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
-
-
The way I see next week, is a mixture of rain, sleet, and snow, Mon and Tues. Thereafter a mixture of sunshine and wintry showers, or longer periods of rain/sleet at low levels, with snow above a 1000ft.
-
Well after viewing all the models for next week one thing is certain, and that is, there remains a lot of uncertainty as to where this low pressure will be! We could either see copious amounts of snow, or cold rain!
-
Of course they weren't sure, it was 1972! Show me where I suggest they were all signed up. The whole point was that, unsurprisingly, there wasan't a consensus on climate change in the 1970s. The evidence for anthropogenic change was considerably weaker back then. But a 42-7 majority of published papers suggests rather strongly where the scientific balance of opinion lay (85% suggesting warming would happen due to CO2). The idea that 'climate science was forecasting an ice age in the 1970s' is a media-induced myth.
sss
A media induced hype, isn't that a bit like what we have now, with all the scaremongering OTT stories.
-
Good point CB, also why did we have a cooling period in the 20's, 40's, and 60's? And please sss, enlighten me as to why it took years upon years , for man made emissions to show their hand, in the 1970s.Can I just quickly ask - when exactly did global warming start?
I always thought it was supposed to be within a few years of the industrial revolution, but these days everyone seems to be saying that it started in the mid-1970s (around the time that the Sun ceases to be a "viable" explanation for it).
And if it was in the mid-1970s then what does it mean to have "excessive" warming over a period of only 30-35 years?
CB
-
Where does he ask for proof? YOu're playing the proof game...
So, less of the misrepresentation please.
Well is not asking a, b, c, and d, just that? Maybe you should read the whole post, before jumping to conclusions, AGAIN!
-
Aye, but the point is the accuracy of the forecast. A mean error of 0.06C is really rather small over that time period, when many skeptics would have you think that the climate wasn't doing what climatologists expected? A budget of millions is required to make good short-term forecasts (particularly for a difficult place like the UK for weather), of which the Met Office are acknowledged as among the best in the world. Their seasonal forecasts, though, can be binned for all their value. Trouble is, people with an agenda have taken their seasonal forecasts as being the same as their climate ones, which is a blatant lie.
If you 'know lots', then please tell us why you think the premise of the greenhouse effect, which can be demonstrated in any science lab, and which is shown to keep us something like 33C warmer than we otherwise would be, suddenly would not change when we increase the second-most important GHG by 35% (and consequently demonstrably set off positive feedbacks)? And why do the observations of global temperature (at different levels in the atmosphere and in oceans) change fit with this theory as predicted, this theory that was proposed before the temperatures changes significantly? Why, when the hard science of AGW has passed every test of its basic soundness, and there is no coherent alternative proposed, let alone any success in disputing the core science, do people like you who 'know lots' still claim great levels of uncertainty. I'm looking for the uncertainty, but nobody here is willing to propose any of:
a) data showing that the world is not warming [fair enough as most people do accept the warming is real]
data showing that CO2 does not have a significant effect on climate, despite the fact that the radiative properties of CO2 are one of the reasons Earth is habitable; or c) data showing that GHGs are not influencing climate directly
d) a coherent alternative hypothesis, with appropriate physical mechanisms that are measurable and demonstrable to be operating in the real world.
And if all that sounds very confrontational, it's meant to be. It's not that I'm unwilling to accept new suggestions, but that I've not heard new suggestions, or seen real data to upset the theory. I keep asking and haven't got anything back! [and as a nod to the hard work on the LI, it's undoubtedly interesting but correlation does not mean causation (see the progress and failure of Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991), and so as I've said before I remain cordially unconvinced until there's a mechanism to support the correlations]
As a final thought: Why does nearly every government in the world accept AGW theory, as demonstrated by COP15 among other things, regardless of whether their electorate disputes it? Could it be that they have reviewed the evidence and find it compelling? The tax reason doesn't fly because (1) unpopular taxes are a really bad idea with the people (2) there are many easier ways to raise tax without inventing new ones.
sss
That's all very well asking others to provide proof. but where is your proof, that CO2 is responsible for the warming now. And by that I don't mean projected temp rises, made by computer models. Both sides of the camp can only assume, so please less of the patronising lecture!
-
Agree, the further East you are the better it looks. Let's hope we don't end up in the mild sector, this could turn out to be either a NW snowfest, or a close but no cigar moment!Hmmmm Well as for snow next week im not to sure, at the start of the week it looked great. However if you look at the precip charts it shows it quite border line for our area, with a wintry mix. Im gonna wait for the 12z and update my forecast.
-
Define normal British weather? What we encountered in Dec/Jan, was also normal British weather ( in winter that is )!!Oh dear, seems like another potential cold spell is going pear shaped, still time to chang but not so optimistic now. Looks like normal British winter service has been resumed after the freak December/Jan - endlessly chasing rainbows in FI for any proper cold and snow.
-
If we go by the 12z run, there could be alot of snow around next Monday sitting across the same areas for a long period.
Indeed, let's hope the GFS is right on this one. Also more heavy snow to come the middle of next week, if the GFS is right!
-
I would say - actually, hypothesize - that the heating of the ocean is the emergence of the excessively active sun over the last 50 years. ie the surface was warmed by the sun, ocean currents took some of that heat and buried it very very deep. A few years later, somewhere else along the THC conveyor (which, of course, is global) that current resurfaces. The point about poor mixing (probably due to massive densities that far under water) is critical.
Yeah, that was what I was trying to put across VP, thanks!
-
No problem Iceberg, VP explained it better than me up above!I have read the links you gave SC re radiators, I was tempted to reply with a law of physics, i.e heat goes from the warm object to the cold object and not vice versa, re the effects of heated deep ocean water below 2KM as per the links, but I want to read up a little more first.
Just seen your post above!
The melting ice I was referring to was ice sheets, rather than sea ice/pond ice - the feedback mechanism goes like this: Melt some ice, you lower the altitude of the ice surface, so it will melt more easily next year, as well as reducing its albedo. The evidence is in the rapidity of the Quaternary glaciation terminations in relation to the relative slowness of their advance. Glacier ice can melt much more rapidly than it can accumulate, hence why ~60% of your average mountain glacier is in the accumulation zone if its mass balance is in equilibrium. With ice sheets, you can get a catastrophic collapse once the ice surface begins to drop, as there is no way to raise the surface level of the ice without a huge temperature drop. But about your pond: if the nights were -10C for 4 nights, and the day temps were +5C (a generalisation I know), then it may be quite reasonable for the melting to take a long time, if it was less intense than the freezing (each one in the example has 40 degree-days of melting/freezing).
And I'm with you on the oceans not losing their spare heat quickly, but the crucial thing is whether they are actually still accumulating heat. CB, I think ocean heat content levelled off or dropped a bit in the last few years, but has tended to rise in a similar manner to surface temperatures. Namely that the oceans are capable of short-term drops in heat within a longer rising trend, just as the land is.
http://earthobservat...s/OceanCooling/
http://www.skeptical...ocean-heat.html
Some interesting observations in there, but I think, it shows an area in which more data is required, and is being collected at quite a rate, in order to conclusively show all the processes at work here (as highlighted by the researchers, and by IPCC).
Levitus, from the NASA article: "My point is just that we need to remain open-minded because it may be that it is possible for the ocean to gain heat and lose it more rapidly than we think. There may be other phenomena [similar to El Niño] operating on different time scales that can explain interdecadal increases and decreases," says Levitus. Even if these ups and downs don't change the long-term destination of global warming, they could reveal more detail about what kind of ride we can expect."
sss
Thanks sss,, I'll read those links when I've more time.
-
<br /><br /><br />Oh dear I had high hopes next week, for us in the NW. Still maybe the GFS is the one to be right this time.<br />I am not so keen on the Met Office update! It seems to go with the ECM & GEM scenario, as they expect rain or sleet with hill snow for next week. Snow at times at low levels only in the north. If the update was supporting the GFS scenario, there would be snow across the UK and not just the high ground!<br /><br />Karyo<br /> -
<br /><br /><br />It's something not fully understood sss, we have discussed the lag effect of low solar activity, again little is known about how long this takes effect. As to your point regarding oceans continuing to warm, again I think they act very much like radiators, when the source of heat is turned off, they remain warm for some considerable time thereafter!<br />Interesting points, and regardless of the heat source, he agrees with Hansen on the mechanisms. I think Iceberg's point is that if the oceans are releasing heat to the atmosphere to allow it to continue to warm, then the oceans themselves should not be continuing to warm, yet they still appear to be. If the atmosphere is warming, and the ocean is warming, where on earth is the cooling coming from if solar activity is declining?<br />sss<br />
<br /><br /><br />Good post CB, it proves exactly what Tamara was trying to get across. Unfortunately some see their judgement clouded, by their own negative feedbacks!<br />Here's a link to the Metoffice article on feedbacks:<br /><br /><a href='http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/explained/feedbacks.html' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.metoffice.../feedbacks.html</a><br /><br />Now, according to this, the only negative feedbacks are as follows:<br /><br />1: the Land Carbon Cycle, which they declare to be "currently negative", suggesting that it is likely to become a positive feedback as warming goes on<br /><br />2: Clouds, which they say give both positive <i>and</i> negative feedbacks, though as warming goes on the positive overwhelms the negative.<br /><br />Other than that there are, apparently, no negative feedbacks and not one feedback that is <i>always</i> negative. For a planet that has always maintained some form of equilibrium, that strikes me as being wrong somehow.<br /><br />CB<br /> -
Still looks to be relatively dry for much of the NW this week, there will be snow flurries here and there for some. Next week looking more tasty, if the models are to be trusted.
-
-
Right read it quickly and is was the one I thought (so I had read it before).
The radiator principle, which is the only way that the skeptics can explain the continued warming/lack of cooling. Read your post Tamara, but I think this applies to accusations around the lag effects of PDO shift etc, a lag for it to exist must transfer the energy somewhere and most people I've heard have attributed this to heat stored in the oceans.
So First question.
Solar has been declining for what 8-9 years now. Why then has the radiator not cooled down if this is the source of the lag ?.
According to Bob anyway the radiator peaked in 98.
What is causing the OHC to keep going up ?. (I believe it hit a new height in Jan but am awaiting confirmation on this).
The radiator effect has a nice sound to it, but what evidence is there that this is causing the warming currently I am happy to see somekind of correlation and put off causation for now.
Please post a link if it does.
Thanks for replying Iceberg, my take on it would be, that it takes far longer for the heat to disperse from the oceans. In effect just like when you switch a radiator off, it will be remain warm for some considerable time thereafter. I'll see if I can find a link for you Iceberg!
-
Personally I think we will have a cold start to spring, mid June to around late July, should see our best weather of the summer. Unfortunately all downhill thereafter, still it will be a huge improvement on the last two summers!
-
Feel free to post the article, I think I know which one it is, but just to be sure. ! Hopefully I'll comment on it after tidying the childrens bedrooms and putting the mountain of clothes away.
Sorry Iceberg can't get it to download. I've just found a recent follow up on the 5th Feb, by Bob Tisdale on Watts Up. If you don't mind reading it for yourself, I would be interested in hearing your comments on it!
How many children have you? I have just the one, but she runs rings round me, and she's only 7!!
-
For some reason ( probably my inept understanding of trying to download files ), I can't get the whole of the file to download. It's a an article on Watts Up, I will try again, but don't hold your breath!!
I give up, laptop about to take a vertical one way ticket to the bin!
-
Sorry I can't get the damn thing to download!
-
Morning Dev, Just catching up on a bit of unpleasent reading over on WATTS and through the papers, interesting what Spencer was saying about the fact that even he thinks Jan was the warmest on record, apparently it caught him by surprise (which assuming the AQUA data has been showing this all month is a surprise in itself but hey ho).
Anyway, he seems to be suggesting that the warmth is all in the oceans (it's not when you look at the breakdown of his Jan data, again hey ho). However it's the final comment that the warming oceans means cooling is imminent which make me chuckle, so a cooling ocean means that cooling is imminent, a warming ocean means that cooling is imminent and all the time temps continue to creep up and we get a record new month every few months...Go figure hey.
But as we have been hearing for the last 10 years a cooling is imminent, just don't hold you breath.
Like I stated in the other thread yesterday Iceberg! Heat is stored in the oceans!!!!!!!
-
Oceans store heat do they not, these are the radiators of mother Earth. Still lot's of heat to distribute from the oceans, when you turn a radiator off, it remains warm for some considerable time thereafter, the heat stored in the oceans works on exactly the same principles!Here's the breakdown.
http://www.remss.com...Ocean_v03_2.txt
Tropics obviously warm, but also the n.Hemiphere, we've just been very very lucky to have the cold weather..
The oceans don't work like that and haven't beltched out lots of heat. (You can see that with the temperature distribution), state of the PDO etc.
The Land anomaly for Jan is still 0.975C !.
-
Very tempted to reply to Pingo on the Hudson blog, he gets everywhere, spouting stuff which just isn't correct.
But I will refrain as there are better things in life.
Actually Pingo's explanation is very good, this is exactly what as happened in the Arctic this winter. Off course we have had a moderate el-nino also, so combining those two elements, I can see why January has come out so high!
-
Just had a butcher's at the replies to Paul Hudson's blog...Some peeps simply don't understand what 'global' actually means...
Is this more manipulated data, the NH in general has seen temps below average. So that leaves the SH, must have been some record breaking warmth then!
Just seen Icebergs link, and it does seem to verify! Would like to see all the raw data for this.
data showing that CO2 does not have a significant effect on climate, despite the fact that the radiative properties of CO2 are one of the reasons Earth is habitable; or 
Q&a Phil Jones
in Climate Change
Posted
Data for the hockey stick has been lost, well what a surprise. The most controversial piece of scientific evidence known to man, now as important data missing. At least he has the balls to admit this, and the fact that the MWP might well have been warmer.