|
Post by glennkoks on Jul 26, 2017 13:01:52 GMT
In all fairness at anytime on this earth there is "cold" and "heavy rains". There is also heat and drought. Using events like this is worthless when trying to validate a long term "global" forecast. I will not speak for Nautonnier but the metric I would use to validate a "substantial" decrease in global temps would be agricultural production. If the forecast is for "global cooling, torrential rains, flooding etc" it will lead to an increase in commodity prices. Its good to be skeptical. Personally I will be surprised if there will be enough change to overwhelm the adjustocene, I spent enough years working with difficult datasets to realize that climate really changes enough to not simply be looked at as a couple of cold winters and cool summers for a number of years. Clearly the 70's were about .8 of a degree C cooler than today but if there hadn't been so much talk about I doubt I would have noticed. One thing greenhouse gases should do is limit diurnal variation so to really notice the cold is probably going to be up to your local meteorologist to detail out the numbers for you even if the mean drops all the way back to 1911. Food prices may indeed be the most noticeable difference. But like tree rings maybe food prices don't move as much with temperature as they do with precipitation. Icefisher nowadays with all of the modern day comforts the .8 cooling we experienced 1970's would not be noticed by many with the exception of farmers and fishermen. They tend to be a little more in tune with subtle weather changes and their production is linked to even small changes in climate. In addition there is so much "fudging" of the actual records I do not have much faith in any of the readings taken anymore. Which is why I am paying closer attention to agricultural commodity prices. Sure there are other things that effect food prices but if the "global cooling, torrential rains, floods etc" Astromet and many others are forecasting actually occurs there will be know way to make it disappear on a graph. To clarify I am talking about clearly discernible cooling of at least 1.0+ C. With todays technology and advances in farming anything less than one degree C won't matter all that much.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 26, 2017 15:36:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 26, 2017 16:48:58 GMT
Economics is a marvelous driver. IF it warms as much as the AGW forecast, production will rise to meet the challenge.
IF it cools, we are probably screwed.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jul 26, 2017 16:51:24 GMT
If the climate stays in a warm optimal period I don't think that it will be problem. As the developing economies of the world advance so will their ability to grow crops. All bets are off if we experience more than say one degree C in cooling accompanied by torrential rains/droughts that disrupt the growing season.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 26, 2017 22:33:04 GMT
Thanks Sig! I was just about to call my ag broker.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 26, 2017 22:36:35 GMT
Well, You are dry in the major Aussie wheat growing area. π
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 26, 2017 22:55:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jul 27, 2017 13:55:40 GMT
Nautonnier, you say above that "Theo has said relatively consistently that 2017 would be the year everyone recognizes that it is getting colder and that it would be more than apparent by mid-December. Well South America is cold, there are heavy rains in various places. Let's wait 5 months and assess the evidence." What measurable evidence by the end of 2017 would convince you that Theo is right? Nautonnier, you may have missed my question above. I'm still interested in your answer.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 28, 2017 0:32:53 GMT
Nautonnier, you say above that "Theo has said relatively consistently that 2017 would be the year everyone recognizes that it is getting colder and that it would be more than apparent by mid-December. Well South America is cold, there are heavy rains in various places. Let's wait 5 months and assess the evidence." What measurable evidence by the end of 2017 would convince you that Theo is right? Nautonnier, you may have missed my question above. I'm still interested in your answer. Sorry Glen - yes I had missed that question. I would like to say a drop in temperatures equivalent to the claimed gains since 2000. However, I do not trust the data keepers and publishers. So I would go for a general acknowledgment that it is getting colder than expected with various crop failures. The AGw alarmists will blame the cold on warming so it will be difficult. UAH satellite metrics may be reliable and I would expect a return to year 2000 temperatures (I tend not to agree though with averages of averages of intensive variables). So I will accept a general perception that it is colder, and this will become apparent when the alarmists are all saying that it is cold due to the warming. Sorry if that isn't a specific testable value but all the agencies are using elastic metrics.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 28, 2017 1:29:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 28, 2017 17:08:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 30, 2017 5:42:37 GMT
IceFisher, I mentioned elsewhere that - locally, urban area - we have been/are in a period where both daily minimums and maximums are well below and above average respectively. CO2 limiting diurnal variation? I believe that the data show that temperature variances increase dramatically along the leading edge of the descent into a colder period before stabilizing somewhat in the lower-energy time period. This seems to be true regardless of whether you are looking at monthly or daily data. I did not run daily maximums and minimums, but would expect the same results. Of course, we have only one well documented test period ... at mid-century falling into the cool period of the 60s-70s. But, if you look at daily variances by month, colder months have greater temperature variance than warmer months. Variance in 'shoulder' months seem to show the greatest variance in years when there are great energy changes afoot. This should probably not be surprising, and is probably a major reason for crop damage at the beginning and the end of a growing season. The 'white combine' that Sig made mention of. The farther south that combine drives along Longitude Blvd., the greater will be the damage. And Glenn should be correct. The market should pick it up, if it's serious.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jul 31, 2017 21:46:44 GMT
IceFisher, I mentioned elsewhere that - locally, urban area - we have been/are in a period where both daily minimums and maximums are well below and above average respectively. CO2 limiting diurnal variation? I believe that the data show that temperature variances increase dramatically along the leading edge of the descent into a colder period before stabilizing somewhat in the lower-energy time period. This seems to be true regardless of whether you are looking at monthly or daily data. I did not run daily maximums and minimums, but would expect the same results. Of course, we have only one well documented test period ... at mid-century falling into the cool period of the 60s-70s. But, if you look at daily variances by month, colder months have greater temperature variance than warmer months. Variance in 'shoulder' months seem to show the greatest variance in years when there are great energy changes afoot. This should probably not be surprising, and is probably a major reason for crop damage at the beginning and the end of a growing season. The 'white combine' that Sig made mention of. The farther south that combine drives along Longitude Blvd., the greater will be the damage. And Glenn should be correct. The market should pick it up, if it's serious. What is happening is what I have been forecasting for a long time now - we are in the transition to the new climate regime of global cooling. The extremes of temperature fluctuations, strong storm fronts, and especially the increase of low level clouds with torrential rains causing floods while regions experience either heavy rains and seesaw back to no rain with bouts of drought, are all markers of a climate in transition - as I have been forecasting. For instance, Tony Heller reported recently that U.S. Summers have been getting cooler. Quote: "Every single metric shows that summer maximum temperatures are cooling in the US, and that heatwaves are becoming shorter, less intense and covering a smaller area." Climate scientists say the exact opposite of the data, because they are consultants being paid to push the global warming scam. This is the theme going into the advent of global cooling, essentially, a new little ice age. The torrential rains and flash floods spreading worldwide (Google it) is a sure marker of this climate transition from solar-forced global warming to solar-forced global cooling that has been underway for some time as the Sun nears its quiescent phase. As I have forecasted.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 1, 2017 4:16:34 GMT
IceFisher, I mentioned elsewhere that - locally, urban area - we have been/are in a period where both daily minimums and maximums are well below and above average respectively. CO2 limiting diurnal variation? Been a little busy lately (killing fish). We know that greenhouse gases blocks IR so increases in CO2 would be expected to slow warming of the surface when the sun comes up (because sunlight is 50% IR) and slow cooling when the sun goes down. The result of that would be warmer nights and cooler days. Now there may be one or several explanations for minimums below average and the maximums above average. One could be a loss of water vapor increasing the diurnal variation overriding the increase in CO2. Also changes in cloud patterns could have a role
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 1, 2017 7:41:06 GMT
I would say looking at the weather in Europe the past 2 months, this is an astute observation...
|
|