|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 13, 2015 2:21:31 GMT
The cold water isn't suppose to sink. Being it isn't suppose to sink there is mo momentum to drive the currents.
Remember, models Trump observation.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 13, 2015 2:52:04 GMT
The cold water isn't suppose to sink. Being it isn't suppose to sink there is mo momentum to drive the currents. Remember, models Trump observation. This water could be doing a "Houdini"! It appears to be rising? Must be a mirage!
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 14, 2015 16:50:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 14, 2015 17:18:15 GMT
The cold water isn't suppose to sink. Being it isn't suppose to sink there is mo momentum to drive the currents. Remember, models Trump observation. The nature of the freezing process will always send dense cold water down the sloping underwater shoreline to the depths of the ocean where it will displace water where it can flow out of the basis. If you look at the bottom of the sea near greenland you will see it slopes continually deeper all the way to the gulf of mexico where the water is 4C
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 14, 2015 17:23:16 GMT
I like his site ... I've added it to my bookmarks. Opinion questions. Weather Underground weather station time series. They claim to have 100,000+ independent weather stations. I did a quick check for my town versus the NOAA records for the first few days in September. No difference. HOW OFTEN does Weather Underground use Met temperature data versus other (unfair question probably)? Do you (OR OTHERS) have a strong opinion on the reliability (politically unadjusted nature) of their data? Have you found an online source for MET data time series for European weather stations? similar to data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ GISS surface temperature station data?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 14, 2015 17:52:00 GMT
I like his site ... I've added it to my bookmarks. Opinion questions. Weather Underground weather station time series. They claim to have 100,000+ independent weather stations. I did a quick check for my town versus the NOAA records for the first few days in September. No difference. HOW OFTEN does Weather Underground use Met temperature data versus other (unfair question probably)? Do you (OR OTHERS) have a strong opinion on the reliability (politically unadjusted nature) of their data? Have you found an online source for MET data time series for European weather stations? similar to data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ GISS surface temperature station data? I might track down my local station...its only a couple of miles away, and try and speak to the owners.....see how they feel about their data..
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 14, 2015 20:09:18 GMT
I like his site ... I've added it to my bookmarks. Opinion questions. Weather Underground weather station time series. They claim to have 100,000+ independent weather stations. I did a quick check for my town versus the NOAA records for the first few days in September. No difference. HOW OFTEN does Weather Underground use Met temperature data versus other (unfair question probably)? Do you (OR OTHERS) have a strong opinion on the reliability (politically unadjusted nature) of their data? Have you found an online source for MET data time series for European weather stations? similar to data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ GISS surface temperature station data? I might track down my local station...its only a couple of miles away, and try and speak to the owners.....see how they feel about their data.. Thanks! Reason I'm asking is I've just finished compiling 1997-2015 monthly mean temps from Weather Underground for several European coastal weather stations which I'm going to post under "A History of Climate Bordering the North Atlantic" with comparisons to the various ocean time series and GISS surface temp data. Would be nice to know if "Wunder" is really independent or if it just copies the Met. If I could find a Met data site (that I didn't have to key enter), I could probably answer that question quickly as well.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 14, 2015 21:00:40 GMT
On the face of it I think wunder is independent. ...think I'll pass this local site on thurs....i'll check it out.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 14, 2015 22:50:44 GMT
On the face of it I think wunder is independent. ...think I'll pass this local site on thurs....i'll check it out. Site? Is it a weather station? Owners? Is it a private concern?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 15, 2015 5:05:58 GMT
I expect it'll be a private 'off the shelf' rig.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 15, 2015 5:22:06 GMT
I expect it'll be a private 'off the shelf' rig. Get a photo ....
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 15, 2015 9:10:33 GMT
Ok
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 15, 2015 20:35:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 16, 2015 2:35:39 GMT
One of the comments to the paper followed by Lief's link to Solar EUV Reconstruction paper. Peter Taylor September 15, 2015 at 11:01 am You read it first in my ‘Chill:a reassessment of global warming theory (2009)’! One – that UV light variability would eventually be found responsible for correlations to solar cycles; Two – there would be a link to ocean oscillations (the counter-theory being some kind of internal stochastic resonance dynamic). Note however that this group assume solar UV will continue much as before….I doubt this. There are longer term cycles that may also be the result of UV flux and hence longer term solar variability (cycles). The changes in circulation that they talk about can result in blocking high pressure systems – there has been one in the North Pacific for more than a year now, probably responsible for the Californian drought and current global high temperatures (with help also from ENSO). A similar block in the North Atlantic in winter will lead to deep cold in western Europe. There is a real potential now for global cooling in the next three years – as ENSO fades, as the pressure system in the North Pacific shifts, and a North Atlantic block builds up – and all this coincident with a declining solar cycle and low UV flux and negative AMO (which may be linked) – which will mean that the ‘pause’ is not only extended, but cooling evident from the year 2000 onward to at least 2018 and most likely 2030 if the next solar cycle is also low (as I suspect it will be). Reply lsvalgaard September 15, 2015 at 11:31 am We have a pretty good idea about what solar EUV variation has been the past 2.5 centuries: www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1740-2015.pdf
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 16, 2015 4:07:31 GMT
|
|