Global Weather Oscillations

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Heres the GISS figures from the GISS site.

2008 35 32 74 43 43 32 73 56 67*************** ********* 43 54 54***** 2008

All positive

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Even on GISS DJF 12 are warmer, MAM 8 are warmer, JJA 8 are warmer. So one is looking at a possible beiginning? The only difference being is that we have currently even higher CO2 levels. Now GWO says we are in phase 1, remember in phase 1 not through phase 1 so lets see how this pans out.

BFTP

[Iceberg]

We maybe looking at a number of possibles but the data does not yet support the claim that we are in Phase 1 of a cooling cycle. Nor does picking out particular months lead to anything helpful. UAH, GISS and Hadley all point towards a warming trend this year.

As to a phase 1 of cooling in David's own words.

Thing to remember is a transition 2008-09 to cooler temperatures similar to the 1940s into early 1980s...the dramatic cooling comes later.

Regards

David

There is nothing to support this in any way shape or form currently..

At most the figures support the view of a leveling off of temperatures to a high plateau with a dip for La Nina which we are/have come out with Septembers now apparent warmth.

[Cycles]

I think they are just corrections, which the Met office do for the CET as well normally only 2-6 months down the line.

The CET is only made of 3 stations, however the global figures are made from 1000's so I would imagine a fair bit of uping and downing.

Could you add some clarification between the CET and the global figures, many on the thread may not be familiar with the CET and all of the other reporting methods.

You indicate the CET is only made of 3 stations....where are the 3 stations? And where are the 1000 or more global stations for the other reporting methods ?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

We maybe looking at a number of possibles but the data does not yet support the claim that we are in Phase 1 of a cooling cycle. Nor does picking out particular months lead to anything helpful. UAH, GISS and Hadley all point towards a warming trend this year.

As to a phase 1 of cooling in David's own words.

Thing to remember is a transition 2008-09 to cooler temperatures similar to the 1940s into early 1980s...the dramatic cooling comes later.

Regards

David

There is nothing to support this in any way shape or form currently..

At most the figures support the view of a leveling off of temperatures to a high plateau with a dip for La Nina which we are/have come out with Septembers now apparent warmth.

Well 6-7 of the previous warmer periods were in this decade so how on earth can this year point to a warming trend? . I can see signs of phase one and AGAIN this is still ongoing according to GWO so more time to give it a chance. We are STILL in 08 so plenty of time

BFTP

[Cycles]

Since then we have+0.56 and+0.67 MakingJune/July/August the 7th warmest of record globally.

You indicated June/July/August as the 7th warmest of record globally. Will you please post the 6 warmest June/July/August years.

[LadyPakal]

I think they are just corrections, which the Met office do for the CET as well normally only 2-6 months down the line.

The CET is only made of 3 stations, however the global figures are made from 1000's so I would imagine a fair bit of uping and downing.

I can understand that for a few months previously but what about all those they keep revising.

When do you know what the right numbers are if the addition of a month in 2008 can cause a difference through the years to as far back as 1903?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

You indicated June/July/August as the 7th warmest of record globally. Will you please post the 6 warmest June/July/August years.

I'll do that in order of warmest down. 98, 05, 07, 06, 03, 02 and then 91/01 jointly and then 08

BFTP

[Cycles]

I'll do that in order of warmest down. 98, 05, 07, 06, 03, 02 and then 91/01 jointly and then 08

BFTP

BFTP

One more question.

I see the years 99,00 and 05 are missing during the 11-year period from 1998 to 2008....please post what place they are in.

And I would like some clarification from member concerning the CET and other indices. The CET apparently uses 3 locations (where are they) and other indicies use many more.

How are the indicies gathered? Is it satellite data or actual ground recording data? Has methods of obtaining data changed since the 1930s tempeature peak? Same method used for the 1930s peak and the 1998-07 peak?

Regards

David

David

[LadyPakal]

GWO,

have a look here for starters:

http://www.climate-uk.com/page5.html

http://www.climate-uk.com/CETcheck.htm

[Cycles]

GWO,

have a look here for starters:

http://www.climate-uk.com/page5.html

http://www.climate-uk.com/CETcheck.htm

Thank you for the links, they provide insight into the CET.

[Cycles]

We maybe looking at a number of possibles but the data does not yet support the claim that we are in Phase 1 of a cooling cycle. Nor does picking out particular months lead to anything helpful. UAH, GISS and Hadley all point towards a warming trend this year.

As to a phase 1 of cooling in David's own words.

Thing to remember is a transition 2008-09 to cooler temperatures similar to the 1940s into early 1980s...the dramatic cooling comes later.

Regards

David

At most the figures support the view of a leveling off of temperatures to a high plateau with a dip for La Nina which we are/have come out with Septembers now apparent warmth.

Yes there are a number of models for measuring the climate. It appears most of the global models take a cross section of ocean temperatures and land base readings around the world.

As the transition from global warming to Phase 1 of global cooling takes place, earth will see the arctic jet streams moving southward from the mean positions during the warm 10 year period from 1998 into 2007 and 08. This occured during the past northern hemisphere winter over North America and during the summer months into the fall months. Canada has seen a cool summer and fall and the Arctic appears to be recapturing its own environment instead of having atmospheric intrustions from mid to upper latitudes. Meanwhile the Antarctic has had about a 7 percent increase in ice this year.

Because the global climate models averages in temperatures globally, these models will be slow to pick up the cooling in the far northern latitudes...but this will likelly change after the Arctic jet stream begins more intrusions further south. The earmarks of Phase 1 cooling is there and already occuring.

[Iceberg]

GWO I give up it doesn't seem to matter what the evidence is you go you merry way. There are many many times in the last 5-10 years where the Jet has taken a more southerly track as to the Arctic keeping it's own climate (I assume your taking about a postive AO/NAO which keeps the cold in again this happens many times ). Finally the antarctic had less ice this year than last year very clearly, maybe I will come back again in a months time to have another look. Maybe we will have another very warm month like September. Even though you called it cold.

[Cycles]

GWO I give up it doesn't seem to matter what the evidence is you go you merry way. There are many many times in the last 5-10 years where the Jet has taken a more southerly track as to the Arctic keeping it's own climate (I assume your taking about a postive AO/NAO which keeps the cold in again this happens many times ). Finally the antarctic had less ice this year than last year very clearly, maybe I will come back again in a months time to have another look. Maybe we will have another very warm month like September. Even though you called it cold.

September has been cooler over Canada this summer as compared to the past summers. Fairbanks Alaska just recorded their first day of below freezing, about 5 days earlier than the mean date. Reports indicate more ice in the Arctic for this time of the year than in past years. This all sounds cooler to me.

And yes there was record melting in the Arctic in August following a relatively cool June July and now a cool September. There has been much talk about mild ocean currents causing the melt, which is logical as it takes the ocean longer to cool than the air...probably a couple years.

And I agree with you Iceberg, we cannot take just a couple months of data and come to a conclusion concerning global warming or cooling....even a 1 year period is not enough, climate comes in short and long cycles.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

BFTP

One more question.

I see the years 99,00 and 05 are missing during the 11-year period from 1998 to 2008....please post what place they are in.

David

04 I believe you mean, that was a blip and down in the teens warmest, however, the rest of the year was up there. OO, 99 were just behind this year.

Also the jet has been noticeably more south this year despite protestations from another. I believe there's another dive come mid month onwards for us.

BFTP

[Cycles]

Iceberg,

I made an error and would like all of us...including myself...to keep facts correct. I was incorrect when referring to the Antarctic having an increase in ice. I should of said a 9 percent increase in the Arctic ice.

The Antarctic has been experiencing continued melting from what some say due to mild ocean currents caused by the 10 years of warmer climate...ocean temperatures lag air temperatues by a couple years.

....................

Now here is an interesting post by Jim Cripwell on the thread "Climate Sceptics] What is happening to Arctic ice?". This is a Yahoo climate skeptics thread

First I am no expert on Arctic ice; I am merely reporting second

hand information. Second, to put things in perspective, about

9,000,000 sq kms of ice thaw and freeze annually in the arctic. Back-

of-the-envelope calcuations give the following. With 180 days each

of freezing and thawing, the average rate is 50,000 sq kms per day.

The actual pattern is more of a sine curve, so the average daily

increase at maximum is something like 2 to 3 times faster; 100,000

to 150,000 sq kms per day. From the site

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

I reproduce the daily rates for October 2008

1 114,000.... 2 50,000....3 142,000....4 109,000....5 96,000....6

118,000....7 150,000....8 210,000....9 171,000

Now we are are the very beginning of the freeze cycle, so rates

should be about or less than average. But they clearly are not.

There are two possible explanations as to what is happening, both, to

me, intriguing. First we are in for the most massive freeze year on

record. I find this difficult to believe. Second that the amount of

open water reported this year was far less than actually occurred.

As you can see from the web site, coverage data is reported to an

incredible 7 significant digits. This is presumably because it is a

computer output, unvetted by humans. What I believe happens is that

high resolution images are examined by computers, pixel by pixel, and

a algorithm decides what is ice and what is water. The theory is

that this year, for some unexplained reason, the computer was fooled

and, in August and September, reported what was actually ice as open

water. Now all we are seeing is the computer correctly recognizing

these regions as ice covered. If true, it means that this year's

reported massive melt was not as great as originally thought. Maybe

the Northeast and Northwest passages were not both open at the same

time. I intend to stay tuned.

Cheers,

Jim Cripwell.

The nsidc site shows Arctic Ice returning rapidly, much faster than this time last year. There is now an additional 1 million sq km compared to October 2007. The Cryosphere site shows that the huge anomaly of last year will not be repeated in 2008.

In the S hemisphere, the Antarctic winter maximum did not reach the record level of last year but the amount of ice was consistent with the long term average.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Fascinating, as the rebound is 'too' fast or it would seem.

BFTP

[Chris Knight]

Thank you for the links, they provide insight into the CET.

But also look here to see the three stations:

,

which seems to indicate at least 2/3 are not working!

I would be embarrassed to have that on my website.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Chris Knight

[Roger J Smith]

The rebound is occurring relatively fast because it is colder than normal in the region and because where the sea became ice-free around 75 to 80 N this summer, water temperatures remained just around freezing, so it hasn't taken much to bring on the freeze. Last year, the freeze had to contend with water temps in the same region 5-8 deg C and also the freeze-up period had stronger winds at times.

Global temperatures -- I am not that sure how much to trust some of these data -- but I suspect the weak remnant of the warming signature is all supplied by overnight lows because daytime temperatures don't seem very warm across North America this year. Perhaps the main effect of greenhouse gas concentrations is in keeping overnight readings a few degrees higher than they would be otherwise, then the days are not that much affected. I would see problems in that for the projections for climate change, for example, glacial melting is greater by day than at night, crop yields are less negatively impacted with this distribution and frankly it is a net positive on many scales (home heating costs, agricultural yields, plant mortality).

Perhaps the right answer would be to accept a slight warming but to stop stressing about its "catastrophic" effects when in fact the effects may be marginally positive. It's a complex interaction, but I suspect that the climate change "crisis" has had a role in the global economic downturn. In the first instance, the politics promoted land use changes for ethanol production and attached a speculative correlative to oil prices. These factors in turn drove up world oil prices artificially and reduced personal disposable income especially in the highly mobile United States. This in turn created a credit crunch as people exhausted credit and disposable income trying to commute to work in many cases as well as heating homes in the past winter or two. These may not have been the only reasons for the global crisis, but they didn't help and were unintended consequences. I've believed for a long time now that we are wasting a lot of time on the AGW theory and its rather flimsy predictive framework.

Perhaps it is time to utilize the equation of change:

AGW - A + O = GWO

:blink:

[Cycles]

I've believed for a long time now that we are wasting a lot of time on the AGW theory and its rather flimsy predictive framework.

Perhaps it is time to utilize the equation of change:

AGW - A + O = GWO

:blink:

Roger :blink: (love your equation)

[Roger J Smith]

I guess a purist would require it in this form:

[(AGW)/A] x O = GWO

[Cycles]

I guess a purist would require it in this form:

[(AGW)/A] x O = GWO

........................

It is cute Roger, and we do need a change to some acronyms.

For instance.... AGW means anthropogenic global warming (caused by man)

Skeptics ..... those that are skeptical about global warming? man's influence?

We all know that skeptics are not skeptical about global warming, just the cause.

So I suggest we make a change ..

GWO = God's warming Oscillations ?

NGW = Natural Global Warming ?

NCC = Natural Climate Cycles ?

NGC = Natural Global Cycles ?

Skeptics = continue with skeptics (non AGW believers) ?

NGWO = Natural Global Weather Oscillations ?

NGCC = Natural Global Climate Cycles ? (NGCC versus IPCC)

Global warming and cooling cycles are God's creation, I vote for NGCC (Natural Global Climate Cycles)

NCC is a close second.

Regards

David

Edited October 11, 2008 by GlobalWeatherOscillations

[Red Raven]

Global warming and cooling cycles are God's creation, I vote for NGCC (Natural Global Climate Cycles)

NCC is a close second.

Regards

David

I was keeping an open mind to your theories but you have just done yourself a huge disservice by suggesting this is all one big plan by a man with a white beard!

[Cycles]

GWO = God's warming Oscillations ?

NGW = Natural Global Warming ?

NCC = Natural Climate Cycles ?

NGC = Natural Global Cycles ?

Skeptics = continue with skeptics (non AGW believers) ?

NGWO = Natural Global Weather Oscillations ?

NGCC = Natural Global Climate Cycles ? (NGCC versus IPCC)

NCO = Natural Climate Oscillations

NWC = Natural Weather Cycles

added NCO tand NWC o the list.

[Red Raven]

GWO = God's warming Oscillations ?

NGW = Natural Global Warming ?

NCC = Natural Climate Cycles ?

NGC = Natural Global Cycles ?

Skeptics = continue with skeptics (non AGW believers) ?

NGWO = Natural Global Weather Oscillations ?

NGCC = Natural Global Climate Cycles ? (NGCC versus IPCC)

NCO = Natural Climate Oscillations

NWC = Natural Weather Cycles

added NCO tand NWC o the list.

...but you didn't take the opportunity to remove the god reference - seems you have shot yourself in the other foot now!

[Cycles]

Many concerned people do not feel the term "skeptics" is an acceptable term. People and researchers that believe natural cycles are the primary cause for global warming and cooling do take offense to the term Skeptics. We firmly believe in global warming, but we do disagree on the major cause of. I have monitored many threads on other sites, videos, newspapers and TV media and there is a general feeling this term is not appropriate and is demeaning.

I am only seeking everyone's balanced opinion, and you may add to the list.