|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 5, 2015 17:39:32 GMT
Icefosher: There are much larger dynamics at play in regards to Arctic Ice and jet stream placement. I have to agree with Trenbeth that Francis idea is weak at best.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 5, 2015 21:26:43 GMT
Graywolf, did you read the transcript you referenced? Could you provide the quote from Ms. Curry which says "any 'hiatus' cannot last 20yrs or more" or a quote similar to that?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 6, 2015 3:04:21 GMT
sadly it me that made the chili for my lovely I'm about to sit down to eat? Yes some areas, the arctic/antarctic peninsula will see massive change where other places will see little in the way of temp rises? It is what the prone areas disproportionate change will mean to mankind that is the issue here/ Graywolf: But.............we already know that some areas are going to see radical change. It is a repeat performance of past events and there isn't a dog gone thing mankind can do about this. Do we contribute to the change? Most likely. Can we halt the change? Nope, not a chance of a snowball in a hot spot. Have we presently observed radical change? Nope. Even during this period, the Holocene, the Arctic has been ice free in the summer. The WP of Antarctica is slower to develop, but during every interglacial that sucker has melted away. In fact, most of Greenlands ice sheets have melted away. That is why there is such a small area that ice cores can go back 120,000 years. And no further because there was NO ice to core. No one can still explain the virtually identical temp rise of the early 20th Century as experienced in the latter 20th Century. How one can surmise that the later 20th century is purely CO2 induced, when just a few decades previous the same thing happened is beyond me, and I should think beyond anyone who thinks scientifically, and rationally at the same time. It is now well established that both the LIA and the MWP were world wide events. Much to the dismay of some folks. Which I don't get, why complain when proxy data firmly establishes past reality? It is as it is, not some dream world. I live in an area that has excellent proxy bases. I can tell you with 100% certainty that ND was 2.0-2.5C warmer during the MWP than the present average temperatures. That will be a high bar to exceed, even WITH the help of CO2. Will it happen? Who knows? But the thing is.......it happened. And NO one can tell me WHY it happened. Ideas? Sigurdur Have you run across any references to proxy research on temperature and precipitation patterns during the Little Ice Age applicable to my area of the mid-west (mid-Missouri just north of the Missouri River)? I have found some very general references to shorter growing seasons and drought for this period in the general geographic area. Any sources would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 6, 2015 6:59:49 GMT
Icefosher: There are much larger dynamics at play in regards to Arctic Ice and jet stream placement. I have to agree with Trenbeth that Francis idea is weak at best. Hopefully you have more reasons to agree with Trenberth than the fact Trenberth disagrees. Heat entering the atmosphere is responsible for almost all weather. Saying its sufficient to change the course of the jetstream is one thing, saying its not is probably more difficult because as in the case of global warming you are left to come up with something else to explain it. We would still have that same problem with CO2 if it had not stopped warming.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 6, 2015 9:15:52 GMT
So JMA are the first to put out 2014 rankings having it warmest on record ( above the Super nino year of 98'). how can a bog standard ENSO neutral year best a Super nino year??? And how can the past two Nina's be the warmest such events ever recorded when buried deep in this supposed 'slow down' in atmospheric temp rises???
2015 is already shaping up to be an interesting year? Watching the Sea ice melt out in Bering over the first three days of Jan seems to underscore this ( never mind the stall in extent since Dec 25th..... lowest on record by Sat?)
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jan 6, 2015 11:54:09 GMT
ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.phpArctic seems to be very cold. Graywolf, perhaps the loss of ice to which you allude is due to storms etc? Also, I have a horrible feeling that open water anywhere near the Arctic in January is a very good way for the planet to net lose heat really quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 6, 2015 13:01:00 GMT
ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.phpArctic seems to be very cold. Graywolf, perhaps the loss of ice to which you allude is due to storms etc? Also, I have a horrible feeling that open water anywhere near the Arctic in January is a very good way for the planet to net lose heat really quickly. Agree Doug.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 6, 2015 13:13:28 GMT
Graywolf: But.............we already know that some areas are going to see radical change. It is a repeat performance of past events and there isn't a dog gone thing mankind can do about this. Do we contribute to the change? Most likely. Can we halt the change? Nope, not a chance of a snowball in a hot spot. Have we presently observed radical change? Nope. Even during this period, the Holocene, the Arctic has been ice free in the summer. The WP of Antarctica is slower to develop, but during every interglacial that sucker has melted away. In fact, most of Greenlands ice sheets have melted away. That is why there is such a small area that ice cores can go back 120,000 years. And no further because there was NO ice to core. No one can still explain the virtually identical temp rise of the early 20th Century as experienced in the latter 20th Century. How one can surmise that the later 20th century is purely CO2 induced, when just a few decades previous the same thing happened is beyond me, and I should think beyond anyone who thinks scientifically, and rationally at the same time. It is now well established that both the LIA and the MWP were world wide events. Much to the dismay of some folks. Which I don't get, why complain when proxy data firmly establishes past reality? It is as it is, not some dream world. I live in an area that has excellent proxy bases. I can tell you with 100% certainty that ND was 2.0-2.5C warmer during the MWP than the present average temperatures. That will be a high bar to exceed, even WITH the help of CO2. Will it happen? Who knows? But the thing is.......it happened. And NO one can tell me WHY it happened. Ideas? Sigurdur Have you run across any references to proxy research on temperature and precipitation patterns during the Little Ice Age applicable to my area of the mid-west (mid-Missouri just north of the Missouri River)? I have found some very general references to shorter growing seasons and drought for this period in the general geographic area. Any sources would be appreciated. There was a paper published a few years ago concerning North America. What you indicate is what my memory agrees with. The author was a fellow from Ontario. Remind me during the weekend and I will see if I can find it.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 6, 2015 13:17:28 GMT
That sounds somewhat unlikely. I think perhaps someone has carried out a poor C->F conversion
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 6, 2015 15:27:03 GMT
Graywolf, did you read the transcript you referenced? Could you provide the quote from Ms. Curry which says "any 'hiatus' cannot last 20yrs or more" or a quote similar to that? Graywolf, if Dr. Curry expresses a belief that the ‘hiatus’ will not last more than 20 years as you stated, then that is real news. She is very knowledgeable and from what I’ve seen she argues on the basis of science rather than bias as is so often the case in the climate science community. However, I was quite certain your statement was wrong. Because of its importance, I felt it appropriate to take the time to check the veracity. Here is a post from Dr. Curry’s website written about the time of the article you posted. Link to Curry blogI’d recommend that you read the entire post, but in it she includes these 2 pertinent statements. 1) For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature, which has been referred to as a ‘hiatus’ in global warming. 2) The ‘hiatus’ will continue at least another decade. (if you believe in the importance of natural internal variability as Dr. Curry does.) That makes a minimum total hiatus of more than 25+ years in her view. She believes 30 years is likely. She also makes the point that the hiatus to date pretty much wrecks the idea that the IPCC models are accurate. A 20 year hiatus certainly would clearly destroy the credibility of the models. Her exact statements are: 1) Only 2% of climate model simulations produce trends within the observational uncertainty. 2) Modeled pauses longer than 15 years are rare; the probability of a modeled pause exceeding 20 yrs is vanishing small.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 6, 2015 17:32:37 GMT
Well, you know, the models are more real than reality.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 6, 2015 17:43:48 GMT
A comparison of models and artificial intelligence just struck me, sci-fi often depicts how as we create AI it gain self awareness and subsequently see humans as threat and attempts to neutralise us....what if models gained self awareness and started trying make the weather fit what they predict???......scary......
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 6, 2015 20:31:27 GMT
So JMA are the first to put out 2014 rankings having it warmest on record ( above the Super nino year of 98'). how can a bog standard ENSO neutral year best a Super nino year??? And how can the past two Nina's be the warmest such events ever recorded when buried deep in this supposed 'slow down' in atmospheric temp rises??? 2015 is already shaping up to be an interesting year? Watching the Sea ice melt out in Bering over the first three days of Jan seems to underscore this ( never mind the stall in extent since Dec 25th..... lowest on record by Sat?) Well since we are all really ignorant of what makes for climate change the explanation is most likely ignorance. No question here in Socal we had one of the biggest El Ninos ever. I have never seen the El Nino effects we saw this past year in my lifetime. The fact that El Nino is defined as some postage stamp sized piece of the equatorial pacific its relatively easy to understand how that could be relatively cool while other effects warm the climate. But its all just meaning nothing. If CAGW is real we need to see not a virtual tie for warmest year but a record year by a margin similar or greater than the 1998 record was over its previous record. It makes no sense to look at anything else as natural annual variation is up to and inclusive of the warming of 1998 over nearby previous years. If overall warming was continuing we should expect to see that kind of step up in temperature. In fact all the leading CAGW advocates defined the warming in exactly that manner and predicted we would see similar and greater step ups in temperature within a decade. . . .WRONG!!!
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 6, 2015 22:47:49 GMT
So now we ignore the decades old measure of what is and isn't a Nino because of local weather??? It was a Nono year not a Nino year!!! Now it might be the the worlds oceans have stopped taking heat down deep ( and giving the atmosphere a chance to absorb it) but what happens when you have that AND a release of the heat that was trapped over the past ( apparently) 18 years 3 months??? ( no Nino needed as we saw the past year) ? Lets see how Nino acts this year and how temps fare eh? I know you Guys have whipped the arse off the 98' Super Nino and its impacts on global temps but an ENSO Neutral year has just bested that ( whilst still deep within negative naturals..... unless some ones going to call PDO positive on the strength of the past year of positive figures?). How many ways do you Guys want it eh?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 6, 2015 23:12:36 GMT
Be gentle .... Does this look more like La Nina than El Nino?
|
|