Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Hot?
IGNORED

The SSW of Feb 2018


Midlands Ice Age

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl
  • Weather Preferences: Sun, Snow and Storms
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl

As possibly,  I am  regarded as one of the more vocal climate change deniers on here, I have decided to start this thread up.

The reason - the Model Discussion Thread should not and must not be littered with an examination of whether global warming is impacting current WEATHER.

Chiro has already stated that he feels that this discussion should not litter his strato thread,

The same must be true for the Model Output thread  (IMO).     Hence my reasons for starting up the discussion in here.

I am not a doubter that warming is occurring.

I think that QuickSilver's post was excellent until he started  to have a gfuqhgfpjh at 'deniers'.

I even do not think in itself it is necessarily wrong. 

The danger as, I see it,  is that if we do (in his terminology), shake 4 or 5 or 6. then it will be ascribed to AGW. 

Another massive divergence of opinion will occur, and it opens the door to every single event being hijacked by global warmers. 

 If,however,  in his terminology we shake a 1, then it is simply be ascribed to chance.

The truth is that historically SSW's have always occurred. 

Some have impacted  the UK. Others have not. The dice is loaded. But not in the way that Q describes, but in an historically proved 66% in favour of an effect in the UK and a 33% chance of it failing to bring cold weather. 

Q resorts to historical periods when clearly SSW occurred. Their frequency seems to be more tied in with the sunspot cycle (and associated effects) than with CO2 for the more famous ones. (though not exclusively).

I have no doubt that even in the 18th century there were failed SSW's,  as far as the UK is concerned..  

 There is clearly no need to include any discussions  in the MO thread.

The moderators must come down hard and stop this development.

 

Anyone else have an opinion?  

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I think as we move deeper into the AGW impacted reality all weather will naturally become more 'tweaked' by that forcing?

SSW's look at the relationship between trop and strat and both these layers are impacted by AGW. 

The refusal of the QBO to reverse a couple of years back shows just how much the unruly PV can now impact a greater area of the upper atmosphere?

Just take a peak at any recent autumn as the PV tried to establish itself whilst peak WACCY forcing above the basin skewed it's ability to set up in the old central position?  The waves and eddys this throws into the lower lat strat,and so the forcing on the polar jet, has led to some notable early cold outbreaks which then help order the PV positioning later in the year? 

We are also seeing taller storms that punch through the tropopause and introduce moisture into the strat? Does this eventually increase the depth of the trop?

All in all we must accept that we are a closed system and so changes will impact all parts of that closed system?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: East Ham, London
  • Location: East Ham, London

Afternoon all :)

Thank you for the thread, MIA.

I suppose I start from "what would be the indicators the world was warming ?" and logic dictates a warmer world would have a more turbulent atmosphere containing more energy as more heat is released from below to above. That "energy" would cause stronger PVs and by the same token stronger SSWs but would they be more frequent ?

Among my other questions would be - has the PV always been in the same place on our side of the Pole ? I presume it's a product of the depression factory that is continental North America and in counterbalance to Siberia where the absence of oceanic current creates a cold, dry HP zone.

Outside winters affected by other causes - 1815 being a good example - we have remarkable winters like 1683-4, 1739-40 and more recently the spells of 1947 and 1962-63 (the latter two more pronounced because of our greater civilisation and dependence on warmth and transport). All the accounts I read of 1739-40 suggest something far more severe but was that an early SSW ?

One can imagine in an Ice Age with more land and less water a proliferation of cold stagnant HP - I suspect for example the traditional Ice Age image of Neanderthal man in hip-deep snow is overdone. I believe an Ice Age world was a much drier world.

You'd think in a warmer world the "battleground" between sources of cold and warm energy would be more violent - stronger storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards - but what we don't know is IF the Sun is going into a prolonged quiet period what impact that might have.

All I have are questions, no answers.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rotherhithe, 5.8M ASL
  • Location: Rotherhithe, 5.8M ASL

Well said MIA it has no place entering discussion in MOD thread.

You’d imagine too with the polar vortex being stronger than average and maybe a sign of times if some say. When it does implode the effects will be even more significant on our patterns.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Bridport, West Dorset
  • Weather Preferences: Extreme
  • Location: Bridport, West Dorset

This is a great thread to start......i am at work atm so I have limited time, however I will be looking forward to giving some input when i have the time later........

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Extreme Weather and Climate Change

https://www.c2es.org/document/extreme-weather-and-climate-change/And

And

There are numerous examples of increased extreme weather frequency already being attributed to humans in the published peer-reviewed scientific literature.  For example, Pall et al. (2011):

"Here we present a multi-step, physically based ‘probabilistic event attribution’ framework showing that it is very likely that global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions substantially increased the risk of flood occurrence in England and Wales in autumn 2000"

Min et al. (2011):

"Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas."

Dai et al. (2011):

"All the four forms of the PDSI show widespread drying over Africa, East and South Asia, and other areas from 1950 to 2008, and most of this drying is due to recent warming. The global percentage of dry areas has increased by about 1.74% (of global land area) per decade from 1950 to 2008."

Zwiers et al. (2011):

"Therefore, it is concluded that the influence of anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on extreme temperatures that have impacts on human society and natural systems at global and regional scales"

Coumou & Rahmstorf (2012):

"Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase."

Hansen et al. (2012):

"we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small."

Source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center GISS and Scientific Visualization Studio

Like Hansen et al., Donat and Alexander (2012) found that global warming has made extreme heat waves more likely to occur.

"...there is a 40% increase in more recent decades in the number of extreme temperatures defined by the warmest 5% of the 1951–1980 distribution."

Like Coumou & Rahmstorf, Otto et al. (2012) found that global warming contributed to the intensity of the extreme 2010 Russian heat wave, concluding there was

"...a three-fold increase in the risk of the 2010 threshold being exceeded, supporting the assertion that the risk of the event occurring was mainly attributable to the external trend."

While it is very difficult to attribute individual weather events to global warming, we do know that climate change will 'load the dice' and result in more frequent extreme weather events.

The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), also discusses the relationship between human-caused climate change and various types of extreme weather events.  For example, the SREX says:

"It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level."

and

"Extreme weather and climate events, interacting with exposed and vulnerable human and natural systems, can lead to disasters."

On drought, the SREX finds:

"There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia."

The SREX also has important conclusions regarding future drought changes:

"There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas, due to reduced precipitation and/or increased evapotranspiration. This applies to regions including southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa."

This conclusion is supported by Dai (2010), for example:

"Regions like the United States have avoided prolonged droughts during the last 50 years due to natural climate variations, but might see persistent droughts in the next 20–50 years"

Research by Emanuel (2012), Grinsted et al. (2013), and Holland and Bruyère (2013) concluded that global warming has already led to more intense hurricanes.  Elsner et al. (2008) found that:

"With the exception of the South Pacific Ocean, all tropical cyclone basins show increases in the lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the strongest storms ... Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind." 

As Grinsted et al. noted,

"we have probably crossed the threshold where Katrina magnitude hurricane surges are more likely caused by global warming than not."

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes

Quote

Climate change includes not only changes in mean climate but also in weather extremes. For a few prominent heatwaves and heavy precipitation events a human contribution to their occurrence has been demonstrated1,2,3,4,5. Here we apply a similar framework but estimate what fraction of all globally occurring heavy precipitation and hot extremes is attributable to warming. We show that at the present-day warming of 0.85 °C about 18% of the moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times, which in turn primarily results from human influence6. For 2 °C of warming the fraction of precipitation extremes attributable to human influence rises to about 40%. Likewise, today about 75% of the moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming. It is the most rare and extreme events for which the largest fraction is anthropogenic, and that contribution increases nonlinearly with further warming. The approach introduced here is robust owing to its global perspective, less sensitive to model biases than alternative methods and informative for mitigation policy, and thereby complementary to single-event attribution. Combined with information on vulnerability and exposure, it serves as a scientific basis for assessment of global risk from extreme weather, the discussion of mitigation targets, and liability considerations.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617

Stanford scientists test links between extreme weather and climate change

A new four-step framework aims to test the contribution of climate change to record-setting extreme weather events.

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/04/24/stanford-scientists-test-links-extreme-weather-climate-change/

Edited by knocker
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Hessle
  • Weather Preferences: Cold Snowy Winters, Hot Thundery Summers
  • Location: Hessle

OK I'm going to answer the questions posed on here and make some points:

First MIA 

 

As possibly,  I am  regarded as one of the more vocal climate change deniers on here, I have decided to start this thread up.
Fair enough

The reason - the Model Discussion Thread should not and must not be littered with an examination of whether global warming is impacting current WEATHER.
The model output thread discusses current weather...

Chiro has already stated that he feels that this discussion should not litter his strato thread,

The same must be true for the Model Output thread  (IMO).     Hence my reasons for starting up the discussion in here.

I am not a doubter that warming is occurring.
Then why are you claiming to be a vocal climate change denier? If the climate is warming the climate is changing!

I think that QuickSilver's post was excellent until he started  to have a gfuqhgfpjh at 'deniers'.

I even do not think in itself it is necessarily wrong. 

The danger as, I see it,  is that if we do (in his terminology), shake 4 or 5 or 6. then it will be ascribed to AGW. 
You are complaining about 4's 5's and 6's but your interpretation is at 6's and 7's. Weather is chaotic and varies with random patterns. It is like a dice. Imagine a 1 being the coldest pattern and a 6 being the mildest. You will still get that natural variability, every now and then a 1 will be rolled but there will be more 4's, 5's and 6's and that is what we see in the global temperature record and other metrics. We even see it in the CET series. 

Another massive divergence of opinion will occur, and it opens the door to every single event being hijacked by global warmers. 
Whilst I understand that there is a tendency to attribute a certain event to climate change immediately, it is the trend that counts, the frequency. Centuries ago we me have rolled a 6, but it is much more likely now because of the extra warmth on the planet. See knockers excellent post for some literature.

 If,however,  in his terminology we shake a 1, then it is simply be ascribed to chance.
Again see above.

The truth is that historically SSW's have always occurred. 
Agreed but they won't stop climate change.

Some have impacted  the UK. Others have not. The dice is loaded. But not in the way that Q describes, but in an historically proved 66% in favour of an effect in the UK and a 33% chance of it failing to bring cold weather. 
Look at the list of historic SSW events since the 1950s in the linked paper. No pattern with solar activity. Any literature to back up your claim?

https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/9/63/2017/essd-9-63-2017.pdf

Q resorts to historical periods when clearly SSW occurred. Their frequency seems to be more tied in with the sunspot cycle (and associated effects) than with CO2 for the more famous ones. (though not exclusively).

I have no doubt that even in the 18th century there were failed SSW's,  as far as the UK is concerned..  
Of course there would have been.

 There is clearly no need to include any discussions  in the MO thread.
That's for the mods to decide, not you.

The moderators must come down hard and stop this development.
You sound like this man off hot fuzz.
 

Krusty jugglers

Now for gusty, great questions, I did my masters dissertation on how atmospheric circulation patterns have changed in the UK over time so I know some things about this subject.

 

I suppose I start from "what would be the indicators the world was warming ?"

Well for me its increasing temperatures, decreasing arctic sea ice and increases in weather extremes. Also changes in weather patterns. Again knocker covers this very well.

That "energy" would cause stronger PVs and by the same token stronger SSWs but would they be more frequent ?
I think I may have read a paper a while back but I am not an expert in the field. I think I read they may become more common due to increased volatility (increased heat and energy) but there is a lot of uncertainty. However things like a -NAO don't equate to large drops in global temperature. 2010 for example was the warmest year on record globally at the time.

Among my other questions would be - has the PV always been in the same place on our side of the Pole ? I presume it's a product of the depression factory that is continental North America and in counterbalance to Siberia where the absence of oceanic current creates a cold, dry HP zone.
I think so, you look at how cold the Newfoundland and Greenland were in the 19th century and compare it to now and both were often much colder then today. Looking at the 20CR in earlier years, there are more cold spells with Scandi Highs rather then full on northern blocking with warm air pumped up to Greenland like 2010 for example. Not sure why the PV always sets up there. Perhaps the AMOC could be to blame, encouraging cold air to funnel to the west of Greenland much more often then somewhere like Scandinavia.

Outside winters affected by other causes - 1815 being a good example - we have remarkable winters like 1683-4, 1739-40 and more recently the spells of 1947 and 1962-63 (the latter two more pronounced because of our greater civilisation and dependence on warmth and transport). All the accounts I read of 1739-40 suggest something far more severe but was that an early SSW ?

Yup unfortunately we will never know! A paper I read suggested it was dominated by high pressure over Scandinavia

One can imagine in an Ice Age with more land and less water a proliferation of cold stagnant HP - I suspect for example the traditional Ice Age image of Neanderthal man in hip-deep snow is overdone. I believe an Ice Age world was a much drier world.

Definitely, lower sea levels and less moisture to carry around, less energy in the system.

You'd think in a warmer world the "battleground" between sources of cold and warm energy would be more violent - stronger storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards - but what we don't know is IF the Sun is going into a prolonged quiet period what impact that might have.
The key literature out there suggests that low solar activity increases the chances of notably cold winters across the UK but its contribution to global temperature is very small. Solar activity as part of a long term trend peaked in the 1980s, so why haven't global temperatures fallen since then?

Daniel

Well said MIA it has no place entering discussion in MOD thread.
I'm sure you'd be happy for a post about climate change denial to stay there.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Thank you, MIA!:good:

The two most basic indicators (of warming) for me, are the warming troposphere and the cooling stratosphere, which are both consistent with more heat being trapped beneath the tropopause...

In which case, what would a cooler strat/warmer trop to do the PV? Wind-up the stratospheric vortex whilst simultaneously slowing the TPV? Or would they both shrink/expand?

In four words: I do not know!:cc_confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I think folk might want to look back a the last few years of the PV trying to set itself up for the season in late autumn?

Some of these perturbations reach as far south as the equatorial flow and might be involved in that abortive QBO reversal a few years back?

So what is messing with the setting up and positioning of the early winter polar jet?

Jen Francis has been warning folk about that for well over a decade?

We are well into the final furlong for year round ice in the Arctic Basin and this year looks to be continuing the trend for a weaker, warmer Sea ice cover come spring?

Instead of a blazing summer taking away the last of the Arctic ice it will be the warmer,wetter winters that leave the ice so weak as to be unable to survive any normal Arctic melt season.

This will allow even greater disruption to the early winter arctic and the formation of the PV above?

If we believe we are seeing changes wrought by low ice and the autumn outpouring of heat over the ice free areas then we need consider what a centralised version of that effect will have on the setting up of the PV and the stability it used to place on the Arctic below?

No PV and no barrier to the WAA that has been wreaking so much havoc in the basin this passed few years ( and the Arctic outpourings deep into the lower lats that we've been seeing since the early noughties?).

I do not know as much as others do about the old operating of the northern hemispheres atmosphere but I do know enough to see that a high latitude plume of rising airs, for 6 to 8 weeks each autumn/early winter, might drive all manner of odd changes to the mid latitudes and leave no place for a PV centred over the pole?

Will we see a cell set up with hot air rising over the pole and it heading south at altitude to then descend when temp/density demanded? And what off below at ground level? Do we see WAA from the lower lats flow north to replace the rising airs? And coriolis on this ground flow?

At the moment the impacts are split between both ocean entrances to the Arctic basin with Beaufort seeing the biggest changes over the last decade ( after a decade of that prize being ours and the Atlantic entrance to the basin) but soon enough it will be the full basin involved and so the impacts will be far less 'off centred'.

So then what of SSW's?

Do we see a late winter resurgence of a late formed PV place the polar Jet over topography's ideal for launching into the strat?

The thing is ,both with this and the rest of the changes, our planet can only express itself in a limited number of ways and many times we will have seen extreme expressions of these 'ways' .

Naturally some will hold up such evidence as proof that it has all happened before. True , it has but it is 'why' it happened then compared to the forcings now, that matters?

I kinda think that the world can throw some curve balls ( black swans) and I'm fearful that we might be on the edge of a rapid period of change and that this atmospheric 'flip' in behaviours will be a driver for that speed up in the pace of change?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl
  • Weather Preferences: Sun, Snow and Storms
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl

Q

Been out all day...

In response to the above, I do not believe that we should be littering the MOD thread with discussions on CC.

My only point at the moment is that you seem to have limited your 'research' into the UK and  quoted reports since 1952 as evidence of any longer term trends..

However,  you seem to be ignoring that the majority of major cold events recorded in the CET (ignoring volcanic) have occurred during periods of 'low sunspot' activity in previous centuries..

Also that large fluctuations in temp have occurred in the past 350 years in the CET....

So as an expert in CET, could you explain to me why the decade from 1730 to 1740 we saw a sudden increase in the CET of nearly 2C, compared to the previous. It was a much greater increase than anything we have seen in the recent 50years.

What may have caused it do you think, or is it not relevant? 

You no doubt are aware ( but also choose to ignore) that  during these periods of low sun spot activity, we have very much higher levels of high powered particles striking the earth -  Into the stratosphere and higher Troposphere, They at shown to exist by the increased aurora activity observed in the recent past. and also in the radiosonde balloon data being reported from the US.

I am aware that the solar insolation has not varied much during the 11 year cycles. And this is reflected in the GCM's, but this SSW effect is being started in the oceans and transferred to the Stratosphere before being 'dropped' back down into the lower troposphere, where any AcO2 changes occur. Why should this choose to occur when in the Pacific where this has all started the SST is just about 0.1C higher than history?

In addition to the 'coincidence' of low temps in Europe in the 17 -18th century periods,  we are now entering another period of low solar.

Already in the 'not too low solar period' of the early 2000' s we saw a cooling of our winters and SSW's were recorded in 2009 and 2013, .together with the major Tropospheric event of 2010.

Next we have had the period of 'high'  sun-spot activity from 2013 to 2016 which had no SSW's that I am aware of, and now we start to enter the next solar minimum, which looks like being a very busy period.   As    

low and behold we immediately seem to see  a SSW occurring. Is it coincidence?, or do you think that instead the thing that has  changed is that we have moved from a CO2 levels of 402 - 407 during the period, and that this is more important?

Now I do not know what caused these effects, but I suggest nor do you.

 So my feeling is that it should not be introduced  into the MOD thread in the way you have, when we have a perfectly good means of discussing the effects on here?.

There is next to no evidence linking a SSW to  CO2. Can I suggest even less than I have evidence for any 'solar effect'. But your simple desire is to thrust it down peoples throats. That is really where our differences lay.

I accept that warming is currently occurring,  but to me  it is currently not proven that the whole of the warming that has occurred in the last 200 years  is caused by CO2. Other effects are clearly present. 

MIA

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl
  • Weather Preferences: Sun, Snow and Storms
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl
5 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Q

Been out all day...

In response to the above, I do not believe that we should be littering the MOD thread with discussions on CC.

My only point at the moment is that you seem to have limited your 'research' into the UK and  quoted reports since 1952 as evidence of any longer term trends..

However,  you seem to be ignoring that the majority of major cold events recorded in the CET (ignoring volcanic) have occurred during periods of 'low sunspot' activity in previous centuries..

Also that large fluctuations in temp have occurred in the past 350 years in the CET....

So as an expert in CET, could you explain to me why the decade from 1730 to 1740 we saw a sudden increase in the CET of nearly 2C, compared to the previous. It was a much greater increase than anything we have seen in the recent 50years.

What may have caused it do you think, or is it not relevant? 

You no doubt are aware ( but also choose to ignore) that  during these periods of low sun spot activity, we have very much higher levels of high powered particles striking the earth -  Into the stratosphere and higher Troposphere, They are shown to exist by the increased aurora activity observed in the recent past. and also in the radiosonde balloon data being reported from the US.

I am aware that the solar insolation has not varied much during the 11 year cycles. And this is reflected in the GCM's, but this SSW effect is being started in the oceans and transferred to the Stratosphere before being 'dropped' back down into the lower troposphere, where any AcO2 changes occur. Why should this choose to occur when in the Pacific where this has all started the SST is just about 0.1C higher than history?

In addition to the 'coincidence' of low temps in Europe in the 17 -18th century periods,  we are now entering another period of low solar.

Already in the 'not too low solar period' of the early 2000' s we saw a cooling of our winters and SSW's were recorded in 2009 and 2013, .together with the major Tropospheric event of 2010.

Next we have had the period of 'high'  sun-spot activity from 2013 to 2016 which had no SSW's that I am aware of, and now we start to enter the next solar minimum, which looks like being a very busy period.   As    

low and behold we immediately seem to see  a SSW occurring. Is it coincidence?, or do you think that instead the thing that has  changed is that we have moved from a CO2 levels of 402 - 407 during the period, and that this is more important?

Now I do not know what caused these effects, but I suggest nor do you.

 So my feeling is that it should not be introduced  into the MOD thread in the way you have, when we have a perfectly good means of discussing the effects on here?.

There is next to no evidence linking a SSW to  CO2. Can I suggest even less than I have evidence for any 'solar effect'. But your simple desire is to thrust it down peoples throats. That is really where our differences lay.

I accept that warming is currently occurring,  but to me  it is currently not proven that the whole of the warming that has occurred in the last 200 years  is caused by CO2. Other effects are clearly present. 

MIA

Edit-do no tknow why this has come out boxed. Possibly because I 'lost' my first reply, and just started out a new post..

 

 

 

Edited by Midlands Ice Age
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Hessle
  • Weather Preferences: Cold Snowy Winters, Hot Thundery Summers
  • Location: Hessle

Q

Been out all day...

In response to the above, I do not believe that we should be littering the MOD thread with discussions on CC.

My only point at the moment is that you seem to have limited your 'research' into the UK and  quoted reports since 1952 as evidence of any longer term trends..

That is because we were discussing past SSW events and as far the record doesn't go back further then that.

However,  you seem to be ignoring that the majority of major cold events recorded in the CET (ignoring volcanic) have occurred during periods of 'low sunspot' activity in previous centuries..

The majority, really? Look at this paper by Lockwood (2010), I'll pull out the key figure for you, on the x axis is solar activity and y axis winter CET. See a strong relationship on that graph? No, just a slight increase in the risk of very cold winters nothing more.
image.thumb.png.28dc5e31cff7b2b177d4482d502c842c.png http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/pdf

Also that large fluctuations in temp have occurred in the past 350 years in the CET....

So as an expert in CET, could you explain to me why the decade from 1730 to 1740 we saw a sudden increase in the CET of nearly 2C, compared to the previous. It was a much greater increase than anything we have seen in the recent 50years.

Atmospheric circulation as according to Hubert Lamb this period so a major increase in westerly flow across the UK which lead to milder winters. Remember the Maunder minimum was very cold across Europe so a marked change in atmospheric circulation lead to a marked increase in CET. The last few decades have still been warmer. A mild year in the UK does not mean global climate is also very warm. 1822 for example occurred shortly after Tambora and saw quite a lot of above average temperatures. 1794 not too long after Laki. Even 1976 was a cold year globally relative to its time period. The UK is just a small island and doesn't represent global climate.

What may have caused it do you think, or is it not relevant? 
Not sure as its a long way back, my belief is that it could be to do with ocean circulation changes.

You no doubt are aware ( but also choose to ignore) that  during these periods of low sun spot activity, we have very much higher levels of high powered particles striking the earth -  Into the stratosphere and higher Troposphere, They at shown to exist by the increased aurora activity observed in the recent past. and also in the radiosonde balloon data being reported from the US.

Again no evidence suggests solar activity is connected to SSW events. A rare SSW event for example occurred in the southern hemisphere during 2002, a year of a solar maximum, January 2003 saw an SSW as did January 2013. Both of these periods were outside solar minimums.

I am aware that the solar insolation has not varied much during the 11 year cycles. And this is reflected in the GCM's, but this SSW effect is being started in the oceans and transferred to the Stratosphere before being 'dropped' back down into the lower troposphere, where any AcO2 changes occur. Why should this choose to occur when in the Pacific where this has all started the SST is just about 0.1C higher than history?

This question makes no sense.

In addition to the 'coincidence' of low temps in Europe in the 17 -18th century periods,  we are now entering another period of low solar.

Already in the 'not too low solar period' of the early 2000' s we saw a cooling of our winters and SSW's were recorded in 2009 and 2013, .together with the major Tropospheric event of 2010.

We saw some colder winters, is that the end of climate change as we know it them? Global temperatures completely disagree. There should have also been a marked drop in global temperature then. You could also class 2017 as a year with relatively weak solar activity, yet this was the warmest year on record with no El Nino

Next we have had the period of 'high'  sun-spot activity from 2013 to 2016 which had no SSW's that I am aware of, and now we start to enter the next solar minimum, which looks like being a very busy period.   As    

low and behold we immediately seem to see  a SSW occurring. Is it coincidence?, or do you think that instead the thing that has  changed is that we have moved from a CO2 levels of 402 - 407 during the period, and that this is more important?

Again see above SSW events have occurred both during solar maximums and minimums... not sure why you are getting hung up on it.

Now I do not know what caused these effects, but I suggest nor do you.
It's a relatively new area of science but the paper I have linked shows that the date of the SSW events bears no pattern, especially in relation to solar activity. Or did you choose not to read it?

 So my feeling is that it should not be introduced  into the MOD thread in the way you have, when we have a perfectly good means of discussing the effects on here?.

There is next to no evidence linking a SSW to  CO2. Can I suggest even less than I have evidence for any 'solar effect'. But your simple desire is to thrust it down peoples throats. That is really where our differences lay.
My aim is to educate people about climate change, something that is a serious threat to future human wellbeing. In addition meteorology is a hobby of mine and I like to inform and educate people. Too much mis-information is spread about climate change skepticism, usually people with vested interests connected to oil industries who deliberately mislead the general public. Lets not forget the daily express (say when was the last time they got a winter forecast correct?) 

Did you know that when I was 16 I was a climate change skeptic? because I didn't like what I heard, I thought the concept was too depressing. However after going through university I am a firm believer. What does that tell you? Just because we don't like the idea of something that may be happening, doesn't mean we should sweep it under the carpet.

I accept that warming is currently occurring,  but to me  it is currently not proven that the whole of the warming that has occurred in the last 200 years  is caused by CO2. Other effects are clearly present. 

97% of scientists disagree with you. They have spent so much time learning about their subject. Why reject what so many scientists say? Expert opinion is the best we have got.

MIA

Edited by Quicksilver1989
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Well how refreshing quicksilver!

Sadly the paid deniers and their obedient malcontents have taken away any chance of missing the worst of this climate shift we are engaged in. The best we can hope is to be on the ball with changes we ought to expect? Mitigation is the best gift we have to offer?

If we foresee a rapid shift/alteration in our climate patterns in the N.Hemisphere, from the top down, then we can better prepare for the impacts of such?

As I've said the forcings from The loss of Arctic sea ice cover have been small and unbalanced so far but when the losses to the West meet with the losses to the East then the geographic pole will be the centre of the effect?

If I am correct in my fears then we will see a very different circulation around the hemisphere over the late autumn/early winter?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl
  • Weather Preferences: Sun, Snow and Storms
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl

Q...

 

I am sorry for the confusing bit in the middle.

I composed a long note which somehow got deleted and I had thought that I had explained something already.

My points are that -

1) 50years when the temperature has been reasonably stable is not along enough period of time to draw any conclusions on affects of SSW's as it is perfectly obvious that SSW's occurred during the last 500 years, and were indeed probably more numerous judging by the climate at the time in Europe..   

2) Your assumptions that the PV has always sat over Greenland and North Canada is incorrect.  Recent studies have shown that the Arctic oscillation has moved around (even reversed) at frequent intervals as the home of the PV has moved around.. This as a result of bio samples in the Arctic.

3)The CET during the mini ice age was about 6.8C to 7.0C, at its coldest (late 17th century). This increased to a level of about 7.0 -7.2 C, in a recovery back to more normal climatic conditions (for the period).. After a colder decade 1720 to 1730 the temperature suddenly 'rocketed' to an average of well over 10.0C..  (max 10.89C max from memory)   

This  averaged about 10.3 - 10.5C for the decade  of 1730 to 1740. Now to me that needs explaining in terms of natural changes. It was a much greater change (2.5 - 3.5C ) than anything you can claim from CO2 induced warning (0.9C  -1.1C) in the last 150 years. Where in general terms the  CET has kept in the range of 9.5C to 11.0,C with just less than 11.0C as a maximum.

In your reply you have completely skipped over the point as to why Europe was so much colder in that period.   What caused that - was it your CO2? Or just perhaps it was a natural effect (Heaven forbid!)  

The large changes  in the past  may well be explained by the winter Jet stream. But isn't that what has been affecting the CET for the last 50years? So why is all the warming suddenly being prescribed as being caused by CO2, when a greater degree of warming has occurred in the past, with the same symptoms?

The 1730-1740 period represents a massive increase in a very short period of time. Its like has not been seen since.

What caused that increase? You have not addressed that point  and explained why it is not relevant todays climate, hence you cannot claim that CO2 is the only climate controlling factor to todays situation..

4) The next  point is that you have rambled on about Volcano and its effects, when I  had already removed them from my discussion. They must clearly be removed from any discussion on the long term effects of CO2. Again your post does not address the issue but simply gives the CO2 bible response.  I have already made the same point in my posting..

You should read the whole piece (as I have done)  before replying.

 

5) The Lockwood  graph/report does not address  the point I was making at all.

I am not talking about the flux (which is linked to the solar insolation) as I thought I had clearly explained but the high energy particles which have caused the aurora and the high energy particles. An uplift of more than 25% was detected  by radio-sonde data in the States last year. These particles affect the Stratosphere and upper Troposphere, producing aurora and interference of radio signal data. A lot of research work has just started  looking at the effects of these particles and energy into the formation and seeding of high level clouds, and which indirectly affect the Climate. 

Again I had assumed that I had explained clearly the differences of the spectra that hits the earth, but it was clearly in the other deleted post. I have no problems with the infra red range of the spectrum in which the  GCM's deal   and it is correct, but if you compare the sunspots then there is a complete compliance. I am trying to get you to realise that high energy emitting from the sun shows a better fit with our colder winters. The flux chart you show does  not show this compliance (as you  state) and so is totally irrelevant to this discussion. 

A graph of sun spots against the CET will be the one you should be showing if you wish to convince.

I have just had a message that I have to restart my PC. Maybe my deleted message of previous was the culprit!!

See you again soon!

MIA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Hessle
  • Weather Preferences: Cold Snowy Winters, Hot Thundery Summers
  • Location: Hessle

I am sorry for the confusing bit in the middle.

I composed a long note which somehow got deleted and I had thought that I had explained something already.

My points are that -

1) 50years when the temperature has been reasonably stable is not along enough period of time to draw any conclusions on affects of SSW's as it is perfectly obvious that SSW's occurred during the last 500 years, and were indeed probably more numerous judging by the climate at the time in Europe..   

Has global temperature been stable over the last 50 years? Have another look and I'm really struggling to understand why you keep thinking SSW is tied into global effects when it is not linked to global temperatures.

2) Your assumptions that the PV has always sat over Greenland and North Canada is incorrect.  Recent studies have shown that the Arctic oscillation has moved around (even reversed) at frequent intervals as the home of the PV has moved around.. This as a result of bio samples in the Arctic.

How can the arctic oscillation move around? It is often a measure of SLP or some other similar relevant measure. You can't have an antarctic oscillation in the arctic so I think you are describing magnetic pole reversals but in a very abstract and confusing way.

3)The CET during the mini ice age was about 6.8C to 7.0C, at its coldest (late 17th century). This increased to a level of about 7.0 -7.2 C, in a recovery back to more normal climatic conditions (for the period).. After a colder decade 1720 to 1730 the temperature suddenly 'rocketed' to an average of well over 10.0C..  (max 10.89C max from memory)   

You are exaggerating some of the values here. Look at the annual CET graph

Image result for cet series graph
The CET during the mini ice age was at its very lowest producing annual averages of 8.2C then increased to an average of under 10C. The average now is well over 10C as the graph shows. Temperatures since the 1990s have been generally 1C higher then the long term climatological average. 

This  averaged about 10.3 - 10.5C for the decade  of 1730 to 1740. Now to me that needs explaining in terms of natural changes. It was a much greater change (2.5 - 3.5C ) than anything you can claim from CO2 induced warning (0.9C  -1.1C) in the last 150 years. Where in general terms the  CET has kept in the range of 9.5C to 11.0,C with just less than 11.0C as a maximum.

Changes in ocean circulation are the likely factor. Europe was much colder because of apparent changes in ocean circulation. You are taking one small area of the globe and assuming that represents global temperature which is an error.

In your reply you have completely skipped over the point as to why Europe was so much colder in that period.   What caused that - was it your CO2? Or just perhaps it was a natural effect (Heaven forbid!)  

The large changes  in the past  may well be explained by the winter Jet stream. But isn't that what has been affecting the CET for the last 50years? So why is all the warming suddenly being prescribed as being caused by CO2, when a greater degree of warming has occurred in the past, with the same symptoms?

Well probably best to look at the NAO for a simplistic measure of this, it was high in the 1990s and produced milder extended winters, the NAO in the 2000s hasn't been that high yet a lot of the winters were mild, warmer SSTs likely? Less cold pooling over the continent? Probably a combination of both and a warmer arctic with less sea ice. Outside of Summer for example atmospheric circulation is weaker so why are these months warming too?

The 1730-1740 period represents a massive increase in a very short period of time. Its like has not been seen since.

What caused that increase? You have not addressed that point  and explained why it is not relevant todays climate, hence you cannot claim that CO2 is the only climate controlling factor to todays situation..

Discussed to some extent above. The UK climate has its uncertainties. For example if the AMOC slowed down winters would be far colder because of our latitude. The jet stream acts as a great moderator by distributing warm water from the tropics to mid latitudes. If you cut that off you simply change the way heat is distributed across the planet. The Greenhouse effect though means more heat is trapped in the atmosphere with increasing CO2 emissions.

4) The next  point is that you have rambled on about Volcano and its effects, when I  had already removed them from my discussion. They must clearly be removed from any discussion on the long term effects of CO2. Again your post does not address the issue but simply gives the CO2 bible response.  I have already made the same point in my posting..

I have read the whole piece thanks, reading is what I do a lot of in my profession. What point are you trying to make here?

You should read the whole piece (as I have done)  before replying.

 

5) The Lockwood  graph/report does not address  the point I was making at all.

I am not talking about the flux (which is linked to the solar insolation) as I thought I had clearly explained but the high energy particles which have caused the aurora and the high energy particles. An uplift of more than 25% was detected  by radio-sonde data in the States last year. These particles affect the Stratosphere and upper Troposphere, producing aurora and interference of radio signal data. A lot of research work has just started  looking at the effects of these particles and energy into the formation and seeding of high level clouds, and which indirectly affect the Climate. 

Huh? You need to link the literature because the way you describe things is very unclear.

Again I had assumed that I had explained clearly the differences of the spectra that hits the earth, but it was clearly in the other deleted post. I have no problems with the infra red range of the spectrum in which the  GCM's deal   and it is correct, but if you compare the sunspots then there is a complete compliance. I am trying to get you to realise that high energy emitting from the sun shows a better fit with our colder winters. The flux chart you show does  not show this compliance (as you  state) and so is totally irrelevant to this discussion. 

A graph of sun spots against the CET will be the one you should be showing if you wish to convince.

Sunspots show almost identical results to the other solar related variable as they are very strongly correlated with one another.
Why just focus on CET when we are discussing global trends. You need to use scientific literature to back up the arguments you make, without them the points you are trying to make are convoluted.

I have just had a message that I have to restart my PC. Maybe my deleted message of previous was the culprit!!

See you again soon!

MIA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yet another 'near record' response forecast for the upcoming SSW? If the reversal stretched beyond 10 days I'm told we should view it as a final warming?

The Canadian limb of the PV split looks like warming itself out of existence so that leaves the smaller eurasian limb to try and reform the PV before sunrise over the Stratosphere and game over?

We saw a very early first warming a few year back did we not?

Are we now seeing a way of breaking the winter Arctic air out of the basin 'before' melt season begins?

We have been seeing measurable changes to the Arctic atmosphere since the end of the 90's as our side of the basin began to carry less and less ice into winter. Just imagine the changes , however time limited? (The PV is time limited?) over the basin from late october through into December? 

A central ,polar area, of ascending warm air?

Where does that go when it hits the strat above?

When does that 'top air' collapse back into the surface?

What weird doughnut of a polar circulation would that drive over those 6 to 8 weeks?

How much WAA would that S to N surface flow introduce into the basin over late Autumn /Early winter ( look at what this recent influx of WAA winter have brought into the basin these past years?) and would that warm/moist flow impact upland Greenland?

The AGW forced 'over excitement' of our atmosphere must surely lead to old conflagrations of forcings now showing some extra 'Ooomph?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl
  • Weather Preferences: Sun, Snow and Storms
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl
On ‎09‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 19:50, Gray-Wolf said:

 

A central ,polar area, of ascending warm air?

Where does that go when it hits the strat above?

When does that 'top air' collapse back into the surface?

 

GW...

An interesting question GW.

Does the  stratosphere simply reflect/rebound all the heat?

Is it just not possible that some of this 'heat' - I see some reports of 20C in the stratosphere (particularly at levels as low as 10hg/m and below), could escape?. Surely this means that, (as been suggested in the other forum), that this will be more easily be radiated  into space, rather than all of it reflected back towards the earth.

It is known that, via OLR, even the pacific loses heat during the extreme periods of Nino, when the temperatures are around 20C at height up there, back into space. It has been confirmed by satellite, measured and is reported. I know/suspect in fact there is always a certain element of this occurring, but this is increased during periods of Nino.   

Over the pole (and even above 80 degrees)  we still have no sunlight and it is known that above the ice surface, the heat is radiated into the 'night sky'. The temperatures around these warmer surface areas are around -30C. What happens when the heat of a massive SSW such as this, reaches the heights above? Severe disturbance I would guess.

The height of the 'atmosphere' in the Arctic is much reduced and this could/should  allow some of the heat to escape?

If you look back in history  (best is the CET record) we can see periods of very low temperatures in Dec/Jan/Feb. (particularly during the period of 1692 to 1698, but by no means exclusively) that can only have occurred from blocking and hence, ( I assume), a very much warmer Arctic. Particularly as most of Europe and the Northern Hemisphere recorded prolonged periods of Easterly  or North easterly winds, and very cold temperatures, at the same time.

I have seen constructions from that time of virtually the whole of the Arctic being engulfed by a huge block, with Mediterranean areas (latitudes) having an elongated area of low pressure.   

What was the net effect of  temperatures at the time? - It was to reduce the annual temperatures. I agree, not permanently, as pretty well afterwards the CET then recorded a massively warm decade from 1730 -1740 - and that is almost as high as those being recorded today!!.   A much larger change (2.2C on a averaged basis)  in 50 years compared to todays change of 1.0C -  (maybe 1.5C on a max basis) - over the last 150 years... 

I would presume/guess that some sort of SSW  was occurring regularly at times at this stage, and then a 'rebound' occurred  to enable that to happen so consistently.

Please explain  how such a strange happening could have occurred. 

The AGW argument will not be complete until these 'strange effects' are explained fully. CO2 was not the cause.

If it is claimed that 'its oceans what did it',  then why did this occur?  It must have been caused by natural processes of some sorts.

The effect of the changes in the CET for the 50years from 1690 to 1740 was a far greater effect than anything we have seen in the last 150 years. You cannot/shouldnot just write off a period of history and assume it is unimportant.

    

On the above point,  coincidently,  I am working on an Excel spreadsheet on the CET data, and I hope to be around later to present the data and  entertain you all.:D

MIA 

 

 

Edited by Midlands Ice Age
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
On 08/02/2018 at 22:30, knocker said:

I'm getting that deja vu feeling all over again GW :)

Yes ill pop in about 2040 and see if I've changed my mind.

Arguments are circular many more years are needed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne
1 minute ago, stewfox said:

Yes ill pop in about 2040 and see if I've changed my mind.

Arguments are circular many more years are needed.

 

Scientific (intended emphasis) discourse is rarely circular, that's the whole point. On the other hand polarized opinion, based on lies, misdirection, and selected 'facts, often is which is why it's no,no in this area.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

 

15 minutes ago, knocker said:

Scientific (intended emphasis) discourse is rarely circular, that's the whole point. On the other hand polarized opinion, based on lies, misdirection, and selected 'facts, often is which is why it's no,no in this area.

Your own 'facts' you refer to are 'likely' concepts .. so lets let others 'debate' the likely causes

As I said by 2040 we should have a better idea.

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

The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), also discusses the relationship between human-caused climate change and various types of extreme weather events.  For example, the SREX says:

"It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level."

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Hessle
  • Weather Preferences: Cold Snowy Winters, Hot Thundery Summers
  • Location: Hessle

If you look back in history  (best is the CET record) we can see periods of very low temperatures in Dec/Jan/Feb. (particularly during the period of 1692 to 1698, but by no means exclusively) that can only have occurred from blocking and hence, ( I assume), a very much warmer Arctic. Particularly as most of Europe and the Northern Hemisphere recorded prolonged periods of Easterly  or North easterly winds, and very cold temperatures, at the same time.

So somehow 6 cold years in the UK has some relevance to the argument you are making? You are assuming that all cold spells in the UK have the same characteristics globally when that simply isn't true. For example compare February 1985 to January 2010, two very cold months across western Europe.


t2anom_arc-lea_1985_d041.png February 1985 - Notice how warmer temperatures are not always widespread across the arctic
t2anom_arc-lea_2010_d001.pngJanuary 2010 - Much more in the way of warmth over the arctic
t2anom_arc-lea_2016_d005.pngJanuary 2016 - Arguably the last month to see some decent cold pooling across Europe...

Some big differences are apparent, in 1985 for example deep cold was more widespread, there was less warmth in equatorial and less extensive warmth over the arctic. In fact with some of the severe cold spells, a blocked arctic is not required. For example, look at this Scandi high in February 1956.

NOAA_1_1956013118_1.png Didn't need a very negative NAO back then for example

The damage to arctic sea ice has arisen from summer warmth and the weakening/melting of multiyear sea ice. Which has helped cause runaway warming in the arctic.

I have seen constructions from that time of virtually the whole of the Arctic being engulfed by a huge block, with Mediterranean areas (latitudes) having an elongated area of low pressure.   

High pressure can be cold based, just look at some of the SLP values that can be seen over Greenland (i.e >1040mb) when cold builds up there. You can still have a -AO and colder then normal temperatures in the arctic if the high is cold based. If we saw much more in the way of 2010 style patterns (warm air pumped into the arctic to fuel the blocking) Greenland would have been exceptionally warm. This was not the case though. Look at Greenland temperatures up to the mid 19th century for example and compare them to 2010...

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/swgreenlandave.dat

Link shows merged monthly temperature over SW Greenland.

What was the net effect of  temperatures at the time? - It was to reduce the annual temperatures. I agree, not permanently, as pretty well afterwards the CET then recorded a massively warm decade from 1730 -1740 - and that is almost as high as those being recorded today!!.   A much larger change (2.2C on a averaged basis)  in 50 years compared to todays change of 1.0C -  (maybe 1.5C on a max basis) - over the last 150 years... 

Again CET is just a small region of the world... it doesn't represent the global picture does it?

I would presume/guess that some sort of SSW  was occurring regularly at times at this stage, and then a 'rebound' occurred  to enable that to happen so consistently.

SSW events would have happened frequently over time yes but like I said earlier what relevance does this have to global temperatures?

Please explain  how such a strange happening could have occurred. 

The AGW argument will not be complete until these 'strange effects' are explained fully. CO2 was not the cause.

So an incoherent argument about SSW events suddenly disregards the hugely convincing evidence of climate change? Something that 97% of scientists agree on. Should the Greenhouse effect theory, the unparalleled speed of global warming over the last 150 years, the extreme arctic sea ice loss, massive coral bleaching etc be ignored? I think not

If it is claimed that 'its oceans what did it',  then why did this occur?  It must have been caused by natural processes of some sorts.

The effect of the changes in the CET for the 50years from 1690 to 1740 was a far greater effect than anything we have seen in the last 150 years. You cannot/shouldnot just write off a period of history and assume it is unimportant.

But the warmth we are seeing is above anything else previously seen.

Stewfox


It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level

This is looking at extreme temperatures. Clearly an extreme weather pattern will cause extreme temperature anomalies but natural variability of weather patterns will also play apart in the recording of some of the extreme temperature values. Again as I mentioned earlier weather is essentially a dice but climate change is meaning the dice is becoming loaded. However distinguishing between an individual extreme weather event because of climate change or natural variability is a difficult process. Once we see unprecedented individual weather events, that is the point were I can say an extreme is climate change driven.

It is the trend and frequency what counts and the loaded dice is essentially driving the increase in global temperatures. A dice that is becoming increasingly loaded. On a local scale the UK may see severe cold spells and probably will do again. But globally the picture is clear because of the loaded dice. Which is why the IPCC AR5 concluded in a global context:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

The trend is clear now, why wait until 2040?

Edited by Quicksilver1989
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
39 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Once we see unprecedented individual weather events, that is the point were I can say an extreme is climate change driven.
 

For me I've called the increase of F numbered tornado's as my measure Deniers cannot ignore?

We do have the largest number of vortices forming here in NW Europe/N.Italy but they are poor and rarely make more than a funnel before dissipating?

Increasing energy in the atmosphere must surely see such vortices also increase in vigour? 

When the British public see the first major twister outbreak maybe then they'll see more than just 'weather'? 

Unlike the midwest any outbreak that travels any distance will hit population centres and we've seen what 'freak' tornado's have do in the past so imagine what a multiple tornado outbreak will bring?

It will also give folk a taste of what it is like to 'fear' the weather ( as we do in multiple flood hit areas?) and not just marvel at it?

The odds favour southern Britain for such outbreaks so that'll be better for us up north?

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
×
×
  • Create New...