|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 18, 2014 12:05:33 GMT
Graywolf: How much of the warming is human caused? Dr Masters neglects to tell us a quantified number.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Apr 18, 2014 19:45:18 GMT
Don't we all agree on the amount of warming that has occurred since 1850? I thought that it was this rise that had us all nattering about future impacts as the extra CO2 continues to impact and more and more is added into the mix? If we take it that human action changing the atmosphere leads to all the warming no matter if it is Direct GHG impacts or albedo changes etc?
As I have said on a number of occasions now I have real concerns that the switch back to natural cycles augmenting AGW forcing will lead to not only a greater rate of warming than the last warming spurt (76' thru 97'?) but also unleash a rapid climate shift due to the loss of summer ice across the Arctic. Should all the research linked to at the base of the Masters piece prove to be accurate in the impacts of the loss of 50% of the ice for 5 or so weeks of the year then what would 100% ice free for 8 to 10 weeks drive?( remember the changes we have seen since 07' have been whilst under natural forcings that 'dampened' the AGW impacts so we can expect a more rigorous expression under rapid warming similar to the 76'/97' period).
Should the Nino also serve as the switch point from Cool Natural drivers into Warm natural drivers then we ought be expecting a rapid intensification of extreme weather events around the world.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 18, 2014 20:51:35 GMT
Should the Nino also serve as the switch point from Cool Natural drivers into Warm natural drivers then we ought be expecting a rapid intensification of extreme weather events around the world. Expect? Do you have anything at all in the form of peer reviewed science that scientifically and quantitatively supports that point of view? Or are we hanging a thumb in the air and guessing at the direction of future extreme events?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 18, 2014 21:52:30 GMT
Graywolf: Trying to make heads or tails out of your post in regards to warming.
You are asserting that all the warming since 1850 is human induced?
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Apr 19, 2014 1:09:41 GMT
Don't we all agree on the amount of warming that has occurred since 1850? I thought that it was this rise that had us all nattering about future impacts as the extra CO2 continues to impact and more and more is added into the mix? If we take it that human action changing the atmosphere leads to all the warming no matter if it is Direct GHG impacts or albedo changes etc? Should the Nino also serve as the switch point from Cool Natural drivers into Warm natural drivers then we ought be expecting a rapid intensification of extreme weather events around the world. Expect? Do you have anything at all in the form of peer reviewed science that scientifically and quantitatively supports that point of view? Or are we hanging a thumb in the air and guessing at the direction of future extreme events? atm the earth it's self produces more c02 per yr than man could in 20 yrs . extra co2 would only mean better plant growth it does not mean anything else (well short term) long term the earth would counter balance this .. it has done for millions of yrs .. and is doing right now .. there will be no nino it's another play buy government .. there is far to much cold in the oceans atm to even think it .. and even if it did by some 1000/1 chance occur it would be short lived .. we are going cold .. wether in 2 yrs or 5 it's happening ..
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 19, 2014 3:50:43 GMT
I think there will be an El Nino, but not the "super", whatever that is, El Nino.
A rather weak one, and very hopefully not followed by a La Nina very soon.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 19, 2014 4:46:11 GMT
I think there will be an El Nino, but not the "super", whatever that is, El Nino. A rather weak one, and very hopefully not followed by a La Nina very soon. Rethinking Astromet's predictions, quite possibly he is on to something. We are on a track of tying the record length El Nino hiatus. But the record El Nino hiatus is only 50 months. The record La Nina hiatus is 88 months. And the 50 month level has been exceeded 5 times in the 64 year ENSO record by La Nina breaks. Could be we are due for a longer El Nino hiatus. And without an El Nino rebound effect, Astromet could be right that we will not have a La Nina or El Nino until solar minimum. Almost assurdedly we will see some ENSO seasonal anomalies over the next 6 years but we might fall short of getting 5 consecutive overlapping ones to make for an official ENSO event. With virtually no skill in the spring the models aren't any help and it might well be that due to natural ocean fluctuations the models may be due for some adjustments with their forecasts this summer as well. If you think about it, its really only ever been the astrometeorologists that hold a decent reputation (everywhere but in the world of scientists) in this area of speculation. If it means anything we are seeing some non-El Nino like indicators evolving here on the westcoast in April. Thats after a strong El Nino progression in the first quarter.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 19, 2014 11:17:39 GMT
This is all pattern matching and wiggle watching. It has only been possible to measure the effects of PDO and ENSO for a few decades yet we already see 'scientists' making linear projections through the patterns or statistical analyses based on very few cycles. Does anyone really think that the chaotic ocean is that simple? As an analogy, they have seen 3 waves hit the beach and they are forecasting the next 1000 waves and water level rise/fall - yet with no knowledge of tides let alone neap and spring tides. I think that the PDO and ENSO are emergent behaviors from multiple oscillations some of which move incredibly slowly such as Rossby waves. See this presentation on Rossby Waves (careful your head will hurt trying to follow the maths. However, the quote on Baroclinic Rossby waves " For the North Pacific, approximately 104 km wide, this wave would take about 20 years to cross the basin" What if there is an interference pattern between Rossby waves with this type perodicity? The frequency could be several multiples of '20 years'. These waves move so slowly they may not easily be sensed yet their effect could be varying upwelling/downwelling at decadal timescales. People trying to use simple statistics looking back just a few years will always be wrong. Trying to do linear projections on the chaotic interplay of these waves and currents is foolish. This is the reason that forecasting what is happening is only possible when it is actually happening (some forecast!!). I think that we will only ever be able to agree on what has happened when the full interplay of these Rossby and Kelvin waves with the various Thermohaline currents is understood, and I don't see that happening as people seen to be happier wiggle watching and pattern matching despite their continual prediction failures. As an addition - a simpler paper on Kelvin and Rossby waves
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 20, 2014 13:39:07 GMT
The colder plume of water off South America has dispersed in the past week or so.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Apr 20, 2014 16:53:51 GMT
Here are the equatorial SST anomalies from April 9 as shown in the NOAA April 14 update. Here are the forecast average equatorial STS anomalies for May-June-July also from the April 14 update (NCEP CFS.v2 Forecast). Note the color coding is a little different. To make this comparison I had to do some cutting and pasting. Is there a site which compares the present vs forecast directly using the same color code? The prediction as I see it is for the surface waters to slosh to the east which will carry warmer water to the South American coast and push water up and down the coast. This will in turn slow the upwelling of cold water because the water is "piled up" higher than normal. The anomalies at 170E will cool and at 150W the anomalies will rise as the water shifts to the east even though the temperature of the "shifted water" may not change. It will be interesting to see how the April 16 equatorial anomalies change from the April 9 chart.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 20, 2014 22:13:02 GMT
If you look at the link below and the subsurface analysis, where the subsurface positive anomalies hit the surface, one can observe that on March 19 the eastern boundary of the warmest surface anomaly was at 170W, in the subsequent 3 weeks it has actually moved west to 175W. www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdfA lot of smart people try to predict this stuff and the fact is the level of skill during the spring season is essentially zero. What one can surmise is conditions and the time is ripe for an El Nino but history has shown us that does not lend itself in any substantial way to an increased skill in actually predicting one. This figure from the Cliffmass article shows that there is relatively little correlation between temperatures recorded in April and what the temperatures will be in the coming winter. By Jul 1 that correlation goes up many times.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 22, 2014 12:10:42 GMT
Looks like the SOI is going rapidly positive. Bastardi feels a super El Nino is not a possibility with this pressure differential.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 22, 2014 13:38:58 GMT
As everyone knows, or should know, it is difficult to forecast with any confidence an El Nino at this time of year.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Apr 22, 2014 19:05:26 GMT
Graywolf, You said: As I have said on a number of occasions now I have real concerns that the switch back to natural cycles augmenting AGW forcing will lead to not only a greater rate of warming than the last warming spurt (76' thru 97'?) but also unleash a rapid climate shift due to the loss of summer ice across the Arctic. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the absolute failure of every single TESTABLE prediction for AGW doesn't mean that AGW theory has failed. But instead is the result of natural climate cycles overwhelming warming caused by mankind? I know that the CAGW warming supporters said that after five seven ten fifteen seventeen years of zero warming that AGW would be a failed theory. Is there a new prediction? What is it? twenty years? Fifty, a hundred? Or maybe we can expect the warming to really take off big time after the next ice age. I missed it, just exactly when are we all supposed to fry now? I know that Uncle Sammy is frantically cooking the books, and has thus far managed to mask the current COOLING, but in some cases they have been forced to "adjust" temperature records up to 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Data from January this year. Let me tell you, it was much easier for them to cool the 1930s and 1940s without many people noticing, but let me tell you. Everyone has noticed that this winter was not as warm as claimed. Forget the Arctic being ice free this year, people are hoping the Great Lakes will be ice free this year. This years possible El Nino might happen later this year, but right now, the heat isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 24, 2014 3:16:13 GMT
Crap, the more folks keep talking about this "super" El Nino, the less chance of it happening.
Things are not setting up correctly for this one now...troublesome.
|
|