|
Post by hilbert on Mar 12, 2009 23:37:12 GMT
One more day of cold weather, then it starts getting warmer, so I guess the blue won't change to red.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Mar 12, 2009 23:39:02 GMT
So, how do I list my location, and how do I post an avatar?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 13, 2009 0:12:17 GMT
Having grown up in Milwaukee (toward the south end of Lake Michigan), I'm struck by how little ice there is on the lake in the middle of March. I remember when we had deep show and ice along the lake well into April during most winters in the 1970s. Ice storms in April (and even May) weren't unusual.
It shows how much warming there's been in the past three decades. When a winter doesn't even get as severe as the ones we were used to and people complain about how cold it is, they've really become used to the milder winters we've had over the past few decades.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 13, 2009 2:24:09 GMT
Having grown up in Milwaukee (toward the south end of Lake Michigan), I'm struck by how little ice there is on the lake in the middle of March. I remember when we had deep show and ice along the lake well into April during most winters in the 1970s. Ice storms in April (and even May) weren't unusual. It shows how much warming there's been in the past three decades. When a winter doesn't even get as severe as the ones we were used to and people complain about how cold it is, they've really become used to the milder winters we've had over the past few decades. That has to be absolutely the weakest meter I've ever heard of. People always complain about the cold. It has more to do with the warmth of the summers that come between the winters than the warmth of winter as compared to winters past. Surely that is not an argument put forward to support any hypothesis of warming or cooling. What I'm much more interested in is how this winter's cool/warm compares with other years, and what the trends are currently. Personal observations have a place in evaluating those things, but the person's leanings, and what they want to see have to be evaluated when considering such anecdotal evidence.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 13, 2009 6:04:07 GMT
Yeah, I remember living in Mass, when after two weeks of temps in the Teens and low 20's, 36 degrees was feeling pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 14, 2009 5:24:06 GMT
Please keep that in mind whenever you hear someone on this site complain about cold weather, snow or a frozen lake near where they live. In a warming environment, there will still be winter, especially if the warming trend is 0.2 degrees C per decade, which is what it has been for the past few decades.
For climate, you want to check a 25 to 30 year trend. When someone tells you that the last seven, ten or 12 years have been cooling, call BS on them and explain the difference between climate and weather!
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 14, 2009 6:00:25 GMT
Please keep that in mind whenever you hear someone on this site complain about cold weather, snow or a frozen lake near where they live. In a warming environment, there will still be winter, especially if the warming trend is 0.2 degrees C per decade, which is what it has been for the past few decades. For climate, you want to check a 25 to 30 year trend. When someone tells you that the last seven, ten or 12 years have been cooling, call BS on them and explain the difference between climate and weather! Hi Ken! To date, the world record holder for posting NWS press releases on SC24.com for record events is ... get ready ... Ken Feldman! Your commanding gold-medal position is unlikely to ever be eclipsed!
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 15, 2009 6:35:36 GMT
Weather is what you get when you don't get what you want.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 15, 2009 18:00:55 GMT
Please keep that in mind whenever you hear someone on this site complain about cold weather, snow or a frozen lake near where they live. In a warming environment, there will still be winter, especially if the warming trend is 0.2 degrees C per decade, which is what it has been for the past few decades. For climate, you want to check a 25 to 30 year trend. When someone tells you that the last seven, ten or 12 years have been cooling, call BS on them and explain the difference between climate and weather! You have a choice - to get climate you should perhaps look at 100000 year trends at least back in geological time. 20 - 30 years is not climate. So you chose to talk aboutshort term variability and try to describe it. The AGW hypothesis is based on the initial premise that CO 2 and other GHG are delaying the escape of heat to space therefore with a steady input and a delayed output heat content of the planet and its oceans and atmosphere have been rising. This will continue until a new balance at a higher temperature may be reached - if there is no runaway. If you agree with that then you MUST explain why it is that while CO 2 and other GHG are rising in a 'scary way' a lot faster than expected, the planet has been cooling for at least 3 years. You cannot take the escape of 'its weather not climate' this is a very simple black box now. Heat in is currently equaling heat out - and with the CO 2 and other GHG concentrations now at 'scary levels' (Hansen) that SHOULD NOT HAPPEN - its not physically possible given the initial AGW premise. Something else must have varied by as much or more to cool the system to overwhelm the warming caused by the increase in CO 2 and other GHG concentrations over that period as laid down in AR4; OR, the initial premise is false. The longer this level or cooling period continues the more difficult the initial premise is to defend.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2009 18:09:30 GMT
You have a choice - to get climate you should perhaps look at 100000 year trends at least back in geological time. 20 - 30 years is not climate. So you chose to talk aboutshort term variability and try to describe it. The use of 20-30 years is clearly to reduce the influence of volcanic and ENSO events. The shorter the period, the more influence those effects have on the trend. 1998-2008 is a case in point. Starts off with a monster el nino and ends with a strong la nina and that has a massive influence on the overall trend over that period. Use of 20-30 years avoids this as if a 30 year period starts with a strong el nino and ends with a strong la nina, that will have a minor influence on the trend. You don't have to go to 100000 years to avoid ENSO. It's happened in the past, both temperature and ocean heat content have fallen before over a period of 3 years, despite the overall rise. Clouds. Ie weather.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 15, 2009 22:17:50 GMT
Please keep that in mind whenever you hear someone on this site complain about cold weather, snow or a frozen lake near where they live. In a warming environment, there will still be winter, especially if the warming trend is 0.2 degrees C per decade, which is what it has been for the past few decades. For climate, you want to check a 25 to 30 year trend. When someone tells you that the last seven, ten or 12 years have been cooling, call BS on them and explain the difference between climate and weather! There are as many different definitions of climate on this site as there are people wanting to see something different occurring in the climate. For you, there is a number of 25-30 years for it to be considered climate, but that number is entirely arbitrary. If you held your position, but warming had occurred only the last 10 years, would you have the same definition? (I know everyone would say "yes," and actually believe it whether it is true or not. I'm also sure they could come up with equally sure reasons why they would, and what they have managed to filter from their past to convince themselves that they would.) But there have also been 20-30 year reversals in much larger trends in the past. That seems to get mentioned by some when looking at the cooling from the 40's into the 70's only when convenient to say that cooling can happen in the midst of warming. But never does there seem to be room in that reasoning for the possibility of warming in the midst of a cooling trend. Man was blamed for the cooling. Now man is blamed for the warming. Man was blamed for changes in the environment for at least as long as there has been print to record it. The constant in all of this is the propensity of people to blame (other) people for any changes they see, combined with the fear of change to magnify the claims into a prophecy of impending doom because of said change.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 17, 2009 20:06:41 GMT
clouds, ie weather.
Are you now suggesting that weather does not influence climate?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 22, 2009 19:56:09 GMT
You have a choice - to get climate you should perhaps look at 100000 year trends at least back in geological time. 20 - 30 years is not climate. So you chose to talk aboutshort term variability and try to describe it. The use of 20-30 years is clearly to reduce the influence of volcanic and ENSO events. The shorter the period, the more influence those effects have on the trend. 1998-2008 is a case in point. Starts off with a monster el nino and ends with a strong la nina and that has a massive influence on the overall trend over that period. Use of 20-30 years avoids this as if a 30 year period starts with a strong el nino and ends with a strong la nina, that will have a minor influence on the trend. You don't have to go to 100000 years to avoid ENSO. It's happened in the past, both temperature and ocean heat content have fallen before over a period of 3 years, despite the overall rise. Clouds. Ie weather. you choose 20- 30 years as it supports your argument and for no other reason. In 60 years time will you still be referring back to the 1990's as the baseline for normal? I know you don't believe that the Pacific is part of the Earth - but there are others that do. So let's discuss GLOBAL warming not partial atmospheric warming - this may cause you a little difficulty as the oceans are not warming and their heat content is hugely more significant than a small rise in atmospheric temperatures. "Clouds"Well well - we find ourselves back with the Hydologic Cycle. Yes clouds. Clouds as an object class are not weather they are a continual feedback that DWARFS anything that CO 2 can do both positive and negative. Clouds are not weather unless you point to a particular cloud on a particular date. Clouds are one of the states in the hydrologic cycle. HUGE amounts of water are in the atmosphere and these incredible amounts of water continually evaporate into the atmosphere some of which form clouds. This water vapor some becoming visible as it condenses out as cloud has many orders of magnitude more effect both negative and positive, than CO 2 forcing.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 22, 2009 22:29:50 GMT
Not over a period of 20-30 years
I explained why I chose that period. It's to remove the effect of ENSO. A strong el nino for two years followed by a strong la nina for two years can cause quite a trend. Even if there is an ENSO neutral gap of 5 years between them.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 22, 2009 22:44:10 GMT
Not over a period of 20-30 years I explained why I chose that period. It's to remove the effect of ENSO. A strong el nino for two years followed by a strong la nina for two years can cause quite a trend. Even if there is an ENSO neutral gap of 5 years between them. Explain why the latest 30 year trend has no more warming than the 30 year trend during the last predominantly +PDO period (1915-1945).
|
|