Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Interesting Article About Hurricanes


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
  • Weather Preferences: Any Extreme
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield

Interesting read. As ever time will tell if it's right. I wouldn't say it's biased just expressing a view that you don't agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

As you say, BFTP, it could well encourage folks to dig, so it's a good article to post on that point. All I'm saying is that it is biased, so that readers who might not otherwise be aware take this into account. Good sparring material, though.

:) P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Liphook
  • Location: Liphook

If i remember correctly someone on another forum was talking about that article and said that if true then the artic melt has increased by about 30% since 2003 if thats the case because the sea levels are still increasing at the same rate as before and colder waters is slightly less dense then warmer water I believe.

Of course thats IF this topic is actually true which it may be, who knows.

One thing is true though that observed temps at least in the Atlantic haven't dropped below average since mid 2002!

So at the very least the Atlantic section of the Ocean is everybit as hot as it has been over the last 20 years though it did peak last year with the ultra active hurricane season, where temps in the tropics were 1C above average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Interesting read. As ever time will tell if it's right. I wouldn't say it's biased just expressing a view that you don't agree with it.

Trouble is, Pit, we probably don't have the time to wait. If we don't make plans now for what may well be just around the corner, as many as 2 billion people will pay the price directly, and everyone in the world will be effected indirectly.

And, sorry, it definitely is biased. I can see that both sides of the Climatology debate have good points to make; in effect, they are informing each other as much as disagreeing. But this is an attempt to suggest that man-made GW is unproven, because a piece of research doesn't fit with GCM predictions. This is a common strategy in the 'denialist' arsenal. It is based on many false assumptions, which have been discredited by many better people than I. I know that there are people who don't believe that AGW is happening. I am not one of them, I admit. That is the opinion I disagree with, here.

:D P

Edit: There's been a lot if discussion on how much of the change in temperatures can be attributed to sea-ice and glacier melt, very much along these lines. The Lyman paper itself suggests this as a possible explanation. It doesn't say that GW isn't happening, just that the models are problematic.

There's also dispute about the validity of the sample area, because ARGO floats don't cover the Arctic, so don't measure the temps./anomalies there.

Nobody is suggesting that Lyman & Willis's finding are wrong; there was a measured cooling at that place and time. But, as ever, some skeptics are trying to use the finding out of context to 'disporve' AGW.

:)

Edited by parmenides3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
Trouble is, Pit, we probably don't have the time to wait. If we don't make plans now for what may well be just around the corner, as many as 2 billion people will pay the price directly, and everyone in the world will be effected indirectly.

And, sorry, it definitely is biased. I can see that both sides of the Climatology debate have good points to make; in effect, they are informing each other as much as disagreeing. But this is an attempt to suggest that man-made GW is unproven, because a piece of research doesn't fit with GCM predictions. This is a common strategy in the 'denialist' arsenal. It is based on many false assumptions, which have been discredited by many better people than I. I know that there are people who don't believe that AGW is happening. I am not one of them, I admit. That is the opinion I disagree with, here.

:D P

Ah P

Some 'denialists' accept warming but NOT AGW. I still don't think AGW is proven is it? Not beyond reasnobale doubt certainly :) Agreed re your arctic point. But what this does show is that this type of event is not factored in and on the face of it a big factor it may be too. Anyway where are these hurricanes? :D

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Liphook
  • Location: Liphook

Intrestingly I think the cooling in the Pacific can be partly put down to a natural cycle anyway, because in the last few years we've had 3 below average eastern Pacific hurricane seasons in a row starting with 2003 where we had a very below average season indeed. Meanwhile the Atlantic has been quite the opposie with waters warming to thier peak in 2005 way above average, so prehaps while the Pacific cooler the Atlantic warmed so really ther ehas been no real net increase or decrease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Ah P

Some 'denialists' accept warming but NOT AGW. I still don't think AGW is proven is it? Not beyond reasnobale doubt certainly ;) Anyway where are these hurricanes? :p

BFTP

Ah, BFTP. :p The problem word here is 'proof', or perhaps 'beyond reasonable doubt'. My understanding is this; it is pretty much universally accepted amongst scientists that AGW has gone beyond the status of 'hypothesis to that of 'fact'. There is still a margin of error, something seized upon by 'denialists' to demonstrate that some doubt still exists, but is that doubt 'reasonable'. Probably not.

The debate at the moment is more about how much effect we are having, how much effect different forcings have, and whether or not the climate will adjust 'naturally', given time. My strongest recommendation would be to read, in detail, the ACIA report; (Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment). To date, it is the most eloquent, most scientific, and most frightening 'proof' of AGW and its consequences that I have read.

:D You're right; this is supposed to be a hurricane thread, sort of! They are in the Pacific; dozens of them.

:) P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
Ah, BFTP. :p The problem word here is 'proof', or perhaps 'beyond reasonable doubt'. My understanding is this; it is pretty much universally accepted amongst scientists that AGW has gone beyond the status of 'hypothesis to that of 'fact'. There is still a margin of error, something seized upon by 'denialists' to demonstrate that some doubt still exists, but is that doubt 'reasonable'. Probably not.

The debate at the moment is more about how much effect we are having, how much effect different forcings have, and whether or not the climate will adjust 'naturally', given time. My strongest recommendation would be to read, in detail, the ACIA report; (Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment). To date, it is the most eloquent, most scientific, and most frightening 'proof' of AGW and its consequences that I have read.

:p You're right; this is supposed to be a hurricane thread, sort of! They are in the Pacific; dozens of them.

:D P

The big problem I have with AGW is that although I accept CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there doesn't seem to be any positive correlation between it's concn in the atmosphere, and global temp in Earth history.In fact, the Vostok ice cores show that the CO2 rise follows the warming as it's solubility in the ocean decreases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
The big problem I have with AGW is that although I accept CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there doesn't seem to be any positive correlation between it's concn in the atmosphere, and global temp in Earth history.In fact, the Vostok ice cores show that the CO2 rise follows the warming as it's solubility in the ocean decreases.

You are right about the Vostok ice cores; they show a lag of about 800 years between the start of the warming and the increase in CO2. In ice ages, CO2, therefore, is a feedback mechanism, rather than a forcing one; after the CO2 appeared, temperature rise accelerated for another 4200 years.

Because we have never been in the position before of CO2 acting as a forcing mechanism in climate warming, it isn't in the historic record. I think you'll find that there is a positive correlation after the 800 year lag, though.

There is a good article on this at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

:p P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
You are right about the Vostok ice cores; they show a lag of about 800 years between the start of the warming and the increase in CO2. In ice ages, CO2, therefore, is a feedback mechanism, rather than a forcing one; after the CO2 appeared, temperature rise accelerated for another 4200 years.

Because we have never been in the position before of CO2 acting as a forcing mechanism in climate warming, it isn't in the historic record. I think you'll find that there is a positive correlation after the 800 year lag, though.

There is a good article on this at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

:p P

Maybe it isn't in the historic record because it is too minor a forcing mechanism - I can't find any evidence of forcing after the 800 years either.

Note to add that this post is intended to be friendly and constructive , people can fall out over this subject you know :p

I'll get me coat.

Edited by Mr Sleet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Maybe it isn't in the historic record because it is too minor a forcing mechanism - I can't find any evidence of forcing after the 800 years either.

Note to add that this post is intended to be friendly and constructive , people can fall out over this subject you know :p

I'll get me coat.

Where are you looking?

What's the note about? I thought we were getting along fine.

How much of a forcing mechanism? Currently disputed. Definitely some. Combined with other forcings and feedbacks, possibly more than that. As far as I understand, the aim of most of the models is to calculate the correlation between CO2 and temp. rise in particular. There's a graphic on this somewhere - I'll look it up. This one is a hot potato, as it were.

:p P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Liphook
  • Location: Liphook

By the way the forecasters NEVER forecasted this year to be worse then the last, in fact the highest prediction by any offical forecast was 17 NS, a good deal short of 2005.

by the way, Blast, we've just got a new tropical depression entering the Cairbbean, this one could well become a hurricane and a big one...maybe even get into the gulf...ironcally a year ago another system got into the gulf at the roughly the same time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
By the way the forecasters NEVER forecasted this year to be worse then the last, in fact the highest prediction by any offical forecast was 17 NS, a good deal short of 2005.

by the way, Blast, we've just got a new tropical depression entering the Cairbbean, this one could well become a hurricane and a big one...maybe even get into the gulf...ironcally a year ago another system got into the gulf at the roughly the same time...

KW

You're the man...keep us posted please.

regards

BFTP

Where are you looking?

What's the note about? I thought we were getting along fine.

How much of a forcing mechanism? Currently disputed. Definitely some. Combined with other forcings and feedbacks, possibly more than that. As far as I understand, the aim of most of the models is to calculate the correlation between CO2 and temp. rise in particular. There's a graphic on this somewhere - I'll look it up. This one is a hot potato, as it were.

:nonono: P

P

My real block in all this is the fact that CO2 atmospheric concentrations were ten [10] times higher during the planets coldest/deepest freeze. Now whether we're forcing or not that is a startling figure and one which leads me to believe that if we reach a tipping point it won't be of the type where the planet keeps warming. That figure is NOT disputed but it is side- stepped

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
KW

You're the man...keep us posted please.

regards

BFTP

P

My real block in all this is the fact that CO2 atmospheric concentrations were ten [10] times higher during the planets coldest/deepest freeze. Now whether we're forcing or not that is a startling figure and one which leads me to believe that if we reach a tipping point it won't be of the type where the planet keeps warming. That figure is NOT disputed but it is side- stepped

BFTP

This is news to me, BFTP. A source would be helpful. I'll look it up & get back.

:nonono: P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
This is news to me, BFTP. A source would be helpful. I'll look it up & get back.

:nonono: P

P

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Also Tim Paterson Carlto University.

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Here you go: one of several responses to the late Ordovician conundrum. Sorry if it's a bit long.

STUDY BOLSTERS GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY, SOLVES ICE AGE MYSTERY

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Critics who dismiss the importance of greenhouse gases as a cause of climate change lost one piece of ammunition this week. In a new study, scientists found further evidence of the role that greenhouse gases have played in Earth’s climate.

Matthew Saltzman

In Thursday’s issue of the journal Geology, Ohio State University scientists report that a long-ago ice age occurred 10 million years earlier than once thought. The new date clears up an inconsistency that has dogged climate change research for years.

Of three ice ages that occurred in the last half-billion years, the earliest ice age posed problems for scientists, explained Matthew Saltzman, assistant professor of geological sciences at Ohio State.

Previous studies suggested that this particular ice age happened during a time that should have been very warm, when volcanoes all over the earth’s surface were spewing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

With CO2 levels as much as 20 times higher than today, the late Ordovician period (460-440 million years ago) wasn’t a good time for growing ice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taken together, the evidence suggests that the ice began to build up some 10 million years earlier than when volcanoes began pumping the atmosphere full of the CO2 that ended the Ordovician ice age. For Saltzman, the find solves a long-standing mystery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critics have pointed to the inconsistency as a flaw in scientists’ theories of climate change. Scientists have argued that today’s global climate change has been caused in part by buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting from fossil fuel emissions.

But, critics have countered, if CO2 truly raises global temperatures, how could an ice age have occurred when a greenhouse effect much greater than today’s was in full swing?

The answer: This particular ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.

“Our results are consistent with the notion that CO2 concentrations drive climate.”

Saltzman and doctoral student Seth Young found that large deposits of quartz sand in Nevada and two sites in Europe -- Norway and Estonia -- formed around the same time, 440 million years ago. The scientists suspect that the sand formed when water levels fell low enough to expose quartz rock, so that wind and rain could weather the rock into sand.

The fact that the deposits were found in three different sites suggests that sea levels may have been low all over the world at that time, likely because much of the planet’s water was bound in ice at the poles, Saltzman said.

Next, the scientists examined limestone sediments from the sites and determined that there was a relatively large amount of organic carbon buried in the oceans -- and, by extension, relatively little CO2 in the atmosphere -- at the same time.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that the ice began to build up some 10 million years earlier than when volcanoes began pumping the atmosphere full of the CO2 that ended the Ordovician ice age.

For Saltzman, the find solves a long-standing mystery.

Though scientists know with a great degree of certainty that atmospheric CO2 levels drive climate change, there are certain mismatches in the geologic record, such as the Ordovician ice age -- originally thought to have begun 443 million years ago -- that seem to counter that view.

“How can you have ice when CO2 levels are through the roof? That was the dilemma that we were faced with. I think that now we have good evidence that resolves this mismatch,” Saltzman said.

Scientists at the three sites previously attributed these quartz deposits to local tectonic shifts. But the new study shows that the conditions that allowed the quartz sand to form were not local.

“If sea level is dropping globally at the same time, it can’t be a local tectonic feature,” Saltzman said. “It’s got to be the result of a global ice buildup.”

:nonono: P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
Here you go: one of several responses to the late Ordovician conundrum. Sorry if it's a bit long.

:lol: P

Good way to get your theory to fit, move the ice age. :lol:

PS we are getting alone fine, I want to keep it that way :lol:

Edited by Mr Sleet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Good way to get your theory to fit, move the ice age. :lol:

If you look at greater chunks of earth history, there is still no correlation.

I think the burden of proof is on your shoulders with this one, Mr. S. Evidence, please. :lol: P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
I think the burden of proof is on your shoulders with this one, Mr. S. Evidence, please. :) P

P

Nice find...I have sent an e-mail with this quote to see what response I get to these findings. If the addressee responds I will tell you what it is and whom its from.

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
P

Nice find...I have sent an e-mail with this quote to see what response I get to these findings. If the addressee responds I will tell you what it is and whom its from.

BFTP

Ahh! Your secret source of GW skepticism, no doubt! :)

I'll try and attach something for Mr. Sleet. Don't hold your breath. :) P

It shows the correlation in the Vostok ice cores between CO2 & Global temperature.

post-6011-1156499375.jpg

Edited by parmenides3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

Ahh! Your secret source of GW skepticism, no doubt! :)

P

AGW skepticism....not GW :)

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
Ahh! Your secret source of GW skepticism, no doubt! :)

I'll try and attach something for Mr. Sleet. Don't hold your breath. :) P

It shows the correlation in the Vostok ice cores between CO2 & Global temperature.

P

Naughty...but nice. That graph when analysed does not prove C02 increase and then temp increase. On the face of it it looks like it but when scrutinised it in fact shows a distinct correlation between temps and CO2. When scrutinised it shows a time lag of CO2 to temps...NOT the other way round. Google CO2 SCIENCE very good article on that with many scientific study references to look up.

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Sorry..AGW.

We covered this the other day; check out the previous posts. The lag of CO2 behind warming in these records say nothing about AGW.

Mr. Sleet wanted a correlation; is this a correlation? Is it a fairly obvious correlation? If not, what would count as a correlation; in other words, what is it you want to see demonstrated? Honest, BFTP, this is pretty hard science, these days; the community and the skeptics have been round this one for a few years now, and the conclusion is that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes Global Warming; there is practically no doubt about this at all. Likewise, the evidence for AGW is so strong now that even the hardcore 'denialists' are tending to change tack & try to emphasise the natural cycles, the uncertainty of climate models, or any evidence, however thin, that somewhere in the world it isn't any warmer than it was yesterday. None of these objections hold up to any kind of serious scientific scrutiny.

Like you, until recently I was open minded on this issue. In the past month, largely due to the posts on NW, I have read, studied & analysed more than 100 scientific papers, weblogs and/or news reports, some of which stretch to 1000 pages of technical data. When I post on the subject, I try to offer an even-handed assessment of what I have found, albeit in paraphrase and probably frequently not exact enough. I enjoy your skepticism for the above reasons, and because it's intellectually stimulating, but, to date, every objection to, or argument against, AGW has been, to the best of my ability, answered. Are you, honestly, still skeptical about AGW? If you are, do you still feel that your skepticism is well-founded, or is it really an attempt (in the face of the evidence), to justify a belief that you hold? It doesn't matter what your answer is; I still enjoy the challenge, but it would be interesting to know where you feel you stand on the issue.

Please bear in mind that all the above is an attempt to be polite & friendly still, as all our debate has been, so I hope it comes across as such; antagonism is not in anyone's interest.

:) P

Edited by parmenides3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

[

Please bear in mind that all the above is an attempt to be polite & friendly still, as all our debate has been, so I hope it comes across as such; antagonism is not in anyone's interest.

:D P

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
[

Please bear in mind that all the above is an attempt to be polite & friendly still, as all our debate has been, so I hope it comes across as such; antagonism is not in anyone's interest.

:D P

P

Honestly no need for last paragraph highlighted...it is good and enjoyable. I'll answer in another thread or I'll PM you to keep this one hurricane related

BFTP

Good idea. :)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    More rain on the way: Storm Nelson brings gales Thursday, but rain and wind easing for Easter

    Spells of rain or showers with sunshine in between affecting most areas today, snow over northern hills. Storm Nelson arrives tomorrow, bringing gales to southern coasts and windy elsewhere with further showers. Showers and wind easing somewhat into the Easter Weekend. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-27 09:35:27 Valid: 27/03/2024 0900 - 28/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - WEDS 27 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...