|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Mar 9, 2009 5:08:20 GMT
The primary factor would have to be albedo, would it not? The albedo of coniferous forest is about the same as blacktop or dark soil, .05 to .15. The only thing with a lower albedo is water. There would be a definite trend towards higher temperatures. The thicker the forest, the more solar energy would remain. Ok - my question was badly worded. I was referrng more specifically to Eskdalemuir. The Met Observatory is not located within the plantation. In fact it's some distance away. It's highly unlikely the plantation has had any influence on station measurements and certainly not 0.6 deg per decade since 1979. Plus there's always Valentia and , of course, Armagh (as used in David Archibald's 'study'). Okay, how about telling us what "some distance away" means?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 9, 2009 9:18:58 GMT
Okay, how about telling us what "some distance away" means?
Around half a mile. Between 0.5 and 1 km. Not close enough to have any sort of signifcant influence on temperature measurements. The 5 warmest years at Eskdalemuir were all record in the last 6 years. It's difficult to attribute that to a land use change from the 1960s.
All other nearby stations (rural and urban) have similar trends. Still no comment on Armagh and Valentia, I note .... or the +0.35 UAH anomaly for February
|
|
|
Post by alex4ever on Mar 9, 2009 10:30:29 GMT
I saw various forecasts today about Wednesday's forecast and something changed in their predictions dramatically. While rain was shown till yesterday, today they indicate lower T in 850hPa and significantly a lot lot more precipitation. Their durance has also been extented by 2 days. (Wednesday-Friday). That IS a huge change for March for us, if it becomes true i'll be astonished.
So lets wait and watch ;D
|
|
|
Post by w7psk on Mar 10, 2009 1:30:05 GMT
Im in Seattle, just north of it, today we had High of 33 and 8" of snow, I dont remember seening it here this late (Avg Monthly temp is 55). Last time was in I don't know how long.
I know I know, it will get colder before it gets warmer.
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 10, 2009 3:14:19 GMT
33F. We could be so lucky. 51 Degrees Latitude North (some what inland of your location.)
Today -28C Low. -24C High.
Tomorrow's forecast. -29C Low. -18C High
Not the warming of the high.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 10, 2009 6:08:46 GMT
Okay, how about telling us what "some distance away" means? Around half a mile. Between 0.5 and 1 km. Not close enough to have any sort of signifcant influence on temperature measurements. The 5 warmest years at Eskdalemuir were all record in the last 6 years. It's difficult to attribute that to a land use change from the 1960s. All other nearby stations (rural and urban) have similar trends. Still no comment on Armagh and Valentia, I note .... or the +0.35 UAH anomaly for February RSS dropped to .23...
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 10, 2009 6:49:52 GMT
glc writes: The solar/climate link is a crock.
So let's take that to it's ultimate conclusion: AS long as there is CO2 in the atmosphere, there is no need for the sun at all.
You do realize that without it, the earth would be a big ice cube.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 10, 2009 6:58:57 GMT
And glc, my argument was that the sun-earth interactions cannot be adequetely quantified by something as simplistic as TSI.
For starters, various wavelengths of EM radiation interact with matter differently. The most obvious is the spectral absorption of various molecules. at energies above 1.02 Mev, it can start interacting with the nucleus of atoms. And that's just EM radiation.
That doesn't go in to the solar wind, CME's, the "electromagnetic tube that connects the earth's upper atmosphere to the sun" (see Themis press releases).
The wattsup with that article discusses TSI. So no, you won't get a complete picture.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 10, 2009 10:26:30 GMT
So let's take that to it's ultimate conclusion: AS long as there is CO2 in the atmosphere, there is no need for the sun at all.
You do realize that without it, the earth would be a big ice cube.
Yes of course - and I apologise for the earlier blunt response. The point is, jim, that the sun does not appear to vary sufficiently to explain the climate fluctuations we have seen (the oceans are a different matter). Now it's quite possible there is a mechanism which we don't yet understand which may, either directly or indirectly, amplify forcing changes. The work of Svensmark, Shaviv etc may have merit but it's still unproven PLUS - even if S & S are valid - we're a long way from showing that solar forcings operate on timescales that are relevant to climate changes over past 50 to 100 years.
My problem is that there have been a lot of 'cooling predictions' made on the basis of lower solar activity. Many of these are little more than wishful thinking. I can sort of understand this but, if predicted cooling fails to materialise then the sceptic argument takes a significant backward step.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 10, 2009 10:33:07 GMT
Tacoman25 wrote:
RSS dropped to .23...
Now I could make the point here about the unreliability of UAH and that sceptics will end up turning full circle and eventually start using the GISS record. But I'll resist and admit that I was slightly surprised by the magnitude of the Feb UAH anomaly. I thought it would be a bit lower than Jan.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 10, 2009 10:41:29 GMT
My problem is that there have been a lot of 'cooling predictions' made on the basis of lower solar activity. Many of these are little more than wishful thinking. I can sort of understand this but, if predicted cooling fails to materialise then the sceptic argument takes a significant backward step.
I prefer.
My problem is that there have been a lot of 'warming predictions' made on the basis of manmade CO2 emissions. Many of these are little more than wishful thinking. I can sort of understand this but as the predicted warming has failed to materialise, the AGW argument has taken a significant backward step after a decade of cooling.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 10, 2009 11:04:04 GMT
My problem is that there have been a lot of 'warming predictions' made on the basis of manmade CO2 emissions. Many of these are little more than wishful thinking. I can sort of understand this but as the predicted warming has failed to materialise, the AGW argument has taken a significant backward step after a decade of cooling.
Except that it has materialised. The warming in the 30 year period, Jan 1979 - Dec 2008, has been between 0.13 and 0.16 deg per decade depending on which data set you use.
In the 1980s, Hansen produced a model which predicted warming and, although it was far from perfect, no-one can deny that the earth has warmed. At that time most people would have suggested that the likelihood of warming and cooling were about the same. Now he could have just got lucky and I'm quite sure factors other than CO2 are all part of the mix but we are still in warming phase and I see no evidence (yet) that the situation has changed.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 10, 2009 11:21:18 GMT
My problem is that there have been a lot of 'warming predictions' made on the basis of manmade CO2 emissions. Many of these are little more than wishful thinking. I can sort of understand this but as the predicted warming has failed to materialise, the AGW argument has taken a significant backward step after a decade of cooling.Except that it has materialised. The warming in the 30 year period, Jan 1979 - Dec 2008, has been between 0.13 and 0.16 deg per decade depending on which data set you use. In the 1980s, Hansen produced a model which predicted warming and, although it was far from perfect, no-one can deny that the earth has warmed. At that time most people would have suggested that the likelihood of warming and cooling were about the same. Now he could have just got lucky and I'm quite sure factors other than CO2 are all part of the mix but we are still in warming phase and I see no evidence (yet) that the situation has changed. You appear to be making an assumption that the lags for cooling and heating of the system are the same. I am not sure that this is safe. Also there are other ways of looking at the temperatures that indicate a series of step functions then levels. Averaging these out into 'trends' removes or obscures information that could be important in identifying jumps between chaotic states rather than a simplistic linear progression.
|
|
|
Post by heatsink on Mar 10, 2009 16:15:44 GMT
It affects time periods of little relevance to global warming. Socold, you should read the paper and its references - as I am doing - the period used is from 1945 to 2005. Now correct me if I am wrong but this is the period that is the cause of all the AGW and 'climate catastrophe' talk. " The lack of upward trend in TSI (and GCR) in the last 50 years is the main problem - not whether it can be amplified or not."Perhaps if you were to cite a graph of changes in TSI and GCR over the time period from 1945 to 2005 and show that there were no changes or trends in those changes then your dismissive statement would be more acceptable. There's a reaclimate article with a graph here: www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42Hi Socold, I've read the objections to GCRs compared to surface temperature but I've also read Svensmark's reply which shows the continued correlation between GCRs and temperatures above and below the surface. Since the real climate article is from 2004 and Svensmark reply is from 2007 it seems that he has the last word unless you know of a counter-reply. Is there any that you know of? Thanks, Heatsink
|
|
|
Post by newbie1 on Mar 10, 2009 17:56:54 GMT
My problem is that there have been a lot of 'warming predictions' made on the basis of manmade CO2 emissions. Many of these are little more than wishful thinking. I can sort of understand this but as the predicted warming has failed to materialise, the AGW argument has taken a significant backward step after a decade of cooling.Except that it has materialised. The warming in the 30 year period, Jan 1979 - Dec 2008, has been between 0.13 and 0.16 deg per decade depending on which data set you use. In the 1980s, Hansen produced a model which predicted warming and, although it was far from perfect, no-one can deny that the earth has warmed. At that time most people would have suggested that the likelihood of warming and cooling were about the same. Now he could have just got lucky and I'm quite sure factors other than CO2 are all part of the mix but we are still in warming phase and I see no evidence (yet) that the situation has changed. This argument needs to be expanded. Quit Cherry Picking your Dates, Include all Available Date / Temperature reports in your models. If your models cannot explain all of the variations they are not accurate. The 1930's were warmer than now, where was the CO2 then? Chuck.
|
|