|
|
Post by steve on May 21, 2010 13:51:35 GMT
Did The W. coast of South America experience a dry El Nino this time? I think you are driving at something, but am not sure what. But I believe that precipitation in some parts of the high Andes is anti-correlated with precipitation at the coasts, so I don't know whether conclusions can be drawn based on the usual expectation of El Niño coastal wet weather. I just googled around and found this for example from Feb 24th: |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 21, 2010 14:15:14 GMT
Harold,
A sincere answer then, would be that since temperatures have risen by less than half a degree in my lifetime, I am not qualified to identify localised warming anywhere other than my own country. What I can do is compare claims and counterclaims about receding glaciers and so forth with other people's observations at the few places where I've been.
I think the cherries have been harvested, not picked.
You are covering a lot of bases with that statement. Much of the warming since the LIA is CO2 induced, so much of the melt is CO2 induced. You are cherry picking an individual glacier, but recently, most of them have been melting. Initial data from GRACE is now confirming loss of ice mass from Greenland, and both West and East Antarctic Ice sheet. Those are big cherries!
I'm merely reporting that what I heard was potential confirmation of the article about Andes microclimates. If I were uncomfortable about that I wouldn't have said it.
I've thought about your question a bit more, and I've realised that I don't experience "unprecedented warming" because I avoid going on holiday in high summer as I don't like the heat or paying for peak-season flights.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 21, 2010 15:22:18 GMT
You are covering a lot of bases with that statement. Much of the warming since the LIA is CO2 induced LOL! I can't imagine a better argument for increasing emissions than that! Initial data from GRACE is now confirming loss of ice mass from Greenland, and both West and East Antarctic Ice sheet. Those are big cherries! Since data has a hard time talking or writing initial reports, what you mean to say is "initial interpretation of data". Considering who heads these studies and their track records I can say perhaps the only thing I have less confidence in than a "full interpretation of data" coming from those sources is an "initial interpretation of data". When you visited the U.S. recently I believe you witnessed colder-than-normal conditions in the Rockies for the season, and your description of your guide being "shocked by the cold" in the Andes seemed like more of the same. This prompted me to ask whether you have witnessed firsthand worrisome warming, and I take from your response that the question made you uncomfortable. Harold I'm merely reporting that what I heard was potential confirmation of the article about Andes microclimates. If I were uncomfortable about that I wouldn't have said it. I've thought about your question a bit more, and I've realised that I don't experience "unprecedented warming" because I avoid going on holiday in high summer as I don't like the heat or paying for peak-season flights.[/quote] Yeah and he doesn't work outdoors either! Happily and permanently ensconced in a air conditioned ivory tower that he commutes to daily in an air conditioned car from an air conditioned abode, with an occasional side trip to an air conditioned store. So it makes sense holidays would also target the 68-72 degree season as well. I understand that well as my wife drives me batty with it except she will also accept Hawaii with 79 degree days and a nice sea breeze to keep her from overheating. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 21, 2010 15:35:35 GMT
nautonnier, You are forgetting that the tropical Andes have both dry seasons and wet seasons. Not at all - almost all the tropical areas have dry and wet seasons. And the air can be drier than normal in the wet season. The last time I was in Chile, 2 years ago Santiago had snow on the streets apparently a rare event. The atmosphere is not a nice simple mathematical model it can be humid at low level and dry at height. Or to put it in your words above: "But I believe that precipitation in some parts of the high Andes is anti-correlated with precipitation at the coasts".  |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 21, 2010 16:05:30 GMT
icefisher
Well something is causing sea levels to rise by 3mm per year. Or maybe you don't believe that either (sigh!).
I live in Devon. We don't have aircon buildings in Devon!
nautonnier,
You're just repeating my point. My original observation was about why the dry season is cold. You appeared to extrapolate that to mean the wet season was also drier and/or colder. I don't know whether it is or isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 21, 2010 16:28:56 GMT
nautonnier, You are forgetting that the tropical Andes have both dry seasons and wet seasons. Not at all - almost all the tropical areas have dry and wet seasons. And the air can be drier than normal in the wet season. The last time I was in Chile, 2 years ago Santiago had snow on the streets apparently a rare event. The atmosphere is not a nice simple mathematical model it can be humid at low level and dry at height. Or to put it in your words above: "But I believe that precipitation in some parts of the high Andes is anti-correlated with precipitation at the coasts". Yep! And what are all our temperature records? One elevation, one humidity, can't find the missing heat which says one of two things, both of which are probably true the heat does not exist and our monitoring system is inadequate to tell us with certainty. Spencer has this chart:  Hmmmm, puzzling! Lets see this chart tells us maybe a whole bunch of things that stirs the pot. 1. More than CO2 heat is missing. 2. Fewer clouds from less atmospheric heat content? 3. But then how is it cooling (or not warming if you will)? Is the Svensmark theory just another variable in a complex system. 4. Fewer clouds more absorption of sunlight into the melting of ice. 5. Clear nights sending gobs of heat into space. 6. Why are the oceans cooling if they are absorbing more light? 7. Is there a different mix in cloud patterns? 8. Is the satellite data interpretation wrong? There are mysteries here that need real solving before concluding on anything. We should start with actually measuring heat content and going back through weather records and reconstructing an open and transparent heat content record to the extent possible realizing that not only is this issue another dimension up in all directions from surface temperature measurement. Then after we have that consider again putting bucks into building models based upon what we learn. The thermometer-based model is just not cutting it. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 21, 2010 19:17:53 GMT
With negative feedback by increased cloud cover wouldn't you expect more reflected sunlight as the world warms in order to compensate for the warming?
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 21, 2010 22:41:23 GMT
A lot of things that SHOULD be if significant CO2 forcing is occurring are not happening. There are two obvious explanations for this...
Either the climatologists don't know what the heck they're talking about...or something else (like say...long term ocean/wind currents causing moisture/energy balance issues) is causing the bulk of the changes. Since CO2's supposed "forcing" is only the first step in working out the entirely different and ever-decreasing greenhouse effect...we shouldn't have EVER expected the supposed 3.7 watt forcing as any indication of what we'll see on the ground for a doubling of CO2.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 25, 2010 5:23:19 GMT
A lot of things that SHOULD be if significant CO2 forcing is occurring are not happening. There are two obvious explanations for this... Either the climatologists don't know what the heck they're talking about...or something else (like say...long term ocean/wind currents causing moisture/energy balance issues) is causing the bulk of the changes. Since CO2's supposed "forcing" is only the first step in working out the entirely different and ever-decreasing greenhouse effect...we shouldn't have EVER expected the supposed 3.7 watt forcing as any indication of what we'll see on the ground for a doubling of CO2. Indeed! An explanation was needed for the previous 30 years (11 years ago). CO2 was picked and then proxy records were used to calculate forcing and feedbacks to fit. Answers were seen to fit. Pronouncements were made that CO2 forcing had overcome the range of natural variation, statements that themselves establish as a lie that the models expected for there to be periods of no warming. Unprecedented warming rates were predicted to follow unprecedented warming rates. The climatologists had disregarded ocean oscillations as weather and failed to appreciate their robustness. Seems to me what we have is a very complicated system with multiple influences. Indeed CO2 is likely one of them but it certainly appears that CO2 is just along for the ride and isn't an important factor. Actually kind of disappointing. LA county average beach weather would be a lot better with about 6 more degrees F putting it in the low 80's for peak summer and moving up mid winter lows to almost 60 degrees. |
|
