Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Hot?

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
Posted

Nice find knocker.  Very helpful from the start.  This is the kind of thing that climate science needs, detail but easy to follow.....

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne
Posted

New Zealand’s Southern Alps have lost a third of their ice

A third of the permanent snow and ice of New Zealand’s Southern Alps has now disappeared, according to our new research based on National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research aerial surveys.

 

http://theconversation.com/new-zealands-southern-alps-have-lost-a-third-of-their-ice-28916

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
Posted

Wow Mike! we were warmer as we slipped away from our post glacial peak warming! Who'd have thunk it?????

 

So now that we are in this period where our orbital forcings (and more recently 'natural climatic forcings) should have the higher elevations

showing growth in snow pack/glaciers do we see such rapid ablation? Just doesn't make sense does it? All these global glaciers must be lying somehow or else something has over ridden orbital forcings and is messing with natural climatic forcings?

Posted
  • Location: York
  • Weather Preferences: Long warm summer evenings. Cold frosty sunny winter days.
  • Location: York
Posted

Wow Mike! we were warmer as we slipped away from our post glacial peak warming! Who'd have thunk it?????

 

So now that we are in this period where our orbital forcings (and more recently 'natural climatic forcings) should have the higher elevations

showing growth in snow pack/glaciers do we see such rapid ablation? Just doesn't make sense does it? All these global glaciers must be lying somehow or else something has over ridden orbital forcings and is messing with natural climatic forcings?

 

Sometimes GW you amaze me with yor deliberate misleading posts. Simply because you don't see an immediate snap of the fingers change from melt to growth doesn't mean that the underlying forcing isn't the dominant one. We are entering a period of low to very low solar activity that is likely to last at current understanding for at least 30 years it is also likely that it will be unprecedented in living memory and probably 200years.

If you boil a kettle and slowly reduce the heat the water doesn;t instantaenously stop boiling even if you remove all heat it boils for a while before slowly dropping eventually to return to its enviromental temperature. Why is planet earth any different? It will take time for this change in natural forcings to show in increased glacier growth great artic ice cooler global temperatures etc but we are begining to see that change.

  • Like 1
Posted
  • Location: Raunds, Northants
  • Weather Preferences: Warm if possible but a little snow is nice.
  • Location: Raunds, Northants
Posted

Oh, so we were warmer than now 4000 years ago then?. Was it those Roman heavy duty diesel chariots? . What orbital forcing are you referring to that have suddenly come in to play?

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
Posted

Oh, so we were warmer than now 4000 years ago then?. Was it those Roman heavy duty diesel chariots? . What orbital forcing are you referring to that have suddenly come in to play?

 

The planet had been cooling since 8,000 years ago. Mainly due to orbital forcings http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

 

Posted Image

  • Like 1
Posted
  • Location: York
  • Weather Preferences: Long warm summer evenings. Cold frosty sunny winter days.
  • Location: York
Posted

The planet had been cooling since 8,000 years ago. Mainly due to orbital forcings http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

 

Posted Image

 

 

I know its Watts up with but still worth a read regarding solar cycles especially given how some on that site keep saying its not the sun!!

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/06/recent-paper-finds-recent-solar-grand-maximum-was-a-rare-or-even-unique-event-in-3000-years/

 

Unfortunately, it was beyond the scope of this paper to address the potential impact of solar activity on climate. Yet the reconstruction leaves a very big question unanswered — What effect did the Grand maximum of solar activity that occurred between 1950 and 2009 have on Earth’s climate? As a “unique†and “rare†event in terms of both magnitude and duration, one would think a lot more time and effort would be spent by the IPCC and others in answering that question. Instead, IPCC scientists have conducted relatively few studies of the Sun’s influence on modern warming, assuming that the temperature influence of this rare and unique Grand maximum of solar activity, which has occurred only once in the past 3,000 years, is far inferior to the radiative power provided by the rising CO2 concentration of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Posted
  • Location: Raunds, Northants
  • Weather Preferences: Warm if possible but a little snow is nice.
  • Location: Raunds, Northants
Posted

I see no reference to orbital forcings in your link. These processes are in any event to slow to have had any noticeable effect in that time period.

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
Posted

I know its Watts up with but still worth a read regarding solar cycles especially given how some on that site keep saying its not the sun!!

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/06/recent-paper-finds-recent-solar-grand-maximum-was-a-rare-or-even-unique-event-in-3000-years/

 

Unfortunately, it was beyond the scope of this paper to address the potential impact of solar activity on climate. Yet the reconstruction leaves a very big question unanswered — What effect did the Grand maximum of solar activity that occurred between 1950 and 2009 have on Earth’s climate? As a “unique†and “rare†event in terms of both magnitude and duration, one would think a lot more time and effort would be spent by the IPCC and others in answering that question. Instead, IPCC scientists have conducted relatively few studies of the Sun’s influence on modern warming, assuming that the temperature influence of this rare and unique Grand maximum of solar activity, which has occurred only once in the past 3,000 years, is far inferior to the radiative power provided by the rising CO2 concentration of the Earth’s atmosphere.

 

If the warming during the 20th century had been due to increased solar activity, it would have had a certain warming signature, such as days warmer than night, a warmer stratosphere, etc. Instead we see the opposite, which is what's expected from an enhanced greenhouse warming (so we're seeing a bottom up warming, rather than a top down warming).

 

 

Mike, the authors of the paper did a questions and answers on RealClimate, you might want to have a look http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

  • Like 3
Posted
  • Location: York
  • Weather Preferences: Long warm summer evenings. Cold frosty sunny winter days.
  • Location: York
Posted

research is begining to show that high solar cycles leads to less cloud cover which in turn leads to warmer oceans thus warmer world and the opposite for low solar periods clearly these changes don't happen overnight as we move from one cycle to another. I will post links in due course but do firmly believe that its the depth of cycle that matters and it isn't sunspot number but other associated outputs such as magnetic field strength E10 and F10 outputs that are the key players. The next few years will change the debate dynamics as more is understood as we enter this deep minimum which will happen very quickly rather than a slow decline

Posted
  • Location: Raunds, Northants
  • Weather Preferences: Warm if possible but a little snow is nice.
  • Location: Raunds, Northants
Posted

I did, it is just full of maybe as usual.

 

"If the warming during the 20th century had been due to increased solar activity, it would have had a certain warming signature, such as days warmer than night, a warmer stratosphere, etc. Instead we see the opposite, which is what's expected from an enhanced greenhouse warming (so we're seeing a bottom up warming, rather than a top down warming)."

 

​Don't you just love the way the leopard changes spots? They predicted a hot spot and it is nowhere to be found so what do they do-posit a cooling stratosphere instead, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/04/what-stratospheric-hotspot/ what's next I wonder? They have no idea what the correct signal is supposed to be if CO2 is causing warming and now you tell me you/they know the signal if solar is having any effect? Sorry no sale. 

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
Posted

research is begining to show that high solar cycles leads to less cloud cover which in turn leads to warmer oceans thus warmer world and the opposite for low solar periods clearly these changes don't happen overnight as we move from one cycle to another. I will post links in due course but do firmly believe that its the depth of cycle that matters and it isn't sunspot number but other associated outputs such as magnetic field strength E10 and F10 outputs that are the key players. The next few years will change the debate dynamics as more is understood as we enter this deep minimum which will happen very quickly rather than a slow decline

 

Do you happen to remember how the changes in solar activity leads to more or less clouds? 

 

I suppose, if we do enter a a period of very low solar activity as you expect, and we fail to see any warming, might you change your opinion on the main drivers of climate? Before similar is asked of me, I would certainly change my stance should we experience global cooling due to a prolonged solar minimum.

 

 

I did, it is just full of maybe as usual.

 

"If the warming during the 20th century had been due to increased solar activity, it would have had a certain warming signature, such as days warmer than night, a warmer stratosphere, etc. Instead we see the opposite, which is what's expected from an enhanced greenhouse warming (so we're seeing a bottom up warming, rather than a top down warming)."

 

​Don't you just love the way the leopard changes spots? They predicted a hot spot and it is nowhere to be found so what do they do-posit a cooling stratosphere instead, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/04/what-stratospheric-hotspot/ what's next I wonder? They have no idea what the correct signal is supposed to be if CO2 is causing warming and now you tell me you/they know the signal if solar is having any effect? Sorry no sale. 

 

So are you dismissing the role of orbital forcings? Dismissing the paper by Marcott et all and numerous other temperature reconstructions that show we we're cooling from the Holocene climatic optimum 8,000 years ago?

Perhaps you could try thinking for yourself and challenging the assumptions on WUWT? The tropospheric hot spot is likely to result from all kinds of warming, solar induced too. The cooling stratosphere is an expected and predicted effect of an enhanced greenhouse effect, nothing new, despite what WUWT claims.

They know very well how to measure the effect of extra CO2, by looking at incoming long wave and short wave radiation, by knowing what parts of the spectrum GhGs absorb and re-emit and by then measuring those changes.

  • Like 3
Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
Posted

This is not the right thread for continuing the discussion but here's a link for BFTV on cloud formation.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/4/045004/

 

Cheers, GF. Looks like something that's testable, we should have enough satellite data to be able to show whether or not these model simulations are accurate.

 

Perhaps someone could set up a solar activity/Milankovitch cycles and climate thread to continue the discussion?

  • Like 1
Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
Posted (edited)

I think a Milankovitch thread would be a good move? If I can dig it out I have an Email from one of the lead NASA bods that Prof Grumbine had him send me back in 09'(ish) explaining just how out of whack we now are with orbital forcings and wondering if the course we are upon will not only miss the next 'cooldown' ( not all the majors of orbital forcings are in play so it would have been focussed on the n. Hemisphere?) but also the next precessional cool down skipping us 46,000years before the next possible minor orbital cooling ( if we sort out the current trajectory we have placed climate on!)

 

EDIT: So may folk bring up the "we were supposed to be going into an ice age according to the scientists back in the 70's" bilge without thinking why we ought to have been going into a period of cooling. The fact that we have over ridden that cooling surely shows how powerful warming is today? We are not only warming global temps but also offsetting the cooling that had already begun across the north!

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Posted
  • Location: Raunds, Northants
  • Weather Preferences: Warm if possible but a little snow is nice.
  • Location: Raunds, Northants
Posted

"So are you dismissing the role of orbital forcings?"------No but yes in the short 5 to 10000 year time-scale and even so there are issues, read ( the entire thing) and learn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

 "Dismissing the paper by Marcott et all and numerous other temperature reconstructions that show we we're cooling from the Holocene climatic optimum 8,000 years ago?"---Yes, too full of holes and assumptions, they cannot even figure out the last 500 accurately with proxies.

 "Perhaps you could try thinking for yourself and challenging the assumptions on WUWT?"--Charming manners you have, ill bet your wife would give you a thick ear if you spoke to her like that, easy to do it at distance though I suppose.

"The cooling stratosphere is an expected and predicted effect of an enhanced greenhouse effect, nothing new, despite what WUWT claims."----I will research, mull it over and reply later.

 "They know very well how to measure the effect of extra CO2, by looking at incoming long wave and short wave radiation, by knowing what parts of the spectrum GhGs absorb and re-emit and by then measuring those changes."---So how has that been working out for them the last 15+ years then?

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
Posted

"So are you dismissing the role of orbital forcings?"------No but yes in the short 5 to 10000 year time-scale and even so there are issues, read ( the entire thing) and learn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

 "Dismissing the paper by Marcott et all and numerous other temperature reconstructions that show we we're cooling from the Holocene climatic optimum 8,000 years ago?"---Yes, too full of holes and assumptions, they cannot even figure out the last 500 accurately with proxies.

 "Perhaps you could try thinking for yourself and challenging the assumptions on WUWT?"--Charming manners you have, ill bet your wife would give you a thick ear if you spoke to her like that, easy to do it at distance though I suppose.

"The cooling stratosphere is an expected and predicted effect of an enhanced greenhouse effect, nothing new, despite what WUWT claims."----I will research, mull it over and reply later.

 "They know very well how to measure the effect of extra CO2, by looking at incoming long wave and short wave radiation, by knowing what parts of the spectrum GhGs absorb and re-emit and by then measuring those changes."---So how has that been working out for them the last 15+ years then?

 

If you think Milankovitch cycles can have no influence over 10,000 years, the you need to re-read the link you provided.

You dismiss numerous reconstructions as having too many holes and assumptions, without being able to name any. hat's nt very sceptical

There are studies that have looked at my last point, here's a few.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/abstract

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

 

If you think you can dismiss inconvenient data by repeating the AGW denial meme "So how has that been working out for them the last 15+ years then", then you are far from being a sceptic.

 

I'll respond to your posts in future when you learn to have an informed, or at least an adult, discussion about the climate.

  • Like 3
Posted
  • Location: Raunds, Northants
  • Weather Preferences: Warm if possible but a little snow is nice.
  • Location: Raunds, Northants
Posted

Suite yourself, no skin off my back.

  • Like 1
Posted
  • Location: North York Moors
  • Location: North York Moors
Posted

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/warming-global-climate/2014/06/17/id/577481/#ixzz355f6L5y2Sort of covered already by the look of it, however crux is that we still have far more ice in The Alps than for long periods in the past - when areas now full of ice were meadow and forest. 

 

 

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.â€

Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

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
×
×
  • Create New...