but 2030. But you can watch the sharp drop off the nino induced peak the next 9 months". Cracking post by Joe (as far as I am concerned). Y.S

Hi Folks, A quick look at the global SST's and state of play: La Nina really kicking into gear now !!! Cheers Y.S