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
-
-
But they are not responsible for melting Arctic sea ice. There is no proof that warmer currents are linked to rises in CO2, as there is no proof that the equivalent air temperature is effected by CO2. Only lab results and computer models show this, but where it counts in the real world, scientist still can't put 2+2 together.Not Impossible at all as you are warming the entire oceans only the top bit, if you don't think air temperatures can have much effect try looking at the SST's from Spring to Autumn !.Even in the UK temperatures in the Atlantic off the SW (i.e not the shallow North sea waters) can range from 18C to 11C between autumn and spring.
-
All this scaremongering about what may happen, is bordering on the ridiculousNo need for the personal stuff GW.And I don't appreciate twisting of words. I clearly stated..
Polar bears are not the only creature walking on thin ice..
Its obvious that some of the loss comes from warmer water. But what triggered the 2007 melt? Was it a one off occurence or will it happen again? If it was a one off then why won't the ice gain mass and cover in the future? You seem to know all the answers GW.. Please explain. I'm sure several thousand scientists would love to hear the answer. It would make their life easier...
In 60 years we've seen the ice melt. Who's arguing that it hasn't melted? All I'm saying is if it doesn't show signs of recovery within the next 5 years then I'll get concerned about it. Like many other people, I have more immediate problems to deal with..
. Arctic sea ice as, is, and will continue to grow and decline.There are far more pressing matters in the world to address right now, other than this.One thing I will add, and that how can warmer air temperatures heat up vast oceans to the point of melting Arctic sea ice. IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
-
Hathway seems confident that it will be the end of the year! Then again, he was confident a few months back. Me thinks it will be some time soooooooooon!After a brief period of activity the sun seems to have gone a bit quiet again. We're almost at the point where NASA stated that things would move from within 'natural variability'. (I'm sure they said end of December)
-
Exactly Jethro, but that tiny little fact seems to count for nothing, when one as an agenda!The entire Arctic could melt, barring a few mm rise due to thermal expansion, sea levels would not rise.In order for sea levels to rise we need land based ice to melt, ie the Greenland ice cap or the over-land ice in Antarctica.
Melting sea ice does not cause sea level rises.
-
Sorry but anything Richard Black says I would take with a huge dose of salt. The man is a scaremongering alarmist, who loves to present worst case scenarios with very dubious data!Thanks to the 'beeb' and A.J. Poolshark for finding it!Warming boosts strongest storms
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Typhoon Nuri was the 12th tropical storm to hit the Philippines this year
The strongest tropical storms are becoming even stronger as the world's oceans warm, scientists have confirmed.
Analysis of satellite data shows that in the last 25 years, strong cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons have become more frequent in most of the tropics.
Writing in the journal Nature, they say the number of weaker storms has not noticeably altered.
The idea that climate change might be linked to tropical storms has been highly controversial.
A few years ago, it was claimed that hurricanes would become more frequent as well as more common in a warming world.
The swirling winds pick up energy from a warm ocean.
But recent research has suggested they would occur less frequently, though likely to pack a more powerful punch each time.
James Elsner from Florida State University in Tallahassee, US and colleagues believed the link might become clearer if they analysed data according to the strength of storms. HOW TROPICAL STORMS FORM
Sea surface temperatures above 26.5C (79.7F)
A pre-existing weather disturbance
Moisture in the atmosphere
Favourable conditions, such as light winds or weak wind shear
Animated guide: Tropical storms
"We're seeing a signal, and it's telling us that the strongest effect (of rising ocean temperatures) is on the strongest storms," he told BBC News.
"At average or median wind speeds, about 40m/s, we don't see a trend; but when we get up to 50 or 60m/s we do see a trend."
A hurricane featuring winds of 40m/s (89mph) is a Category One storm according to the often-used Saffir-Simpson scale.
At about 60m/s (134mph) it enters Category Four, the strength at which Hurricane Gustav recently hit Cuba before weakening to Category One over the US coast.
Tropical trends
Hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones are different terms used in different regions of the world for the same phenomenon.
However, the bulk of the scientific work on possible links to climate change has featured North Atlantic hurricanes, largely because of the relatively good historical records contained in the US.
The new analysis, using satellite data acquired by US, European and Japanese programmes, shows up different trends across the tropics.
A memorial marks the damaging 1900 hurricane in Galveston, US
The increase in strong storms shows up most markedly in the North Atlantic and Indian oceans, and is absent in the South Pacific.
"We're looking at different ocean basins, and some are already pretty warm," said Professor Elsner.
"So there, an increase in temperature isn't going to produce as strong an increase as in basins where the the temperatures are only marginally supportive of cyclones."
The researchers believe weaker storms are not affected so much because the factors that prevent them developing to their full potential, notably wind shear - abrupt changes in wind speed and direction that prevent the cyclone fuelling itself with ocean heat - are not related to ocean temperatures.
Globally, a rise of 1C in sea surface temperature would increase the occurrence of strong storms by about one third, the researchers calculate.
Apart from human-induced climate change, the incidence of tropical storms is determined by natural cycles such as El Nino that affect surface temperatures in various parts of the oceans.
The damage they do is affected far less by their strength than by where they hit land, and by how able a society is to withstand the winds and rain.
-
NASA does not explore oceans, hence it's name thats left to likes of NOAA.
No what the IPCC report is saying is that sea-levels will rise but that there is uncertainty, not uncertainty that sea levels will rise but uncertainty by how much.
I agree that not all of sea warming can be attributed to global warming (anthropogenic), but the trend and majority of it factor in well with the models. There is no mysterious heat source which hasn't been found, because there is no big black hole to explain, unless somebody can show me some evidence.....BTW physics says you can, its down to layering and mixing(or none mixing) of the oceans, the oceans don't heat on mass
But there is no evidence either, that AGW as warmed the Oceans! The simple fact is no one can honestly state they have the answer!
-
That would do it for me too!Rather than prefering E,ly or N,ly I shall tell you what I believe is the perfect cold spell.The best type of cold spell is when you get N blocking that extends from Greenland to Siberia (rare). The simple reason is because you get alternating N,ly/E,lys which brings snowfall to the whole country. The 1947 winter is the best example of alternating HP between Greenland/Iceland/Scandi.
-
Good point! There is so much we don't know about our oceans, and the simple fact is we don't know for sure why our oceans have warmed. Possibly Volcanoes under the oceans could have a big part to play, but again we don't really know to what extent underwater volcanic activity as on ocean temperatures. All speculative at the moment, maybe NASA should be looking to explore the oceans as well as space!Even if you accept warmer oceans cause increased rate of hurricanes (which is far from certain) you cannot directly relate that warmer ocean to man made emissions. In fact I think that all the scientific evidence suggests that the oceans cannot physically warm to the extent they have via 20th century CO2 emissions alone. The amount of sea ice loss is way beyond that predicted by the IPCC and CO2 absorption is well below that predicted so clearly other explanations have to be sought even if you support AGW via man made emissions you cannot make the leap to warmer oceans. Physics says you cannot heat such large bodies of water in such a short time period and even if you believe that maybe its only attributed to surface heating you will have to explain scientific findings like this:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=in-hot-water
And why scientific evidence is now supporting southern hemisphere ice shelf loss from below and not just surface warming??
-
Sorry Ossie, it was early in the morning when I posted ( not at my best then ). As to your query, well no one can deny the planet as warmed recently, as to what as caused this, well I don't buy the AGW theory and I am a big believer in Natural causes much the same as Roger. I really don't buy into the conspiracy theories though, but maybe scientist embroider things a little, but you could also say the same for skeptics too!Solar, calm down, you'll hurt your head on that wall. The conspiracy comment was a separate issue in a separate post. It wasn't particularly directed at you, which is why I wrote "I invite anyone here who believes that the researchers of the world are so scared of losing their jobs that they will not speak the truth about Climate Change to see if these six men are still in their jobs in a year's time. Are you reading this, Roger? And if they are, will you reconsider your stance on this matter?". I only addressed the beginning of the post to you out of courtesy, since my thoughts had been triggered by the interesting quote you'd found and been good enough to share with us. Or is your name Roger, too? If so, I'm really sorry!I'm also sorry that I misunderstood your stance on hurricanes and warm ocean temps. You spoke only in general terms about "AGW", and I wrongly assumed you dismissed any connection with warmer planets or oceans. Your intial comments being short, vehement and lacking in detail, it was perhaps an understandable mistake to make. But I did invite you to expand by writing "Or are you saying that warmer oceans are nothing to do with climate change, whether or not caused by man?" Which, to an extent, you now have: thank you.
But just to clarify....You agree that there is a connection between hurricanes and ocean temperatures. Is your certainty about the lack of connection to AGW because you don't believe that Atlantic Ocean temperatures are connected to global temps generally? Or because you don't agree that global temps have risen generally at all? Or because you accept there has been a global temp rise, but don't accept that mankind's activities have anything to do with it, even partially? That's what I meant by inviting "joined-up arguments about the whole picture".
Like most people on here, I am genuinely interested in other people's full thoughts and arguments on the whole panoply of Climate Change. But "full" is the key word: brief, blanket dismissals of other people's views are two-a-penny on the internet. If you give us detailed expanations of what you think and why we will listen more.
Ossie
-
First off I never implied there was no correlation between warmer waters and there impact on hurricanes, there is! Secondly, where have I mentioned anywhere that I think it's all a conspiracy, nowhere! I was just pointing out that there is no evidence linking AGW to hurricanes, and if you can find one then by all means post it!!! :lol:Solar, a further thought about the research that your interesting quote - "There is nothing in the US hurricane damage record, that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along the US coast" - was about.You found it on the NOAA website - one of those terrible US Government Depts that systematically lie, distort or suppress the truth about (A)GW, we are told. How interesting that they initiated and/or funded the research in the first place. And when the research team, one of whom actually works for the NOAA, came back with results that did not support the 'repressive orthodoxy' in US science & government, what did they do? They published it and put a big news item about it on their website. So much for the conspiracy of silence theory. Or do we think all the authors will now lose their jobs? Here are their names, poor terrified fellas that they must now be: Roger A. Pielke Jr. (University of Colorado), Joel Gratz (ICAT Managers, Inc.), Chris Landsea, Douglas Collins (Tillinghast-Towers Perrin), Mark A. Saunders (University College London), and Rade Musulin (Aon Re Australia).
I invite anyone here who believes that the researchers of the world are so scared of losing their jobs that they will not speak the truth about Climate Change to see if these six men are still in their jobs in a year's time. Are you reading this, Roger? And if they are, will you reconsider your stance on this matter?
-
Sorry but have major problems with links, computer not wanting to play! But if you look up an article from the 22nd February 2008 on NOAA/ news stories, then hopefully you can find it. As I say though there is no evidence to support a link between AGW and hurricanes, and any climate scientist will state the same!Solar, I do not agree with anything like everything G-W writes. His absolutism and conviction - though lord knows, they are no stronger than yours - can sometimes annoy. But if you were to go back through some of his thousands of posts - even those since you have been a member - you will find that he reads and refers to many hundreds of items of evidence as a matter of course, and then constructs a rational (if sometimes extreme) argument based on them. To accuse him of not bothering to look up the only two items (I think) you have EVER mentioned (and that you don't provide a link to**), and then suggest this negates his arguments is pretty silly. He may be guilty of sermonizing, but like all good sermons his posts are well researched, well thought out, and well constructed - and again like a good sermon, have the power to influence people's opinions.And do you have to end your posts of disagreement with a d'oh smiley? I (reluctantly) use a winking/friendly smiling one in attempt to make it clear (to those who like them) that I am disagreeing in a friendly way. But the d'oh version just racks up the tension. G-W can be accused of many things, but stupidity is really not one of them.
Ossie
(**Even the Hurricane section of the NOAA site is huge, and after 20 minutes' searching I have so far failed to find your quote - though I'm sure it's there - and to see who said it and in what context)
-
Im sorry GW but if you can't be bothered to look up the links I provided, then please leave the sermon for another day. Thank you!! :lol:As Osmposm highlights, without 'evidence' solars inputs are merely opinion.Google 'hurricane intensity increase' and wade through the pages of papers released over the past 15yrs and then explain to us why there is no link between warmer oceans and Hurricane intensity
As the oceans warm and the atmosphere expands then the potential difference between cold cloud tops and warm water base increases and with it intensity. Sure, a more 'active' climate system (heat driven) will also produce stronger shear impacts on storm formation (as we saw in 06/07) but those that get through the development phase are more and more likely, over time, to become 'majors'.
The physical 'size' of storms also appears to be on the up and up as we see in the Pacific with the 'super typhoons' and the size of Ike this year whilst over Cuba.
I ,for one, find it no 'coincidence' that the '4' and then '5' in a row records fell in the past decade and that we also spawned a season like 2005 . Kinda like the 'top ten warmest years' all falling in the last 15yrs......or the polar amplification cycle we've seen biting deep over the melt seasons in the past 10yrs.....too many 'coincidences' methinks especially when they have been long forecast impacts of AGW
-
Sorry having problems at the moment trying to get links. However if you go on the NOAA'S own site there is a nice quote there. "There is nothing in the US hurricane damage record, that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along the US coast". And if you can take a look at the Tropical Cyclone ACE 1980-2008 graph, then you will see further proof as to there being no link between AGW and hurricanes! :lol:Solar, you start off saying the thread is pointless because it was a quiet hurricane season; then when it is demonstrated that it was rather the opposite you change your line and say "so what?" because...um...anybody who knows anything knows there's no connection between hurricanes and a warmer planet.You have very strong opinions, but seldom offer reasoned argument or evidence - or even useful links to evidence - to support them. Most of us here are interested in reading such evidence, whichever way it points. And your arguments would be more effective if you did.
Ossie
-
Well GW I would put my house on the line, that there is no link between Hurricanes and AGW. Ask any climate scientist worth his salt, and he will tell you much the same these days. Probably something to do with the scaremongering tactics that where deployed a few years ago, informing us all how Hurricanes will intensify in numbers and severity!.....and I'm sure we will all take notice of your informed take on thinks
-
And what does this all prove? Certainly not AGW is responsible, there is no evidence what so ever to prove there is a link!
-
What a pity I missed it, I mean the great man himself there for all to hear! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
I thought it was a cardboard cut out of him!Hehe if Brickfielder was any more laid back he would fall over
-
So that's 8 Hurricanes GW and 3 of those under a category 3?
-
I'm sorry GW but I can't see the point in this thread, for all your scaremongering, this year as been a relatively quiet Hurricane season. How many Hurricanes where there exactly?
-
Brilliant stuff, can't wait for Thursdays installment!
-
I think any professional meteorologist would be wise to keep their personal beliefs to themselves regarding AGW. As voicing ones dissent would be frowned upon by the powers that be!Look, we all know that AGW was invented by Maggie Thatcher in order to give Gordon Brown an excuse to raise taxes, and that she used her time machine to tell Arrhenius about it.Clearly global warming is a myth because today is colder than yesterday and how is that possible if the world is getting warmer?
btw does anyone know of any professional British meteorologist who does not believe in AGW? I don't mean questions the role of CO2 or certain model predictions, but does not believe there is any AGW at all?
-
Excellent post Roger, far to much scaremongering going on with very little in the way of actual evidence. GW maybe you can answer this question. Why is there no greenhouse signature above the tropics, after all that's where it should be but no weather balloons can find this signature?Get used to it, lots of North American meteorologists don't believe in global warming and think the whole business is over-hyped. They will continue to think that as long as warming does not exceed certain minimum values in the arctic. Since they probably look at the weather in the arctic every day they are working, they have a perfect right to such an opinion.Since sea levels are not rising dramatically and sea ice this past month has begun to return to more "average" values, there would be no rational reason for anyone to expect a sudden shift in this opinion over here.
It does not mean that all such people are oblivious to all issues related to the political debate, each will have his own opinion on the need for alternative technology and other changes. It is more about the pure science of the question, has the theory been adequately "proven" beyond reasonable doubt, or is it still in the formative stages? When the proponents changed the emphasis from global warming to climate change and began to try on the tactic of pointing at extreme weather events, some of which are better associated with colder climatic regimes (like severe windstorms), many in the North American weather community saw an obvious political ploy in that decision. This was spontaneous and not funded by some mysterious right-wing cabal or "the Big Oil Companies" which really don't have any influence over 90% of the skeptics.
GW, you can give your global warming sermon every day of the week for the next ten years, but you won't change too many minds, only the weather will change minds, and the weather has not signalled beyond a doubt what it plans to do. Until it does, there will be debate, dissent, and skeptics. Get used to it. You may be right, but you may be wrong.
-
Yes your right there! So maybe we should extend that theory for 20-30 years, after all that is also a very short time span!Please don't take this the wrong way as many people are doing it, but don't confuse the underlying warming trend of climate over short-medium term global cyclical variability.Just because a racing car has to slow down for an expected chicane it doesn't mean it's on a slow lap.
GISS has updated with the correct figure now and October comes in as the 6th warmest on record.
-
Just for once Devonian, try no to look at this from your wamist point of view. Yes the data is flawed, the question being asked is how the hell did GISS allow such a simple error pass them by!
Arctic Ice
in Space, Science & nature
Posted