Solar Cycles
-
Posts
1,148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Solar Cycles
-
-
Would you say that once locked in, this pattern could persist right through the summer GP?
-
Indeed, atm the prospects for sea ice this summer in the Arctic look poor by whatever measure one takes, but the eventual minima are still, in DOUBT!
For one I agree with your conclusion!
-
I'm with you on this one YS, until the PDO as switched over fully, then we will continue to see static temperatures. Though I would say it would take more than 12 months, for it to impact global temps. Fascinating times ahead in my opinion!Hi All
I think your jumping the gun a little. The Solar minimums impacts are yet to be felt in my view. We are also in process of changing over the PDO cycle.
There has been no overall warming for the past 10 years (this year has still 6 months to play, with the predicted temp spike due to El Nino about to fade) with La Nina conditions set to take hold in the next few months.
I see over on Accuweather that Joe laminate floori is looking at a drop in global temps next year, so we'll need to wait a while longer yet prior to any concluisons in my view.
Y.S
-
Here (on page 229, but I recommend you read the preceding pages, first)
Thanks for digging that one out VP. A very interesting read, looks like there is no correlation between sunspots and thunderstorms. However that report is from 1936, so maybe more evidence will surface to support this. Also I noted the temperature correlations with sunspot activity, some evidence to suggest that fewer sunspots doesn't always equate to lower temps. This for me shows where the oceans play there part, heat stored and then slowly released over time. Now I'm sure I have a paper regarding solar activity and the oceans somewhere, but finding it will prove quite a challenge, with my cluttered filing system!
-
The rotten ice term currently in vogue to use at every opportunity is rather amusing.
It seems to stem from a certain 'stance'.
There's nothing new or unusual about this type of ice being widespread, and breaking up quite rapidly in the spring thaw.
You mean ice melts in summer! Well blow me away, here's me thinking this was some kind of phenomenal event. It's rather amusing watching those warmers clutching at every straw to keep the faith. As I say every year, lets see what September brings!
-
Let's wait until october and see how the averages work out then? With the size of 'cane season predicted I'd bet the 'average' nudges up a bit!!!
If we lok at the pee poor numbers of 'canes the past 2 years then you'd be thinking (if you were me) that upper level shear has reduced the size of storms......la Nina?
Blimey GW, never thought I would hear those words from you. "Let's wait and see".
-
Hi guys.
Are we talking about a global decrease in convection or a local one? Would I be right in suggesting that for such a decrease to be solar-driven it would be a necessarily global phenomenon?
Not necessarily Pete. maybe just the NH.
-
Thanks VP. Is there anything you have come across, that shows some sort of correlation between solar activity and Thunderstorms?
-
Just posted something in the Spring/ Summer thread, might be more appropriate in here though. Many have noticed that during the last few years Thunderstorms have become less frequent. What are peoples opinion on this maybe being tied in with low solar activity. There as been some research into Thunderstorms and solar activity, but not much in the way of up to date research. Would be interesting to hear all your views, on the correlation of Thunderstorms and solar activity.
-
In general, the past three years have seen a dearth of thundery activity round here: the only events which I can recall are a humdinger of a storm in May 2008 (which caused flash flooding) and an unusual thundersnow event just before Christmas 2009 (complete with pink/purple flashes and deafening bangs). Otherwise, I've missed out on a number of events. The years leading up to 2006 were highly active in comparison.
I wonder if there is a correlation between Thunderstorms and solar activity. Probably just a coincidence, but it does seem to tie in with continuing low solar activity!
Apparently there as been some research into this, very patchy from what I can see. Does anyone have any up to date info on this?
Mods I've started a thread regarding this over on the Climate forum, feel free to delete as it is off topic!
-
Interesting stuff from Paul Hudson. This winter does look like its going to be at least a moderate La Nina. That favours a pretty active Atlantic. Low solar activity and and the SST pattern in the Atlantic probably favours blocking. So the calculation seems to be Active Atlantic + Northern Blocking + -NAO = Trouble?
As far as summer is concerned, a slow, gradual breakdown through July is what I'm thinking could happen. June may well be the best of it for dry, useful weather. July warm, but unsettled?
1947 anyone? Although quite a way off, this winter does look like we could well see some fireworks. It will be interesting to see what the SST's are come September!
-
Didn't we get this warning as we were dropping into solar min? (before we knew how long and low the sun would go!)
It's not that we haven't faced big storms before it's just that our electric dependence has grown greater so if it gets impacted we're stuffed!!!
Could you imagine the chaos if we burned out transformers all across the sun facing side of the planet? They had enough of a job sorting the Canadian incident out in the late 80's!!
One as to laugh, is this the same NASA that made those incorrect claims ( again ) about cycle 24!
-
I started this thread as a place to follow what was, to me, a growing number of individuals and groups who are feeling brave enough to speak out against what has, in the past, been a general acceptance of man-made global warming.
But, alas, it has, like just about every other thread, degenerated into arguments.
Doesn't take long, does it?
Sorry noggin.
Try being Michael Mann or Phil Jones or Ben Santer - two of those fine scientists have received death threats from anti AGW extremists!
Dearv Dear this thread is going down the plug hole now!
-
Again, most climate sceptic blogs out there are run by right wing, often extremist right wing, political activists or agitators.
SC, yesterday it was alleged here in this thread that Greenpeace lie. I objected but the post was allowed as being opinion. I will not continue to bite my lip when such opinion is expressed I will from now on express similar opinion about sceptics back.
Dev I 'm afraid they do, there is an article I have somewhere regarding this. It was of course about the effects of AGW ( what a surprise ). Patrick Moore was a co founder of greenpeace, and now he as to run the gauntlet of hate directed at him by those so called peace lovers, just because he dares to speak out against AGW!
-
Bit like blogs like WUWT then - except they're right wing fanatics.
Or are we both simply throwing mud?
Not at all Dev, simply ask the former head of greenpeace his views. He stated more or less what I just said!
-
A few years ago my firm was approached by a very well known 'Green' organisation ( I point-blank refuse to name them,and the clue is not necessarily in "Green"!!) with a request for us to engrave a fancy plaque with their name - presumably to be displayed proudly in one of their expensive offices somewhere. The plaque itself was made of some rare,endangered Brazilian hardwood. Can you smell,nay,taste the hypocrisy? I remember having a "do" with the boss,I didn't want to be involved in any way out of principle. But that don't pay my bills. You're bang right in what you say,4wd. "Environmentalists,preservationists,greens" - don't make me laugh. I don't know who you gladly turn your hard-earned over to,Dev - but IMO you're being robbed.
20 years ago the the green movement did a fantastic job, run by people who actually cared more about the environment, than scoring political goals. Fast forward to the here and now, and what we have now is a movement run by eco-terrorist, whose only prime concern is satisfying their own political agendas.
-
Much in the same way as Hansen then!!Great stuff. It looks like Monckton has been truly discredited.
-
Better for us all if I am to eat humble pie I reckon!
Talking of which I'm about to take a mighty dose of it right now;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian
I'm at a conference all week. The orbital forcing guys are
Richard Alley and Leonid Polyak, I've copied them
on this email and hopefully they can answer your question.
Cheers
Mark C. Serreze
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
followed swiftly by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The orbital forcing is near, and for most latitudes just past, the minimum for the Holocene, so the natural trend should be slow, weak warming in the midsummer in high northern latitudes. You might see Archer, D. and A. Ganopolski, 2005, A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation, Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 6, Art. No. Q05003.
There is a good bit of discussion in the community, but a reasonable interpretation is something like this:
If the next ice age had followed the pattern of the three previous ones, we probably would have started into it already. However, the eccentricity (out-of-roundness) of Earth’s orbit has a 400,000-year cycle as well as a 100,000-year cycle. Right now, the orbit is stuck at very nearly round, which has the effect of making the precessional changes small (more-or-less, they control how close to the sun we are in northern summer), so it is hard to get minimal mid-summer sunshine in the north to allow snow to survive. So, it will be a precession cycle or two before we naturally would be likely to slide into an ice age. (Note that Bill Ruddiman has argued that early humans helped the orbits a bit in heading off the ice age.) --Richard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frolm Richard Alley.
It seems I should have listened to C-Bob and I'm happy to appologise for not doing so.
Ian. EDIT: NSIDC update now available;
GW, as much as I find some of your post to be rather doom laden, I enjoy reading them non the less. It's not a case of eating humble pie, and winners and losers, it's down to believing whether AGW is over hyped or not.
-
Arctic ice will always change, as it always as GW! There is not one shred of evidence to suggest man has been responsible for this decline. Come September we will have no records broken, just a continuing trend of a small increase. I'll be back in September to compare notes!
-
Come on GW. NO return to the Arctic we grew up knowing, a bit strong to say the least!I don't think it is safe to do that 4wd (look at 06'). Back in 06' we still had a 'banker' of old perennial. It may have drastically thinned but it was still the 'old stylee' glacial ice with deep snow cap (itself turning into glacial ice).
This year we have very little 'old perennial' in the open ocean. All we have is thin ,'new perennial' which has not had the years of deep freeze needed to allow that special crystal structure to form and it's brine to drain off. As it is we have sub 3m ice with a porous salt water interface and this summer will illustrate very nicely how well this endures.
When we have a purely seasonal pack then 'predicting in June' it's outcome will not prove a problem (lol) and I feel that ,with the demise of the 'old perennial/Halocline layer, we are on a one way street to that eventuality.
If someone can explain how we rebuild the unique structure of the Arctic ocean (that allowed such massive islands of perennial ice to maintain through summers) I'm sure that there are plenty of folk (out there) who would like to know how for ,without such potentials, we are left with no hope of a return to the Arctic we grew up knowing.
-
It seems that some of the more denialist sites are having a few issues with the ice extent.
We've not even hit the melt season proper (for the Arctic Basin) so I don't know how they will react once those drops start to occur? WUWT WUWT? (LOL)
Don't count all your chickens before they hatch GW!
-
Thanks GW.
I do find it rather odd that no quantifying statements are made in this (and many other) papers/reports. Surely if you are able to say the melt is above natural variation, then you must have a figure for the natural and therefore the unnatural too - how could you possibly make such statements without those figures?
Personally speaking, given so much time, money and media space is expended on this subject, I'd like to know is it 2% above natural variation, 10%, 20%?????? The cynic in me thinks the reason for the absence of this information is perhaps the percentage figures are not nearly as alarming as the picture being painted. The story that the ice is melting at an alarming rate is not nearly as alarming as the ice is melting at 5% above natural variation, especially when you have to factor in a margin of error.
Perhaps I'm just too cynical.
I don't think you are Jethro, too me it looks like more manipulated data tweaked here and there! I for one get sick and tired of reading these cherry picked reports, which have no raw data for you to access and draw your own conclusions. Anyway I'm off camping for a few days, no doubt when I return there will be more doom and gloom stories to catch up on!
-
May 20, 2010
Ancient records confirm Arctic warming due to man
If Arctic warming continues at its current rate, the Arctic Ocean could have ice-free summers by 2040 or even earlier, modelling studies suggest. The last time the ocean may have had ice-free seasons was around 10,000 years ago, when the region was getting much more sunlight than today due to Earth's orbital fluctuations. By using geological records to piece together the history of Arctic sea ice over the last 50 million years, scientists have shown that the combined magnitude and abruptness of the recent ice loss is likely higher than ever before and can't be explained by any known natural variables.
Leonid Polyak, from the Byrd Polar Research Center of Ohio State University, US, and colleagues employed marine sediment cores and ice-core and terrestrial Arctic temperature records. Palaeoclimate proxies found in these sediments, such as ice-rafted debris, microscopic organisms, driftwood, whalebone, and plant material, indicate the presence or absence of sea ice in a particular region. Historical records and satellite data complete the picture for modern times.
The proxy records show that around 50 million years ago the Arctic was a balmy place, with summer temperatures as high as 24 °C and subtropical aquatic ferns basking in the warm waters. Then around 47 million years ago sea ice started to form, most probably encouraged by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide and an accompanying drop in temperatures.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide continued to decrease – caused in part by weathering of rocks as the Earth reorganised its continents – and temperatures fell. Then around 3 million years ago the carbon dioxide decline slowed and regular glacial cycles started to dominate temperature changes, driven by orbital variations which alter the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth. Since then the Earth has swung predictably from glacial to interglacial and back again, every few tens of thousands of years. Emerging data suggest that Arctic sea-ice was probably much reduced during the major interglacials.
For the last 11,000 years or so we have been enjoying a relatively warm, low-ice interglacial period, with a gentle cooling as we head towards the next glacial. "From orbital variations, we'd expect the Arctic to continue to slowly cool as it has done so for the past several thousand years, eventually slipping into a new ice age," said Mark Serreze director of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado.
But the last 100 years have bucked the trend in a big way. "We've lost about 30% of the summer ice extent and as much as 85% of the multi-year ice volume since the 1970s," Serreze told environmentalresearchweb. And this decrease can't be explained by natural variations alone. "If you ignored our recent atmospheric carbon dioxide rise, the recent reduction in sea ice in the Arctic would look highly anomalous, because it comes at a time when orbits favour extensive sea ice," said Richard Alley from Pennsylvania State University.
Publishing their findings in Quaternary Science Reviews, Polyak and his colleagues conclude that the recent decrease in Arctic sea ice doesn't fit any of the natural variabilities known from existing paleoclimatic data. This conclusion implies that the most plausible trigger for this warming is rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels coming from human activities. "Orbital variations, which are currently slowly cooling the Arctic, are still there, it's just that climate warming due to human activities is now dominating and operating on a much shorter timescale – about 100 years – than orbital variations – [which operate over] thousands of years," explained Serreze.
The implications of ice-free summers in the Arctic within a few decades are of great concern. Coastal erosion will likely increase and many ice-adapted species will struggle, which will inevitably affect the human inhabitants of the Arctic. Out beyond the Arctic, weather systems will alter as atmospheric circulation patterns adjust to the effect of an ice-free Arctic Ocean.
As the geological record shows, the Arctic has occasionally been ice-free in the past. However, the current speed of on-going change is exceptional. "In the past, one went from heavier ice to milder, or ice-free, conditions over the span of thousands of years," said Serreze. "Now we are talking about doing it in 100 years, or less. Can species like polar bears adapt to such rapid change? We'll see."
==========================================================================
I thought that a couple of our regular posters might profit from a look at this.
As is highlighted we've had the best of our 'interglacial' and should be on a 'cooldown' and proxy records show it's at least 10,000yrs since we last had so little ice up there.
Yes but if that was the case, it still wouldn't be proof that AGW was responsible. Also the blog which this is taken from, is a well known extremists site.
-
Oh fergawd's sake. Will 2010 be the year when more climate change claptrap is recorded than any other? You bet,until next year that is...
They have already written the press release for 2011 being the warmest on record!
In The News
in Climate Change
Posted
Who do you think you are kidding Mr Mann, when we all know the hockey sticks done!
Watts Up With That .htm