|
Post by glc on Feb 11, 2009 0:46:04 GMT
Look at the Dec SST compared to Jan., and soon we shall see what NH SST brings us The oceans are belching, but are not replenishing.
If SST is lower it will because of the slightly strengthening La Nina. SST responds to ENSO fluctuations - there's no mystery there. I doubt there's been significant heat loss from the bulk of the ocean due to the SSW. The 1998 El Nino gave up huge amounts of heat to the atmosphere but temperatures never returned to pre-1998 levels. Even 2008 was warmer than most years in the pre-98 period.
I notice that you now seem to want to focus on SST and/or OHC presumably because the current trend is less clear. Has this always been the case? I only ask because when I first started posting on this blog (around 4/5 months ago) it was in response to the glut of posts which predicted imminent cooling. There were also a number of posts championing Spencer & Christy satellite record. This was, of course, when UAH was coming out with a stream of near zero anomalies.
By now it should be obvious what is going on. GLC fails to understand the significance of the recent SSW event.
That's because, as far as anyone can tell, it isn't particularly significant - not in the long term anyway.
|
|
|
Post by enginer on Feb 11, 2009 1:37:51 GMT
I have puzzled over the fact that we are in an at least short term cooling trend (negative PDO?) but the portion of Antarctica that sticks out (the "western" peninsula) is warming, and the various polar ice websites don't seem to agree with warming.
Then I remembered that the AGW fanatics were upset about all that meltwater (all WHAT meltwater?) that was slowing the thermohaline circulation. If the currents are in fact slowing, then even with reduced solar insolation the gross amount of heat needed to be transported to the poles might even RAISE the average transport water temperature slightly.
Someday we may all understand all these complex interactions, even sunspots.
|
|
|
Post by enginer on Feb 11, 2009 1:46:05 GMT
Make that "polar ice changes don't show much warming or cooling."
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 11, 2009 2:07:22 GMT
Then I remembered that the AGW fanatics were upset about all that meltwater (all WHAT meltwater?) that was slowing the thermohaline circulation. If the currents are in fact slowing, then even with reduced solar insolation the gross amount of heat needed to be transported to the poles might even RAISE the average transport water temperature slightly. Someday we may all understand all these complex interactions, even sunspots. Ironically they recently found that one of the thermohaline sinks that had stopped a while back...started back up. Seems all that (non-existent) melt water didn't stop anything.
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Feb 11, 2009 7:04:34 GMT
I apologize for leaving the discussion I started. I had some necessary stuff to do the last couple of days right after work. A question; I notice that the page www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/ has a table, and the top row of the table has recent daily temperature graphs for various pressure levels (1..70 millibars) for the Arctic (65N to 90N). They are interesting, and show the recent SSW event. I notice that the top of the stratosphere (1 mb and 2 mb) has peaked and returned to its previous temperature values. The reaction is more delayed as you go lower in the atmosphere (higher pressures). By 70 mb, we see a graph showing the temperature has only recently turned around. Is there any equivalant data for the troposphere? I'll even take raw daily data that I can drop into a spreadsheet.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 11, 2009 8:06:46 GMT
Seems stratopheric peaking is strongly associated with cold weather on the ground. Perhaps you are seeing something else but unless you explain it better it appears you are halluncinating. Have we got cold weather on the ground? The UK and Europe have been a bit parky but the NH, as a whole has been above average. UAH anomaly for the NH is +0.44. China , India and Russia have been much warmer than average throughout January. Canada's also been pretty warm recently and even the USA has lost it's cold weather. You are being impatient. If you look at Hadcrut, temps have been above average for 30 years with the exception of 2 years early on where the flux took it about a .03 of a degree below. And that was an "accelerated" warming. If we have an "accelerated" cooling it should take another 10 to 20 years to drop below average, even though it is almost half way back already. Seems one should expect a little warming for a couple of years before it returns to its long sojourn back to normalcy. Already its dropped a quarter degree. During the "accelerated" warming phase it took 12 years to do that before it dropped back again for 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 11, 2009 8:45:54 GMT
I apologize for leaving the discussion I started. I had some necessary stuff to do the last couple of days right after work. A question; I notice that the page www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/ has a table, and the top row of the table has recent daily temperature graphs for various pressure levels (1..70 millibars) for the Arctic (65N to 90N). They are interesting, and show the recent SSW event. I notice that the top of the stratosphere (1 mb and 2 mb) has peaked and returned to its previous temperature values. The reaction is more delayed as you go lower in the atmosphere (higher pressures). By 70 mb, we see a graph showing the temperature has only recently turned around. Is there any equivalant data for the troposphere? I'll even take raw daily data that I can drop into a spreadsheet. If you check the 50mb/21km level on channel 10 here: discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutempsyou can see temp has been dropping since mid jab and is well below 2008 levels. You can select other channels at the bottom of the graph. You'll need java.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 11, 2009 9:08:02 GMT
You are being impatient. If you look at Hadcrut, temps have been above average for 30 years with the exception of 2 years early on where the flux took it about a .03 of a degree below. And that was an "accelerated" warming
We were discussing the SSW event (or I thought we were). Are you suggesting it will be 30 years before before the full effect of that becomes evident. Walterdnes in his post (see above) has suggested the upper stratosphere has already returned to near normal.
If we have an "accelerated" cooling it should take another 10 to 20 years to drop below average, even though it is almost half way back already.
We are not "half way back". Global temperatures to-day are higher than what they were 10 years ago when ENSO conditions were similar - but we were also approaching a solar maximum back then. So temperatures are still higher than they were at the last solar maximum. I can only think you are arriving at your figures by cherrypicking start and end dates . There is no cooling trend.
Seems one should expect a little warming for a couple of years before it returns to its long sojourn back to normalcy.
Why? The PDO is in a negative phase, we've had La Nina type conditions for ~18 months and we're in a deep solar minimum - why should there be warming?
Already its dropped a quarter degree.
No it hasn't. There is no data to support this.
During the "accelerated" warming phase it took 12 years to do that before it dropped back again for 5 years. I'm not sure what this means. What took 12 years?
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 11, 2009 12:18:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 11, 2009 12:44:17 GMT
No it hasn't. There is no data to support this.
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2005/to/plot/wti/from:2005/trend Are you having a laugh? First of all, this 'trend' is over a period of less than 3 years. Secondly the period ends in a La Nina , and thirdly it doesn't include the last few months during which temperatures have increases considerably.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 11, 2009 13:14:11 GMT
I didn't see icefisher use the word 'trend'. Did you? I saw him use the word 'dropped' and this seems to be,, entirely accurate. In a la nina *and* seeing temps rise in the last few months? Talk about wanting your cake and eating it. How do you get the time period from the start of 2005 to the end of 2008 to be less than three years?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 11, 2009 17:44:10 GMT
You are being impatient. If you look at Hadcrut, temps have been above average for 30 years with the exception of 2 years early on where the flux took it about a .03 of a degree below. And that was an "accelerated" warmingWe were discussing the SSW event (or I thought we were). Are you suggesting it will be 30 years before before the full effect of that becomes evident. Walterdnes in his post (see above) has suggested the upper stratosphere has already returned to near normal. If we have an "accelerated" cooling it should take another 10 to 20 years to drop below average, even though it is almost half way back already. We are not "half way back". Global temperatures to-day are higher than what they were 10 years ago when ENSO conditions were similar - but we were also approaching a solar maximum back then. So temperatures are still higher than they were at the last solar maximum. I can only think you are arriving at your figures by cherrypicking start and end dates . There is no cooling trend. Seems one should expect a little warming for a couple of years before it returns to its long sojourn back to normalcy.Why? The PDO is in a negative phase, we've had La Nina type conditions for ~18 months and we're in a deep solar minimum - why should there be warming? Already its dropped a quarter degree. No it hasn't. There is no data to support this. During the "accelerated" warming phase it took 12 years to do that before it dropped back again for 5 years. I'm not sure what this means. What took 12 years? Point me to the data that indicates the oceans are gaining heat. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 11, 2009 18:00:46 GMT
Look at the Dec SST compared to Jan., and soon we shall see what NH SST brings us The oceans are belching, but are not replenishing. If SST is lower it will because of the slightly strengthening La Nina. SST responds to ENSO fluctuations - there's no mystery there. I doubt there's been significant heat loss from the bulk of the ocean due to the SSW. The 1998 El Nino gave up huge amounts of heat to the atmosphere but temperatures never returned to pre-1998 levels. Even 2008 was warmer than most years in the pre-98 period. I notice that you now seem to want to focus on SST and/or OHC presumably because the current trend is less clear. Has this always been the case? I only ask because when I first started posting on this blog (around 4/5 months ago) it was in response to the glut of posts which predicted imminent cooling. There were also a number of posts championing Spencer & Christy satellite record. This was, of course, when UAH was coming out with a stream of near zero anomalies. By now it should be obvious what is going on. GLC fails to understand the significance of the recent SSW event.That's because, as far as anyone can tell, it isn't particularly significant - not in the long term anyway. I have focused on mainly two items: 1) The tropical troposphere is not warming as advertised 2) OHC is not increasing as advertised. You have yet to provide evidence to the contrary. If neither of those come to fruition, all the talking about 'La Nina happens' (nothing "just happens") is meaningless. What you still cannot grasp is the SST are not averaging upward, but downward. If you can prove me wrong, feel free to do so. The recent SSW (yes it was unusual) results in about a 4 week lag for tropospheric temps to respond, which means we should be seeing this in the coming week or so. I say there will be a dramatic cooling at the surface for the following ~2 months. What do you say?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 12, 2009 0:43:08 GMT
I didn't see icefisher use the word 'trend'. Did you? I saw him use the word 'dropped' and this seems to be,, entirely accurate.
Ok fair enough - I assume it's entirely accurate, then, to say that temperatures have risen ~0.4 deg in the past 12 months. Though, of course, icefisher doesn't include the most recent months in his 'analysis', so I'm not sure what he claims is "entirely accurate".
Point me to the data that indicates the oceans are gaining heat
Point me to where I said the oceans were gaining heat.
What you still cannot grasp is the SST are not averaging upward, but downward.
I can't grasp that fact because I'm not sure it's true. Certainly SSTs were lower in 2008 than they were in the previous 6 or 7 years but they were still warmer than they were in 1999 and 2000 and much warmer than any year prior to 1997. You are falling into the same trap that a number of sceptics fell into in 1999/2000. Following the 1997/98 El Nino many thought the 1999/2000 La Nina would herald the onset of a global cooling phase. In fact some leading sceptics such as Chip Knappenburger were prepared to place bets on a statistically significant cooling trend over the following decade. Chip K has since admitted he was wrong. The recent SSW (yes it was unusual) results in about a 4 week lag for tropospheric temps to respond, which means we should be seeing this in the coming week or so.
In what way will the troposphere respond? Can you link to any literature which discusses SSW and the troposphere temp lag.
I say there will be a dramatic cooling at the surface for the following ~2 months. What do you say?
It depends what you mean by 'dramatic'. I think temperature anomalies will be a bit lower over the coming months but the year as a whole will be warmer than last year.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 12, 2009 0:52:11 GMT
I didn't see icefisher use the word 'trend'. Did you? I saw him use the word 'dropped' and this seems to be,, entirely accurate
Just to return t this point. Whether he was aware if it or not, I think icefisher was actually referring to the trend. His plot shows a trend line and it is the trend line which appears to fall ~0.25 deg (from start to end).
|
|