|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 14, 2009 0:09:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 14, 2009 0:20:55 GMT
nautonnier Are you suggesting that the lack of warm water may have something to do with the lack of warm air. Interesting concept and the further suggestion is that it may be happening quickly. Although I might suggest that this solar minimum has not been so quick and that it may have taken some time to get the thermal mass to react. Not very quantitative.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 14, 2009 0:36:13 GMT
nautonnier Are you suggesting that the lack of warm water may have something to do with the lack of warm air. Interesting concept and the further suggestion is that it may be happening quickly. Although I might suggest that this solar minimum has not been so quick and that it may have taken some time to get the thermal mass to react. Not very quantitative. Its not my suggestion - but if the NCEP satellite graphics are even half true - and it could be a sensor fault - then there could be a problem. I would have thought that the thermohaline circulation couldn't heave to in a day or so the momentum is too great - I hope. Quick in geological terms is a century or so - but from the Wood's Hole paper - they say a decade. That is a LOT faster than most people would think the Gulf Stream could stop flowing to the Arctic. We are watching these things in a lot more detail than before - perhaps the Gulf Stream did this before with the AMO switching? No-one knows I am glad I have a base in Florida though.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 14, 2009 0:38:44 GMT
Hi Nautonnier. I had seen the NOAA study regarding the anomalous piling up of water along the East Coast that you cited a little higher in the thread. In fact, I commented on it this summer. What I meant today was that if the Gulf Stream had "stopped" in late September NOAA could probably be trusted to get a press release out within three weeks... Most of the "strange" pile-up of water, such as it was, (in July, I spent 3 weeks in Rhode Island where I know the coast well and no one there was talking about it) can be chalked up to persistent northeast winds as the NOAA statement acknowledges. In all honesty I think you're taking the warmists' bait a little bit here. They have long theorized that the thermohaline would be interrupted by AGW and look hard for proof on an ongoing basis, believe me. I'm confident that you don't attribute the freshening described in the Wood's Hole link to atmospheric co2 -- or do you? The Wood's Hole link is written in the same kind of alarmist spirit that NSIDC has produced its "analysis" of Arctic sea ice decline in the satellite era, seemingly oblivious of the coincident timing of the flying of the satellite in 1979 and where we were in terms of the Arctic's known rhythms. Sure, it's possible that the freshening observed in the North Atlantic is both unusual and worrisome (and manmade). It's also possible that overeager scientists have no way to put what they are measuring into an appropriate context. Again, I say, show me a statement by a fisherman, even one, talking about the change, and you'll make some headway with me. I still stand by my statement that a major Gulf Stream dimunition would become evident in the anomaly maps within the time frame that we're dealing with here. You wouldn't necessarily get The Day After Tomorrow but you should get noticeable weather effects right quick. Meanwhile, you had a named tropical storm form just off the coast of Ireland in the last two weeks, as well as normal (to warm) temperatures in Iceland, Norway, and Scotland, etc. I'll see if I can get in touch with a couple of offshore fishermen I used to know in Rhode Island when I lived up that way.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Oct 14, 2009 1:32:53 GMT
Hi Nautonnier. I had seen the NOAA study regarding the anomalous piling up of water along the East Coast that you cited a little higher in the thread. In fact, I commented on it this summer. What I meant today was that if the Gulf Stream had "stopped" in late September NOAA could probably be trusted to get a press release out within three weeks... Most of the "strange" pile-up of water, such as it was. (In July, I spent 3 weeks in Rhode Island where I know the coast well and no one there was talking about it) can be chalked up to persistent northeast winds as the NOAA statement acknowledges. In all honesty I think you're taking the warmists' bait a little bit here. They have long theorized that the thermohaline would be interrupted by AGW and look hard for proof on an ongoing basis, believe me. I'm confident that you don't attribute the freshening described in the Wood's Hole link to atmospheric co2 -- or do you? The Wood's Hole link is written in the same kind of alarmist spirit that NSIDC has produced its "analysis" of Arctic sea ice decline in the satellite era, seemingly oblivious of the coincident timing of the flying of the satellite in 1979 and where we were in terms of the Arctic's known rhythms. Sure, it's possible that the freshening observed in the North Atlantic is both unusual and worrisome (and manmade). It's also possible that overeager scientists have no way to put what they are measuring into an appropriate context. Again, I say, show me a statement by a fisherman, even one, talking about the change, and you'll make some headway with me. I still stand by my statement that a major Gulf Stream dimunition would become evident in the anomaly maps within the time frame that we're dealing with here. You wouldn't necessarily get The Day After Tomorrow but you should get noticeable weather effects right quick. Meanwhile, you had a named tropical storm form just off the coast of Ireland in the last two weeks, as well as normal (to warm) temperatures in Iceland, Norway, and Scotland, etc. I'll see if I can get in touch with a couple of offshore fishermen I used to know in Rhode Island when I lived up that way. The Gulf Stream is highly variable all on its own. www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1999/1999JC900254.shtmlwww.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5840/935?ck=nckBenjamin Franklin studied this: inventors.about.com/od/fstartinventors/ss/Franklin_invent_5.htmI am tired of fear mongers who sell fear by forgetting about the history that is well documented.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 14, 2009 4:54:22 GMT
nautonnier Are you suggesting that the lack of warm water may have something to do with the lack of warm air. Interesting concept and the further suggestion is that it may be happening quickly. Although I might suggest that this solar minimum has not been so quick and that it may have taken some time to get the thermal mass to react. Not very quantitative. Its not my suggestion - but if the NCEP satellite graphics are even half true - and it could be a sensor fault - then there could be a problem. I would have thought that the thermohaline circulation couldn't heave to in a day or so the momentum is too great - I hope. Quick in geological terms is a century or so - but from the Wood's Hole paper - they say a decade. That is a LOT faster than most people would think the Gulf Stream could stop flowing to the Arctic. We are watching these things in a lot more detail than before - perhaps the Gulf Stream did this before with the AMO switching? No-one knows I am glad I have a base in Florida though. If the AMO has done anything more than a (not at all unusual) hiccup in the middle of the cycle (ie, switched back to cooling) then it's been a short cycle indeed. I really expected it to flip back in a decade or so. Since global warming is equally well explained by the ocean currents going into warming mode...such a switch would be troubling. It could just be the fact that I've only been following this stuff for the last couple years but lately I really get that "tipping point" feeling. I'm not talking about the kind of tipping point alarmists talk about. It just seems that we're either about to get warmer or colder...and it doesn't seem to me like a warming trend is lurking in the shadows. I think we're about to have a late 1940's style drop. But hey, I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 15, 2009 0:29:06 GMT
OK, lets add up what we know, shall we:
1. Solar magnetism at less than Dalton levels (and dropping), and sun spots at about a century low - but no turning point yet, so Maunder like minimum appears to be coming.
2. Antarctic Ice close to record high levels, and has been mostly higher than mean for the past few years.
3. Arctic ice in its third year of growth.
4. Unusually early Autumn snows cover about 20% of the USA.
5. Southern Polar jet stream has moved North, subjecting NZ to Historic (i.e. unheard of) spring snow falls, and SE Australia to a cold-wet spring (when dry was predicted). Ski fields still have good snow & receiving more at the end (or past the end) of the ski season.
6. Major early snow in Europe right now.
It all adds up to: COPENHAGEN. The world's leaders and vegetarian Scientists Economists climate priests are going to look very silly, if not now, in a few years time.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Oct 15, 2009 4:35:19 GMT
How The Isthmus of Panama Put Ice In The Arctic is also an excellent article. Although not mentioned in the article, I understand that closure of the Isthmus of Panama also created the climate conditions necessary for the advent of the species homo sapiens.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 15, 2009 23:51:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 16, 2009 0:29:12 GMT
You realize that this is a forecast and not an observation?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 16, 2009 1:42:55 GMT
You realize that this is a forecast and not an observation? Yes and the previous forecast 3 days earlier is being supported by this one. Either that means that these are totally unreliable and no-one is interested in their accuracy - or - something is happening that supports what the forecasts are showing. Hence my query.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 16, 2009 2:01:00 GMT
You realize that this is a forecast and not an observation? Yes and the previous forecast 3 days earlier is being supported by this one. Either that means that these are totally unreliable and no-one is interested in their accuracy - or - something is happening that supports what the forecasts are showing. Hence my query. I plugged in several dates for the last 3 months that the page has archived. Because this is an anomaly map, and not an absolute SST map, it is not the best one to indicate the Gulf Stream, IMHO. I see no reason, looking at any of the dates I plugged in, up to and including the present date, to believe that anything is amiss with the GS. Again, it's not a record of observations. It's a model-derived forecast. Have you been studying the linked page for months or years and suddenly see something new?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 16, 2009 12:25:59 GMT
Yes and the previous forecast 3 days earlier is being supported by this one. Either that means that these are totally unreliable and no-one is interested in their accuracy - or - something is happening that supports what the forecasts are showing. Hence my query. I plugged in several dates for the last 3 months that the page has archived. Because this is an anomaly map, and not an absolute SST map, it is not the best one to indicate the Gulf Stream, IMHO. I see no reason, looking at any of the dates I plugged in, up to and including the present date, to believe that anything is amiss with the GS. Again, it's not a record of observations. It's a model-derived forecast. Have you been studying the linked page for months or years and suddenly see something new? No I have not been studying it for some time. However, almost by definition a forecast will be model derived. But the legend on the page states: "This is a map of the magnitude of the horizontal velocity of the seawater at the indicated depth. Units are meters per second"
So it is not published as an anomaly map. I suppose it is possible that there is no validation to pick up wild errors - but If it is an error it is certainly a large one.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 16, 2009 14:50:01 GMT
I plugged in several dates for the last 3 months that the page has archived. Because this is an anomaly map, and not an absolute SST map, it is not the best one to indicate the Gulf Stream, IMHO. I see no reason, looking at any of the dates I plugged in, up to and including the present date, to believe that anything is amiss with the GS. Again, it's not a record of observations. It's a model-derived forecast. Have you been studying the linked page for months or years and suddenly see something new? No I have not been studying it for some time. However, almost by definition a forecast will be model derived. But the legend on the page states: "This is a map of the magnitude of the horizontal velocity of the seawater at the indicated depth. Units are meters per second"
So it is not published as an anomaly map. I suppose it is possible that there is no validation to pick up wild errors - but If it is an error it is certainly a large one. I stand corrected on what kind of map it is. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 16, 2009 18:56:12 GMT
The question remains - what is happening? The real time SST map from NCEP appears to reinforce what the forecast current velocity map is showing polar.ncep.noaa.gov/ofs/eval/images/aofs_sst_natl.pngThe swirl of current across the equator is there - but no sign of warm northward Gulf Stream
|
|