dh7fb
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by dh7fb on Jan 20, 2016 10:29:44 GMT
Missouriboy: A proposal for better investigation of the baltic seaice record: When you are registered ( it's free)at "Climate explorer" climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?id=someone@somewhere you can upload your record and check for correlations and so on. In my opinion the record reflects at first the wintertime temps of the region. The baltic sea is very flat and should so striktly follow the DJF-Temps af the air above.
|
|
anse
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 62
|
Post by anse on Jan 20, 2016 21:55:27 GMT
Interesting Missouriboy. Since I am from, and live in Sweden, and can share my own "unscientific" observations and ideas. It would be interesting to see the correlation between solar activity/NAO index (possibly also AO index) and Baltic Sea ice extent. I'm probably far from 100 percent correct here, but it seems like there is a fairly strong connection between solar activity and Baltic Sea extent, with a possible lag. Many of the winters with low solar activity, or following winters, see high ice extent. That was at least the case in the beginning of the eightees, not to speak about the winters 09/10 and 10/11. Also during the LIA, in the winter of 1658 to be excact, the swedish king Carl X crossed "Stora Belt" in Denmark over the ice with his army, threatening the capitol Copenhagen which made the Danish king to give up the nowadays southern tip of Sweden (Skåne, Halland and Blekinge) to the Swedish king. By the way, where did you get ice extent figures back to the 18th century from? Rumours say that the winter of 1942 could be the worst one, in terms of ice extent, when the complete Baltic Sea could have been covered with ice all the way to Copenhagen. That is however unconfirmed due to lack of reliable observations because of WWII. Could be true though since it was a long cold winter and the temperature dropped down to -40 C even as far south as in the south east of Sweden where I come from (some 50 km northwest of Kalmar). -40 C in this region, or any eastern coastal line at all in this country, is quite unlikely unless the Baltic Sea is frozen since low temperatures here are favoured by easterlies. Hello Anse and welcome. Andrew, who lives in Finland posted a graph that he had pulled from somewhere and there was a contact with the Finnish Weather Bureau. I merely transcribed the data as closely as I could and plotted it against the PDO and AMO out of curiosity. The recent data (1996-2015) are from here: en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/baltic-sea-ice-wintersThe chart he posted is on the thread at this site - Weather 2016 (pages 8-9). You are correct, the winters of 1940, 41 and 42 max out along the top of the chart at about 420,000 km2 ('41 was slightly less but not much). My gut feeling is you are correct on the solar connection. Sunspots by themselves apparently don't do so well, but perhaps the geomagnetic AP Index has a better relationship. I'll play with some of these as well as the AO and NAO. Undoubtedly if it was easy someone would have already tagged it. Yes, you're probably wright that the AP Index is a better indicator than the spot numbers. I remember having seeing links to investigations done by the MET Office concerning the correlation between sun activity and the NAO index, however I cannot find them now. Our own Swedish weather institute, SMHI, has not done such research what I know about, even if they ought to. They are too busy making useless multidecadal regional temperature and sea level predictions, based on the CO2 hype and what IPCC states. (Mentioning other natural factors as something to count with regarding climate is like a sin, since it does not follow main stream media in this Swedish politically correct society.) However, if there is a correlation on paper between sun activity and Baltic ice extent, we would be heading to many severe winters in the future in this region. It really would be interesting to see some charts :-)
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 21, 2016 0:19:41 GMT
Hello Anse and welcome. Andrew, who lives in Finland posted a graph that he had pulled from somewhere and there was a contact with the Finnish Weather Bureau. I merely transcribed the data as closely as I could and plotted it against the PDO and AMO out of curiosity. The recent data (1996-2015) are from here: en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/baltic-sea-ice-wintersThe chart he posted is on the thread at this site - Weather 2016 (pages 8-9). You are correct, the winters of 1940, 41 and 42 max out along the top of the chart at about 420,000 km2 ('41 was slightly less but not much). My gut feeling is you are correct on the solar connection. Sunspots by themselves apparently don't do so well, but perhaps the geomagnetic AP Index has a better relationship. I'll play with some of these as well as the AO and NAO. Undoubtedly if it was easy someone would have already tagged it. Yes, you're probably wright that the AP Index is a better indicator than the spot numbers. I remember having seeing links to investigations done by the MET Office concerning the correlation between sun activity and the NAO index, however I cannot find them now. Our own Swedish weather institute, SMHI, has not done such research what I know about, even if they ought to. They are too busy making useless multidecadal regional temperature and sea level predictions, based on the CO2 hype and what IPCC states. (Mentioning other natural factors as something to count with regarding climate is like a sin, since it does not follow main stream media in this Swedish politically correct society.) However, if there is a correlation on paper between sun activity and Baltic ice extent, we would be heading to many severe winters in the future in this region. It really would be interesting to see some charts :-) I've been comparing the geomagnetic index to the maximum sea ice extent. It seems a bit counter intuitive. Perhaps some others on this forum would like to jump in here. As you can see from the charts below (can't yet plot them together as the AP data are monthly and I need to recalibrate it to annual) geomagnetic low points in the past do not seem to correlate very well to large sea ice extent. In several cases, such as 1900, it's actually the reverse. It is my understanding that when AP declines, so does ultra-violet, which has been suggested as providing more heat to the oceans. Cosmic rays are also believed to increase, which has been linked to cloudiness. But perhaps the Baltic responds to something else, which I'm not considering. In recent decades sea ice extent does appear to trend inversely with the PDO and AMO. If these indexes decline, which many believe they will, then sea ice extent may expand from the very low extent of recent years. The very large extents and cold temperatures in 1940-42 are not explained except for the observations that there was a very large El Nino in 1940 and the PDO quickly went negative. This is a very interesting topic that you would think would be of great interest in northern Europe (perhaps you need to burn more coal ).
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 21, 2016 3:37:39 GMT
As William proposed long ago, look at the Geomagnetic Index.
I think that is a more important influence of temperature than the AP index. The AP index is a short term indicator of a solar cycle. The Magnetic Index is a long term indicator of long term cycles.
I believe the 76 year cycle shows in the Magnetic index. For sure the longer ones do, that, if memory serves me, is how they were first discovered.
That gets back to bay center stuff...and wowsa...do we want to go there?
|
|
anse
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 62
|
Post by anse on Jan 21, 2016 21:35:22 GMT
Yes, you're probably wright that the AP Index is a better indicator than the spot numbers. I remember having seeing links to investigations done by the MET Office concerning the correlation between sun activity and the NAO index, however I cannot find them now. Our own Swedish weather institute, SMHI, has not done such research what I know about, even if they ought to. They are too busy making useless multidecadal regional temperature and sea level predictions, based on the CO2 hype and what IPCC states. (Mentioning other natural factors as something to count with regarding climate is like a sin, since it does not follow main stream media in this Swedish politically correct society.) However, if there is a correlation on paper between sun activity and Baltic ice extent, we would be heading to many severe winters in the future in this region. It really would be interesting to see some charts :-) I've been comparing the geomagnetic index to the maximum sea ice extent. It seems a bit counter intuitive. Perhaps some others on this forum would like to jump in here. As you can see from the charts below (can't yet plot them together as the AP data are monthly and I need to recalibrate it to annual) geomagnetic low points in the past do not seem to correlate very well to large sea ice extent. In several cases, such as 1900, it's actually the reverse. It is my understanding that when AP declines, so does ultra-violet, which has been suggested as providing more heat to the oceans. Cosmic rays are also believed to increase, which has been linked to cloudiness. But perhaps the Baltic responds to something else, which I'm not considering. In recent decades sea ice extent does appear to trend inversely with the PDO and AMO. If these indexes decline, which many believe they will, then sea ice extent may expand from the very low extent of recent years. The very large extents and cold temperatures in 1940-42 are not explained except for the observations that there was a very large El Nino in 1940 and the PDO quickly went negative. This is a very interesting topic that you would think would be of great interest in northern Europe (perhaps you need to burn more coal ). View AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentGood work with the charts! Perhaps the geomagnetic index (as proposed by Sigurdur) is a better indicator ? A very powerful actor, favouring high ice extent, is of course also a negative NAO index. During winters 09/10 and 10/11, the NAO index was very low, coinciding with very low solar activity (lagging 1 - 2 years after solar minimum). As indicated earlier, more resources should be put in this area by the weather institutes, like the possible connection between solar activity / NAO/AO indexes. Politicians here should be much more concerned about cooling than warming in this region. At these latitudes (my location is at 58.6 ˚N), global cooling is brutal, which fortunately has not happened in modern times yet. Having in mind all the people who have left farming / own food production and instead moved in to the cities with all its external dependencies, it could be devastating.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 21, 2016 21:45:58 GMT
Yah know.....when it comes to plants, heat will cause a slow death. Cold?.....in regards to food bearing plants, it is instant.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 21, 2016 23:15:17 GMT
As William proposed long ago, look at the Geomagnetic Index. I think that is a more important influence of temperature than the AP index. The AP index is a short term indicator of a solar cycle. The Magnetic Index is a long term indicator of long term cycles. I believe the 76 year cycle shows in the Magnetic index. For sure the longer ones do, that, if memory serves me, is how they were first discovered. That gets back to bay center stuff...and wowsa...do we want to go there? I've been trying to find William's particular posts on this. But, I do a search on geomagnetic index and I come up with the AA, the k or kp and the AP. The description didn't sound much different. Off the top of your head, any suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 22, 2016 0:16:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 22, 2016 0:17:34 GMT
I wish he would come around again. He had a bunch of published papers on this.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 22, 2016 15:54:50 GMT
A further dissection of William's posts on this. This seemed to be encouraging. Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data. In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades. And the article link posted seemed to get at what we were talking about? sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdfSo I go looking for an ak index. and I find some definitions, which is good ... because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. www.sci.fi/~fmbb/astro/indices.htmak index. A 3-hourly "equivalent amplitude" index of geomagnetic activity for a specific station or network of stations (represented generically here by k) expressing the range of disturbance in the horizontal magnetic field. "ak" is scaled from the 3-hourly K index according to the following table: BUT... it seems to indicate that the ap index is derived from these. ap index. A mean, 3-hourly "equivalent amplitude" of magnetic activity based on K index data from a planetary network of 11 Northern and 2 Southern Hemisphere magnetic observatories between the geomagnetic latitudes of 46 degrees and 63 degrees by the Institut fur Geophysik at Gottingen, F.R. Germany; ap values Then I found some data at: www-app3.gfz-potsdam.de/obs/niemegk/dt/daten_dienste/monatsberichte/monatsberichte.htmlAn 'X' index looked promising and the definition is: geomagnetic elements. The components of the geomagnetic field at the surface of the earth. These elements are usually denoted thus in the literature: X - the geographic northward component HOWEVER, i don't find a digital aK index. TIME FOR SOMEONE WITH A CLUE TO STEP IN HERE.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 22, 2016 17:01:01 GMT
I don't have a clue...as I have not studied this. I found William to be very interesting reading. So, I will just watch you, as I know you are tenacious!!!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 22, 2016 17:02:27 GMT
One thing you may do, is post on Dr. Svalgaards question page in the 1st section of this board.
Don't ask him about Global Warming, etc, but the guy knows his stuff in regards to the sun/mag fields etc.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 22, 2016 20:24:07 GMT
One thing you may do, is post on Dr. Svalgaards question page in the 1st section of this board. Don't ask him about Global Warming, etc, but the guy knows his stuff in regards to the sun/mag fields etc. Yow, I may try that. BUT ... thought I might wade through the AP Index one more time in graphs. So ... I just turned all of the indexes in 13-month running averages and plotted them out. Seems to me that they show more similarities than have maybe been acknowledged before. The NAO, AMO and PDO all show similarities to this index. AMO vs AP. Note that there was a similar period back in 1893 when the AP plummeted and the AMO continued strong for about 8 years before it collapsed. Kinda like now ... seems we could be due for a plunge (Acidohm - gloves, hats, coats, airline tickets?) NAO vs AP. It would appear that periods dominated by negative NAO occur when the AP index is down. PDO vs AP. Seems it fits better to the AP than the AMO. Funny that the pre-1920 period that Icefisher noted as being largely trash (lack of data) is the part of the series that doesn't fit the AP. Recognizing of course that the PDO is not a heat index but a 'geographic location of the heat' index. You don't find many really good correlations in science ... so, these really don't look too bad.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 22, 2016 21:48:45 GMT
The reason no one talks about this much, is they haven't figured out a cause. But sure is a strong correlation isn't it???
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 22, 2016 22:49:48 GMT
The reason no one talks about this much, is they figured out a cause. But sure is a strong correlation isn't it??? Perhaps they just need a new mantra. Repeat after me! Sun ... heat .... ocean ... Oh my! I assume there haven't been any strange fingers stirring the AMO?
|
|