|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 2, 2009 22:37:57 GMT
First Day of March Max: 5.3C colder than long term mean. (Scoresby - SE Melbourne in close to rural setting.) Cold wave continues. 5th March is very cold - LOCAL Max for the day was just over 16C - close to 8C less than average. Greenhouse was all closed up & barely made it to 24 (which is the mean max for March here). Tomatoes haven't been ripening last week or so. I sure hope it warms up else my water melons are not going to come to much.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Mar 5, 2009 9:38:28 GMT
5th Day of March. Top of 16 degrees C, compared with something much higher last week. My central heating is on full, and it snowed in the mountains apparently.
At least the bushfires are dampening down.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Apr 1, 2009 7:29:01 GMT
for Socold and friends who miss this thread think its gonna start getting busy again as we descend into winter "Residents of Perth have just shivered through their coldest March nights in 41 years, according to weatherzone.com.au. The city had an average minimum of 15 degrees, below the long term normal of 17. This made it the coldest March in terms of overnight temperatures since 1968 and the fifth coldest March in terms of overnight temperatures on record" www.weatherzone.com.au/news/perth-shivers-through-coldest-march-nights-in-41-years/11582
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 1, 2009 8:06:25 GMT
Scoresby: March 09: (71-2000 average in {})
Mean Min: 12.3 {12.9} Mean Max: 24.3 {24.0} Days >=30C 4 {4.4} Days>=35C 0 {0.7} So Nights were 0.6C Colder than normal. While days 0.3C warmer.
Remember that the IPCC CO2 greenhouse effect predicts warmer night time temperatures.
Conclusion 1: consistent with a long term cooling trend since 2000. Conclusion 2: inconsistent with a CO2 greenhouse forcing.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 1, 2009 10:40:45 GMT
Mean Min: 12.3 {12.9} Mean Max: 24.3 {24.0} Days >=30C 4 {4.4} Days>=35C 0 {0.7} So Nights were 0.6C Colder than normal. While days 0.3C warmer. Just shows the variablity - here in the UK March has been ~1 deg warmer than the 1971-2000 average, and to-day (April 1st) people are wandering around in tee-shirts and shorts. Conclusion 1: consistent with a long term cooling trend since 2000. Conclusion 2: inconsistent with a CO2 greenhouse forcing. what conclusions can I draw from the UK weather?
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 1, 2009 20:30:13 GMT
Funny, I'm in the UK and woke up to a frost this morning and it's we are expecting more for later in the week. Unusually cold for this time of year (last decade) but pretty normal for when I was a kid in the 60's
Did try the T shirt thing but the biting cold wind make me wear a fleece as well. As for shorts. Ha Ha April fools..
Brr.. Chilly
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 1, 2009 22:52:19 GMT
Funny, I'm in the UK and woke up to a frost this morning and it's we are expecting more for later in the week. Unusually cold for this time of year (last decade) but pretty normal for when I was a kid in the 60's Whereabouts in the UK are you? Even I put shorts on this afternoon - though only in the back garden and I was working pretty hard. But we've had nothing like a frost and this aftenoon was quite definitely warm.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Apr 2, 2009 6:59:05 GMT
So you ignore the following;
Denver Blizzard Potential - 1 Apr 09 Record snowfall in 11 states - 31 Mar 09 Interstate 29 closed from Grand Forks to S.D. Border - 31 Mar 09 Blizzard Possible – Up to 20 inches of snow expected - 31 Mar 09 Fargo sees record snowfall Monday, more to come - 31 Mar 09 Tulsa snowfall shatters 1926 record – Roofs collapse in western Oklahoma - 29 Mar 09 Record low temperatures in nine states - 27 Mar 09 Snowfall records smashed in ten states - 27 Mar 09 40 Low temp records broken across Western Canada - 12 Mar 09 Slap-in-the-face-winter isn’t over yet - 1 Mar 09 Low temp records broken across Western Canada - 12 Mar 09 Drivers stranded by blizzards - thousands of commuters delayed by frozen railways 5 Mar 09 - Snow bomb' dumps record snowfall 24 Feb 09 10,000 people cut off from outside world 19 Feb 09 Heavy snow kills children, destroys houses in Afgh - 24 Feb 09 Ten feet of snow in one night! -19 Feb 09
And thats just a microsnippet
|
|
|
Post by alex4ever on Apr 2, 2009 7:46:02 GMT
These are all nice but how do we know if all these is just a coincidence, i mean look at the dates they are so close to each other. Even if you count more facts signaling a cooling how do we know that this is due to the deep solar minimum? NASA scientists or at least many of them as far as i know do not say that this can affect our atmosphere. It is affecting only upper atmosphere they say. Of course all these are just words and you can never know the whole truth so its very complicated. It may not be as simple as that. How can a 6% extreme UV wavelength and a 0.02% solar brightness reduce possibly affect our climate?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 2, 2009 9:34:44 GMT
These are all nice but how do we know if all these is just a coincidence, i mean look at the dates they are so close to each other. Even if you count more facts signaling a cooling how do we know that this is due to the deep solar minimum? NASA scientists or at least many of them as far as i know do not say that this can affect our atmosphere. It is affecting only upper atmosphere they say. Of course all these are just words and you can never know the whole truth so its very complicated. It may not be as simple as that. How can a 6% extreme UV wavelength and a 0.02% solar brightness reduce possibly affect our climate? Actually, the UV change has a couple of interesting things about it. First off 100% of it is turned into heat in the outer atmosphere. Second, it fluffs up the outer atmosphere...so much so that it varies the capture cross section OF THE ENTIRE EARTH for that extreme UV by over 2%. And finally lensing from the outer atmosphere means the change in earth's capture cross section actually affects some other frequencies of light as well. So currently the earth's capture cross section is 2% smaller or more in those wavelengths affected by ALL of the higher frequency UV (a significant chunk). It's getting less UV energy overall as well. Due to a thinner atmosphere we have less lensing so we've lost energy normally captured by other wavelengths as well. Also, the TSI variation is about 30% greater this time...instead of .1% it's about .13%. We've also lost a small amount of energy from the solar wind. To make this more obvious...for the past 50 years we've been going through powerful, rapid-fire solar cycles. The minimums were just a couple of years and then ramped right back up to high levels. During those minimums theres an obvious .1C dip in temperatures. Those other minimums were different though. They never bottomed out. The solar wind didn't drop like it has in this minimum. This minimum has already dragged on for twice as long as previous minimums and will obviously take a bit longer. Once the minimum is done it will probably take months just to ramp up to conditions that were previously considered to be "minimums". Then it will most likely peak at 1/2 the activity of previous cycles. Think about it, with such small differences in output over a relatively short period of time, the earth's temperature normally drops .1C during the minimum. How much lower will a much weaker minimum lasting 3-4x longer take us? Will it recover much (any?) without returning to high activity? Personally I think its reasonable to expect about .2C drop just from the minimum. Then we should expect at least .2C from the regular climate cycle and possibly more than .4C. Basically, most of global warming will be undone. Sea levels will fall some. Ice will increase. If solar forcing or the natural climate changes turn out to be any stronger than that, we'll undershoot the previous cold cycle's temperatures.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Apr 2, 2009 10:26:11 GMT
These are all nice but how do we know if all these is just a coincidence, i mean look at the dates they are so close to each other. Even if you count more facts signaling a cooling how do we know that this is due to the deep solar minimum? NASA scientists or at least many of them as far as i know do not say that this can affect our atmosphere. It is affecting only upper atmosphere they say. Of course all these are just words and you can never know the whole truth so its very complicated. It may not be as simple as that. How can a 6% extreme UV wavelength and a 0.02% solar brightness reduce possibly affect our climate? Also the same argument could be applied to the AGW theory. The only thing they have is some sort of correlation between CO2 and temperature rise for a brief period from 1980 - 1998 - thats it. the temperature rise correlates also with a grand maxima of the sun and a warming PDO which are more likely contributors than a trace gas that as yet only theoretically and not observationally or scientifically causes warming. In fact as CO2 rises temperatures drop. So if there was anything that was merely coincidence Id say it was AGW and that for a brief period. Natural cycles of the earth and sun are more logical, backed up by scientific evidence and also have proven causations.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 2, 2009 22:13:27 GMT
"Whereabouts in the UK are you? Even I put shorts on this afternoon - though only in the back garden and I was working pretty hard. But we've had nothing like a frost and this aftenoon was quite definitely warm."
I'm about 25 miles south of London, where are you glc?? Is glc a reference to the Greater London Council which I remember all too well?
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Apr 6, 2009 13:14:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 6, 2009 15:34:39 GMT
I'm about 25 miles south of London, where are you glc?? In the midlands. Is glc a reference to the Greater London Council which I remember all too well? Most definitley not. GLC are the initials of a local social club and it became the name of a quiz team I was part of. Not very imaginative - but the name kind of stuck for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 6, 2009 23:03:52 GMT
I'm just sitting here hoping that nobody asks the origin of my forum name
|
|