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
-
-
No. Winter is not done with us yet. From Wednesday onwards we will see a quite potent Northerly cold spell, much more so than the last cold spell for our region, with lower day time temperatures, and more in the way of precipitation.
The uppers are looking good too. FI but i wouldn't think it would change that much. It's only on Wednesday.
It can snow in April, and it's even been recorded snowing in May!
And June!
-
Agree, there's only so many times you can go up the garden path, before you get bored of the scenery!!Im not falling for the GFS promises yet again. The likely scenario is high pressure building for a colder and drier outlook which will be welcomed by me after all this rain. As or next weekends snow I will believe that if its still showing mid week but I doubt it.
-
Taxi for Pachauri!Another enquiry coming up. This one is re scientific procedures and management of the IPCC. Pachauri has got a few backs up by the looks of things, with his voodoo science comments and general arrogance.
http://www.telegraph...nt-inquiry.html
As always, it will be interesting to hear/read the outcome.
-
There was an article about another polyana in the Antarctic in last months 'Weather'. The flux of energy involved when off shore winds means water is persistently frozen and re opened despite temperatures way below freezing are very, very great.
Given that, and fwiw, I'm to be convinced a iceberg, even a big one, can have much effect on overall (rather than local) Antarctic deep water formation and then climate. But, I will read further articles on this with interest.
Have to agree with you Dev, I can't see an iceberg, no matter how big, having much of a global impact.
-
Surprised how early the first band reached here, already left a light covering!
-
Just lost my post damn the stupid laptop having automatic back buttons for ie.
Sorry SC I will keep it short, yes I want to further investigate the radiator theory, but my view on it is well known I think.
Right, it's not often I quote something from watts, but this is a little gem from Spencer, who I really do have growing respect for atm.
Essentially he's looking at more detailed land sat global temperature measurments against land use, (something which might well be virtually impossible to do accurately, but he has given it what he considers to be a good stab.
http://wattsupwithth...set/#more-16577
What he's noticed so far though is not what he thought and he fully admits this to his credit. His work pretty much backs up Jones (and HADCRU), he also has as yet found no evidence of UHI contamination, nor the reduce stations having a negative effect on the GISS/NCDC datasets(unlike alot of skeptics).
For a skeptical scientist to admit this is very good for everybody, but adds enourmous weight to skeptics and how they view the current global datasets that we use.
Now generally since they have a greater than .90 correlation anyway (the major recordsets) this shouldn't be too much of a surprise.
Still nice to hear that UHI and station usage is not the cause of warming recently and we come back to probably climate science.
"I’ll have to admit I was a little astounded at the agreement between Jones’ and my analyses, especially since I chose a rather ad-hoc method of data screening that was not optimized in any way. Note that the linear temperature trends are essentially identical; the correlation between the monthly anomalies is 0.91.
One significant difference is that my temperature anomalies are, on average, magnified by 1.36 compared to Jones. My first suspicion is that Jones has relatively more tropical than high-latitude area in his averages, which would mute the signal. I did not have time to verify this.
Of course, an increasing urban heat island effect could still be contaminating both datasets, resulting in a spurious warming trend. Also, when I include years before 1986 in the analysis, the warming trends might start to diverge. But at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset — at least not since 1986"
Thanks for the reply Iceberg, couldn't agree more. Spencer one of the few sceptical scientist scientist out there, without an hidden agenda!
-
Your right Iceberg, none of this does prove AGW. I still stand by my Oceans are like radiators theory, it's as a good an explanation as any I've seen!Totally unsubtantiated yet but....
After looking at various sat data and hearing a few rumours on the web Feb 2010 might well be a total record breaking for warmth.
The warmest global day ever recorder might be contained within it. Pretty certain, but I need to find the complete evidence for this and it won't be available until the Feb data set report in early March.
The warmest Feb recorded.
The largest positive anomaly ever recorded for a month.
All of the above will obviously not confirm global warming, but it will show that the globe is a very warm place atm, particularly given the recent spell of either record or near record months. BTW I fully expect this to be confirmed by the skeptical global temperature dataset, so none of the data fiddling nonsense that gets raised, still without any merit.
Anyway I await the Feb results with some anticipation......
-
To me it looks like the GFS is doing what it as done all winter, and that is by putting too much engery in the Northern arm of the jet. Come nearer the time , that front won't make it any further than Northern England, probably not even that far North!Its not just the GFS, the 12z UKMO does pretty much exactly ther same thing in its 12z run, and the ECM has also been flirting with that idea in recent runs...
My conclusion on this run is another marginal snow event for Midlands, better for the west on Saturday, rain in the south...again...then more rain for Sunday-Monday with maybe brief snows on the northern edge before becoming a high ground event further north on Monday...then another high ground event for the south/Midlands at 132hrs...
So all in all whilst its not a complete disaster, its not great by any means either IMO, a couple of extreme broderline set-ups which could all be total washouts doesn't seem that great IMO.
-
Yes, but opinion gets us nowhere, and runs the risk of seriously misinforming other people. Even some sort of evidence to back up some of the spurious claims of 'no warming' or, 'CO2 not responsible' would be nice, after all, people should have some solid basis for having their opinion. If your opinion is based on whether you feel cold when you jump into the sea, then please forgive me for not taking your opinions as seriously as others! Hopefully your opinion is based on more than just that.
For example, looking at:
http://www.cefas.co....ity-trends.aspx
http://www.cefas.co....4-weymouth.aspx
There's not much evidence for significant cooling post-1998, and the Weymouth data (the nearest one with a long enough timeseries) contradicts your 'feel'.
I think Edinburgh feels colder over the last few years, but I'm not taking into account overnight minima, or instrumental observations that are far superior to "it feels colder" or "it feels warmer". And of course Edinburgh's temperatures over a few years have a fractional effect on global climate. It may have been remarkably warm in Yellowknife, Borneo and Timbuktu, but I can't see them outside my kitchen window, but I understand that to get a picture of global climate, I need to know what's been going on in other regions of the world far beyond MBY.
sss
Arrogance comes before a fall sss! You asked me to show you proof that we haven't warmed in the last 13 years, I was going to post the evidence, but then thought, "what is the point"! You my dear friend are so entrenched in your way of thinking, that any evidence presented, will be cast aside like a pros knickers. Any how time to take some annual leave from the climate threads, there's a stench around here that I don't like!
-
13 years and no GLOBAL warming, only static temps. So it's the blind leading the blind then!If the cold we have been experiencing was an expansion of a cold pole you may have a point NSSC but ,seeing as we've had temps across the pole of 10 to 15c above normal, it would appear that our 'cold' cost the pole its 'cold'.
If we did not need the pole to act as our air con unit then no harm done.Sadly we do need the pole as our planetary air con unit and the poor refreeze/fragmented mobile ice that the -ve AO brought with it has lurched us closer to a seasonal pack. This, in my humblest of opinions, is far too greater price to pay for a bit of winter fun in Europe/U.S.
The record global temps we have been logging the past 8 months do not, in any way, point to a cooling planet. Are we to play the 'blind men and the elephant' game and call our back yard 'the world' or are we to look at the broader picture?
-
I think there is a chance of some snow for the South of North-West England for tonight and tomorrow/evening. So goodluck you guys down there. I would say 2-5cm to lowers areas and maybe 10cm over higher ground even if it is loclized
.For my area dry and frosty pmsl.
Goodluck i want pictures
Agree, looks like the Northern extent of the snow will be Cheshire, maybe into the Manchester area. I felt that all of the NW would see some snow tomorrow night, but again looking less likely at the moment.
-
Nothing to laugh about really. It was stated that weather is a measure of climate over time. A given trend in climate will determine the weather types and patterns experienced over time and it will either modify or enhance weather types and patterns at each end of the scale according to which direction the climate is going (warming or cooling) That is not the same as referring to specific weather events in isolation ie in the here and now which is what you have, rather, twisted it to have inferred.
However, with all that said, if the 'best science' points to potential doomsday warming scenarios on the one hand, but then still seeks to normalise disruptive freezes and snowfalls on the other, over time as part and parcel of blips in the assumed continued warming trend then where does that leave the future? How long, in the eyes of AGW, is it sustainable to continue over time? Perhaps it is the case, as Roger suggested in his very well set out post, that the type of extremes as seen of late, punch right through the suggested capping imposed by any superimposed runaway artificial assumed warming (ie over and above the assumed limited threshold of natural variablity) and the case for such superimposition is therefore, at the very least, much overstated? The half degree of warming over the last century afterall, has been almost entirely due to cyclical variations and much of the supposition regarding AGW assumed forcings and positive feedbacks is that the effects of man will accelerate this mainly natural trend in the future. On that basis it is assumed AGW will override changes in cyclical patterns that switch to exibit negative feedbacks. Even if we were to accept the premise of AGW, it additonally also assumes that a greater number of positive feedbacks exist within the forcings of AGW than maybe is the case in reality and relies on this to produce the runaway warming projections as suggested by the especially more bullish IPCC solutions. Even the lower one's of around 2c suggest something quite drastic quite soon which is going to surely eradicate the 'dying race' of winter freezes quite smartish if it is anywhere near the truth.
In further 'other words', such warming hasn't happened yet and requires the verification of the supposition and theory in terms of what might happen from now on to verify. Alas, perhaps the weather types and patterns and invidual weather events as seen over time will continue to obfuscate and frustrate the expectations of 'best science' ? Perhaps global freezes etc are not becoming as infrequent (nor will do in the future) as suggested purely because natural variation is playing a bigger hand than 'best science' believes is the case? That is a 'what if' no different to the supposition attached to artifical runaway warming.
So as stated - AGW creates lots of suppositions around a raft of theorised positive feedbacks (which may not exist) and creates 'what if' scenarios through the IPCC computer simulations as suggested evidence that man causes climate change. There is no obligation for others who do not subscribe to the theory that attempts to reinforce these supposed feedbacks to try and challenge what amounts to, just that,a supposition. Your answer repeats that best science supports AGW and as such that justifies such an obligation. Does it though? Is that not just an expected reinforcement statement to back the theory and try and force others into the same line? Much like any sales outlet business will advertise its brand name on the basis that everyone should buy the product? As long as the expectation exists that everyone should 'buy' into this unconditionally, then the circle will never stop (and it actually serves to put people off buying)
Disappointment works both ways you see.
Round and round it goes....
Good Post Tamara, lot's for sss to ponder on. Though I doubt very much he will, after all being part of the AGW school of thought, leaves little in the way of backtracking. It's a case of, the evidence is indisputable, even when their bold past predictions of winters will become and warmer and wetter, fall by the wayside within a couple of years.
So we get the same old same old, global temps are rising, but the overall evidence for this shows no warming for over 13 years.
-
Well having read two pages of geographical preferences, I had to do a double take to make sure this was the Model mood thread ( By the way, one place I wouldn't like to live is the SE, any where but there so to speak ). Back on topic, tomorrow night is indeed looking like giving my location a good dumping of snow, but I have a feeling this front won't make it as far North as Cheshire. Still in the reliable time frame, plenty of opportunities for a snow event.
-
As with most things there is conflicting evidence-some suggesting lower temperatures-others suggesting no change.
What would have been interesting is, after 9/11, and the grounding of all flights over the USA, if anyone had shown max temp values compared to on the day and the previous week. That is once they had smoothed out any obvious changes due to air mass changes.
My own view is that I'm not convinced that contrails can have enough effect over a large enough area to affect the surface temperatures to any measurable degree but I stand to be corrected if anyone can show me proof that it does occur.
I'll have a trawl of the net to see if I can find anything. I too find it unlikely, that contrails could effect a large enough area to affect surface temps.
Here we go c026p001.pdf
-
Pleasantly surprised woke up to a slight covering on cars and roofs this morning. Majority of it has now gone but still nice to see! Monday looks really good if it actually came off!
Surprised me too, any showers last night, where showing to be in the South of the region. I wouldn't be surprised ( again ) if Thursday/ Friday, brought some significant snow to the region.
-
Maybe it's like the 1998 thing with 1940 being chosen as the start point and the scale being 'exaggerated' to emphasise a downward trend?
I'm a great believer in a human induced 'cooled period' and think it no coincidence that it started with the Jet age.
We have many Skeptic calling for more info on cloud feedbacks but none calling for human cloud feedback studies. The 3 days after 9/11 in the U.S. helps show us the scale of the impacts of high level aircraft con -trails yet it seems another 'boom' area for humanity with ever more flights taking to the skies.
I wonder if anyone has worked out a ball park figure for their impacts so we can add back in (cumulative) the temps that have been lost to aircraft pollution?
Interesting point you raise there GW, regarding cooling and the Jet age. I wonder if anyone has found a correlation between the two?
-
An article on Climategate says that a Scandinavian scientist has demonstrated that a period of cooling between the 1930s - 1950s is not shown on the IPCC graphs..
Oh dear, the plot thickens!!
-
So thats two years of lower temps in some areas of the NH and lower hurricane activity...interesting.
And 13 years of static temps, could this be a new trend?
-
That's if the MWP and LIA where regional and not global, the problem there is a combination of unreliable proxies, and sparse data from the SH. Certainly a good idea on starting another thread on it Jethro!Speaking as a fence sitter from no where land, in the middle of sceptics/pro AGW, I can't see that it would.
Both the LIA and MWP are believed to have been less than global in their impacts, if we can discern an impact in the NH from this prolonged minima, it may be possible to see similarities between now and times past. If we can discern the impacts of both the LIIA and the MWP on a regional level, it may be possible to isolate more firmly the impact CO2 has had upon temperatures in this part of the world. This won't disprove the theory of AGW but it may give a clearer idea of the scale, afterall temperatures have been rising more in the NH than the SH.
When it comes to global temperatures, any cooling in the NH as a result of shifting weather patterns perhaps as a result of a prolonged minima, could well be balanced out by warming in the SH, the net result being a static temperature trend or indeed, still rising - nothing in climate happens very quickly.
I recall seeing something a while ago about the impacts of a prolonged Solar minima being felt first in Northern USA and China, I'll see if I can find it again.
-
There seems to be quite a lot of talk about globally warm temperatures versus NH snow cover and cold USA states....
There's been much talk over the years about how The Little Ice Age wasn't felt universally across the entire globe, it was more focussed upon the Northern Hemisphere. There's also been much talk about the lack of Solar activity back then and also concern about the prolonged minima we've just experienced together with the projected quieter next Solar cycle or two.
Is it possible we could be looking at a period of colder, snowier winters in the Northern Hemisphere? If so, will it eventually impact upon global temperatures? Anyone fancy exploring this idea - is it worth a separate thread?
It would certainly cast further doubt, as to whether AGW is having much impact on global temps.
-
The problem is that IPCC is quite correct that n.Atlantic hurricanes have increased in intensity.
They are quite correct to say that temps in the north atlantic are higher.
The increase in hurricanes is higher than that expected due to AGW.
The IPCC makes no mention of the pacific.
Hatton's results do make sense, but doesn't contradict the IPCC.
i.e both sets are right, but the register to putting alot of spin on it.
I have to take issue regarding this, hurricane activity in the Atlantic, as been on the decline over the last few years. How anyone can state otherwise, is simply misleading and inaccurate!
-
But does he still believe in the LIA?
Which, according to D'Aleo and Watts, was warmer than today ...... :oIt was a good interview, sadly misused by the media, especially the Daily Mail who published a totally false and misleading headline.
btw I like the fact that Prof Jones is a typical British scientist and not an anally obsessive like some - hence his papers all over the place and not carefully filed in numerical, chronological and alphabetical order with 19 cross referenced indexes. I think if I met him I'd rather like him
I bet he drinks real ale
Maybe that's why is papers are mislaid!
-
Going by the bickering going on in the Model Output Discussion I must presume some of these guys didn't receive a Valentines Card this morning.
Yes it appears cupids arrow missed it's target completely, for some on here! Back to the models, who would be a forecaster this coming week. Rain to Snow, Snow to Rain, and some sunshine in between!
-
Aye he did Dev, straight from the horses mouth so to speak! To be fair I think he genuinely did lose it, it just doesn't look good with all that as happened1Oh, SH data is limited, but it's the lost bit I wondered about. I don't think Dr Jones has lost data.
.
Which, according to D'Aleo and Watts, was warmer than today ...... :o
General Climate Change Discussion Continued:
in Climate Change
Posted · Edited by Solar Cycles