|
|
Post by codetalker on Oct 8, 2011 2:47:22 GMT
I read in this blog where someone called La Nina a warming, not cooling phase, as the Ocean dumps it's warmth into the atmosphere switching back to El Nino. Yes, I would be interested in your PDO thoughts and I agree most Seattle area folk don't know how to drive in winter.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Oct 8, 2011 3:48:36 GMT
La Niña appears to have staged a comeback similar to 2008, and consistent with expectations formulated right here one year ago: big La Niña events have a strong tendency to re-emerge after 'taking time off' during northern hemispheric summer. Based on current atmosphere-ocean conditions,
I believe the odds for a La Niña winter have indeed risen to near 100%, with the 'fall window' of disrupting this evolution closing rapidly. However, it does not appear likely that we will see as strong an event as in 2010-11.- Klaus Wolter at NOAAUK Met Office 3.4 forecast: 
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 8, 2011 4:00:28 GMT
I read in this blog where someone called La Nina a warming, not cooling phase, as the Ocean dumps it's warmth into the atmosphere switching back to El Nino. Yes, I would be interested in your PDO thoughts and I agree most Seattle area folk don't know how to drive in winter. What happens during a La Nina is the ocean absorbs more heat than it expresses. This is what is meant by warming. During a El Nino, the ocean looses more heat that it absorbs. A El Nino will warm the atmosphere, a La Nina will cool the atmosphere. |
|
|
|
Post by codetalker on Oct 8, 2011 16:35:50 GMT
Sigurdur- Ok, I'm totally confused by what you're saying. I thought La Nina means the oceans are cooling? Right? Wrong? I thought the Pacific Ocean is colder during a La Nina? "La Niña is characterized by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific" www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/lanina.htmlIsn't the cold ocean temps a result of the water dumping heat into the atmosphere? If what I'm saying is right, and it sounds like you say it isn't, then the ocean wouldn't absorb heat because it would be dumping heat making the water temp colder...? Thanks for the reply by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 8, 2011 17:07:12 GMT
Sigurdur- Ok, I'm totally confused by what you're saying. I thought La Nina means the oceans are cooling? Right? Wrong? I thought the Pacific Ocean is colder during a La Nina? "La Niña is characterized by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific" www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/lanina.htmlIsn't the cold ocean temps a result of the water dumping heat into the atmosphere? If what I'm saying is right, and it sounds like you say it isn't, then the ocean wouldn't absorb heat because it would be dumping heat making the water temp colder...? Thanks for the reply by the way.
Here's my take, but I'm not a climate scientist.
I think what sig is saying is essentially correct.
Think of it this way:
I have a hot cup of coffee in my hand. You haven't had your morning Joe yet so you take it from me.
Your eyes bug out as the heat from my hot cup of coffee (warm ocean) is transferred to your hand (atmosphere).
Since my coffee (ocean) is hot, when you grab it, because your hand is colder than the coffee, the heat is transferred to your hand (atmosphere) and thus my coffee has LOST heat. It has cooled as a result.
Conversely, if i have cold water at 40 degrees (F) in my cup and you hold it in between your hands while watching football, your 98.6 deg hands will warm up my cup of water.
That is, when the ocean is warm it is able to dump heat into the atmosphere. Just like my hot coffee, it can't dump heat when it's cold because it's got no heat to dump.[This is a rough analogy. If I have totally screwed this up, someone please correct me -- I don't mind.  ] So even though your hand (atmosphere) is now warmer for having grabbed my hot coffee, my coffee (ocean) has LOST heat. So, though the atmosphere warms during El Nino, the total event on a global scale is a cooling one as the warm air rises through convection and ultimately radiates the heat to space. |
|
|
|
Post by astroposer777 on Oct 8, 2011 18:27:31 GMT
Sigurdur- Ok, I'm totally confused by what you're saying. I thought La Nina means the oceans are cooling? Right? Wrong? I thought the Pacific Ocean is colder during a La Nina? "La Niña is characterized by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific" www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/lanina.htmlIsn't the cold ocean temps a result of the water dumping heat into the atmosphere? If what I'm saying is right, and it sounds like you say it isn't, then the ocean wouldn't absorb heat because it would be dumping heat making the water temp colder...? Thanks for the reply by the way. I think the cause of La Nina may shed some light here. The ocean cooling which is characteristic of Nina events is caused by upwelling of colder deep ocean waters owing to the fact that stronger trade winds push the warm surface waters westward creating a void. I am no expert, but I think the impacts are that there is less heat transferred to the atmosphere and less convection during Nina events due to the fact that the ocean temps are lower than the atmospheric temps, so some regions experience a cooling effect. At this point I get confused, the warm surface water which is pushed westward in the equatorial pacific would displace the warm water already there pushing it both north, south, and east which would increase SST and also OHC in those regions, so why in the context of global temperatures does the system not stay more or less in balance? |
|
|
|
Post by codetalker on Oct 8, 2011 21:26:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 8, 2011 22:12:03 GMT
codetalker, I looked at your link and it says Scotland has already seen some snow this week. Interesting. Here's an interesting then and now... THEN: December 16, 2008 "University of Colorado-Boulder geography professor Mark Williams said Monday …. the season will be shorter because snow will accumulate later and melt earlier. If carbon emissions increase, the average temperature at Park City will be 10.4 degrees warmer by 2100, and there likely will be no snowpack, according to the study. Skiing at Aspen, with an average temperature 8.6 degrees higher than now, will be marginal." Source: www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/131044NOW: October 8, 2011 "Wolf Creek Ski Area (Colorado, USA) opens today and tomorrow with more than 3 feet of snow; 3 lifts; $33.00 lift tickets! Seniors and Children will be $19.00. Services will include: Ski School, the Wolf Creek Ski Rentals, the BoarderDome, the Upper Lodge and Treasure Sports." Source: www.wolfcreekski.com/Cowabunga dude! |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 9, 2011 0:50:19 GMT
Sigurdur- Ok, I'm totally confused by what you're saying. I thought La Nina means the oceans are cooling? Right? Wrong? I thought the Pacific Ocean is colder during a La Nina?
One of the bigger uncertainties surrounding AGW is the concept of an established equilibrium.
If say magnetic energies or some other mechanism exchanged between the earth and sun cause the atmosphere to have greater thermal conductivity (either radiatively via cloud/opacity variation or physically by say lowering the top of the atmosphere) there will be no static equilibrium and the rate of cooling may vary greatly.
Warmists claim the only way that can happen is mankind messing with the atmosphere, which on the surface is an extraordinary claim. Its not so extraordinary to claim mankind can mess with it but to claim it is the only means of it changing goes beyond science in to pure unadulterated politics and a misuse of science.
Its one thing to say you are not aware of other mechanisms but thats a zillion years from saying there are none.
Not many years ago warmist scientists blew off ENSO as a regional phenomena. However that was more a sign of climatologists failing to do their homework because the correlation of ENSO and ENSO regimes to global climate is not a new phenomena.
Instead with powers directing the direction of science it has been a job to push the nerdy noses of computer geeks that call themselves climate experts into the observational data as opposed to spending all their time and energy into proving AGW and trying to enlarge modtran into a globally-gridded computer model.
Back then it was just heat moving around. Its just weather and the belief was weather can be ignored.
Today the heat is disappearing as monitoring has greatly improved with larger implications on how the long term behavior of the planet might respond.
So indeed it could be that heat transfer from the coffee cup to the cool hand could be from the sea surface and atmosphere to really cold space and much less to a relatively cold upper ocean as it seems as Astroposer points out "where did it go".
No doubt winds can cause warm water to subduct down in kind of a ferris wheel where the warm water is piled up to the west and deep cold water upwells to the surface but does that account for the entire ENSO effect? Probably not!
The earth climate system is an unbelievably complicated machine and the sheer size of it probably entails physics we haven't even scratched the surface on. The history of physics has shown stuff doesn't scale all that well and new discoveries are constantly needed to explain stuff when we forever look both smaller and larger at systems.
One of the more enticing things lately is the Spencer & Braswell paper that suggests a radiative forcing on ENSO that the delays highlight. That might be the most interesting thing about that paper but in typical team fashion its treated as nothing to see here. . . . move along. So it hasn't gotten much discussion at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by astroposer777 on Oct 10, 2011 1:09:04 GMT
Icefisher said
"No doubt winds can cause warm water to subduct down in kind of a ferris wheel where the warm water is piled up to the west and deep cold water upwells to the surface but does that account for the entire ENSO effect? Probably not! "
I agree, and think that the real question here is why do the surface wind patterns shift in order to foster these conditions? In my opinion the most obvious link is changes in AAM and upper level atmospheric conditions, however as complex as those interactions are, understanding them only leads to more questions. I.E. if shifts in AAM lead to ENSO, how does ENSO impact thermohaline circulation, and how does this impact atmospheric conditions?
|
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Oct 10, 2011 5:25:00 GMT
Reading the above posts, a Martian [from a safe distance] would certainly gain the impression that climate science is horribly unsettled. Unresolved questions seem to litter the landscape. I have a suspicion that in 20 years' time the concept that the concentration of a trace essential gas dominates the weather system will appear completely absurd. Anyhow, here is my general question: Looking at the AMSU Channel 5 temperatures over the past year, there seems to be a trend that in the NH Summer months, temperatures are not much different from the previous year. In the winter, a noticeable declime from the previous year's average seems to be happening. Is there a reason for this, or is it just a statistical aberration? Is it a La Nina effect? discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 12, 2011 22:56:32 GMT
Reading the above posts, a Martian [from a safe distance] would certainly gain the impression that climate science is horribly unsettled. Unresolved questions seem to litter the landscape. I have a suspicion that in 20 years' time the concept that the concentration of a trace essential gas dominates the weather system will appear completely absurd. Anyhow, here is my general question: Looking at the AMSU Channel 5 temperatures over the past year, there seems to be a trend that in the NH Summer months, temperatures are not much different from the previous year. In the winter, a noticeable declime from the previous year's average seems to be happening. Is there a reason for this, or is it just a statistical aberration? Is it a La Nina effect? discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutempsPossibly La Nina's effect as this particular ENSO cooling phase along with the volcanic ash cover high in the atmosphere combined to produce cloudy, wetter conditions last winter through the northern hemispheric spring and into summer - especially at northern latitudes. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 13, 2011 23:30:59 GMT
Considering the fact that the fall season in the northern hemisphere is a month away and not here yet, I'm just wondering if you can read a calendar. We are past the worst of the 2009-2011 ENSO. You can play with 'products' from models all you want, but the fact remains that until you open your eyes to the natural world - that is the real world of climate and weather - you're only going to continue to fail to get both your oars in the water and all 52 cards in your deck. This is why I am so stringent on taking conventional 'forecast models' at more than just an arm's length. Those calling for another full-blown La Niña is not confirmed. If you look at what they are saying with the so-called 'forecast models' you will note that it is all uncertain and quite mixed. The majority of them are only "suggesting a double-dip La Niña," but they are not forecasting. They are waiting for "additional data before increasing the odds of a return to La Niña." Translated it Means This - All 22 major climate centers, including NOAA did not forecast this ENSO, nor have they scored above 10% in their seasonal forecasts stretching over the last decade. The modelers continue to confuse their research with forecasting - these are not the same. Moreover, since they did not predict the recent 2009-2011 ENSO, nor the arrival of La Nina on the back of El Nino, nor did they forecast the strength of ENSO when it was apparent to all that it had arrived in mid-2009 - they are now wishcasting La Nina to return. This, when even most of their 'models' show a return to neutral La Nina values you continue to have 'forecasters' who depend wholly on them guessing. That's not forecasting. Again, since I was the only forecaster who forecasted ENSO before it arrived I think I might have a decent idea as to when ENSO is over don't you think? I continue to state that the worst of the recent ENSO is past us. We will not see another significant ENSO until after 2017 according to my long-range astronomic calculations. Hey Astromet, It is time for you to eat some crow. I don't mind that your predictions have been so far wrong as to be laughable. But those of us on this thread that have had to listen to endless rants on your part as to how good a forecaster you were, and endure abuse when your forecasts where questioned. It is time to come down from your high horse and apologize to those of us you have abused. You were wrong. You were rude. And you need to admit these things. La Nina conditions are present. They will strengthen. And they will be confirmed. You are on the record assuring many people that you know what you were talking about and that we would see ENSO neutral conditions this fall. Because for the past 6 months you have been predicting ENSO neutral this fall. Everyone that questioned your forecast was forced to endure a rant about your meteorological prowess. Your forecasts were wrong. Time to come clean. Again, we will see. How can I be wrong about something that has not yet happened? And, I would appreciate it very much if you would not tell me that my "forecasts were wrong" - since I was the world's only forecaster who forecasted ENSO years in advance. So, if you cannot respect that, then go 'rant' elsewhere because frankly you are the one being 'rude.' Grow up. Forecasting is not a game and you seem to have a very short memory at that about what was forecasted against your wishcasting on what you think will come. That's not forecasting kiddo. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 13, 2011 23:48:11 GMT
Sigurdur- Ok, I'm totally confused by what you're saying. I thought La Nina means the oceans are cooling? Right? Wrong? I thought the Pacific Ocean is colder during a La Nina? One of the bigger uncertainties surrounding AGW is the concept of an established equilibrium. If say magnetic energies or some other mechanism exchanged between the earth and sun cause the atmosphere to have greater thermal conductivity (either radiatively via cloud/opacity variation or physically by say lowering the top of the atmosphere) there will be no static equilibrium and the rate of cooling may vary greatly. Warmists claim the only way that can happen is mankind messing with the atmosphere, which on the surface is an extraordinary claim. Its not so extraordinary to claim mankind can mess with it but to claim it is the only means of it changing goes beyond science in to pure unadulterated politics and a misuse of science. Its one thing to say you are not aware of other mechanisms but thats a zillion years from saying there are none. Not many years ago warmist scientists blew off ENSO as a regional phenomena. However that was more a sign of climatologists failing to do their homework because the correlation of ENSO and ENSO regimes to global climate is not a new phenomena. Instead with powers directing the direction of science it has been a job to push the nerdy noses of computer geeks that call themselves climate experts into the observational data as opposed to spending all their time and energy into proving AGW and trying to enlarge modtran into a globally-gridded computer model. Back then it was just heat moving around. Its just weather and the belief was weather can be ignored. Today the heat is disappearing as monitoring has greatly improved with larger implications on how the long term behavior of the planet might respond. So indeed it could be that heat transfer from the coffee cup to the cool hand could be from the sea surface and atmosphere to really cold space and much less to a relatively cold upper ocean as it seems as Astroposer points out "where did it go". No doubt winds can cause warm water to subduct down in kind of a ferris wheel where the warm water is piled up to the west and deep cold water upwells to the surface but does that account for the entire ENSO effect? Probably not! The earth climate system is an unbelievably complicated machine and the sheer size of it probably entails physics we haven't even scratched the surface on. The history of physics has shown stuff doesn't scale all that well and new discoveries are constantly needed to explain stuff when we forever look both smaller and larger at systems. One of the more enticing things lately is the Spencer & Braswell paper that suggests a radiative forcing on ENSO that the delays highlight. That might be the most interesting thing about that paper but in typical team fashion its treated as nothing to see here. . . . move along. So it hasn't gotten much discussion at all. Good post Icefisher. However, it is well known among astronomic forecasters that it is the Sun that forces the Earth climate. I keep saying that it is the laws of physics that rule over our planet's climate. In my forecasts I apply the Sun's condition and those moderated by the planets and Moon on Earth's climate and weather. The conventional climatology and meteorological community are only just beginning to come around to waking up about the Sun's direct forcing of the Earth's climate. Even amateurs and other weather/climate observers are now weaning off the AGW mania and are slowly coming to their senses on how the Earth's climate is forced from space. British Meteorologist Paul Hudson of the BBC says:
"For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.
Quite why this has been the case is difficult to fathom. But it’s been clear for a long time that there must be a link of some kind, ever since decades ago Professor Lamb discovered an empirical relationship between low solar activity and higher pressure across higher latitudes such as Greenland.
Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated by supercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man on global climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solar variation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until very recently.
In fact, new research published this week and conducted by the Met Office and Imperial College London, showing how solar variability can help explain cold winters.
Most studies in the past have largely focused on the sun’s brightness, but this research has discovered that it’s the variation in the Sun’s Ultra Violet (UV) output that’s crucial.
According to the new paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, when UV output is low, colder air than normal forms over the tropics in the stratosphere.
This is balanced by a more easterly flow of air over the mid-latitudes. The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface – leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe.
When UV output is higher, the opposite is true, with warmer air making its way to the surface, and carried across the UK and Europe from the west.
Of course there are other factors involved in determining our weather, and this alone does not mean scientists have discovered the holy grail of long range forecasting.
Looking globally the research makes clear that the impact of the sun’s changing UV output acts to redistribute heat, with cold European winters going hand in hand with milder winters in Canada and the Mediterranean, for example, with little impact on overall global temperatures.
The work is based on an 11-year solar cycle, with the regional temperature changes associated with the peaks and troughs of the UV cycle effectively cancelling each other out over that time.
But there are some scientists who believe that there are longer term cycles, such as the bi-centennial cycle and that on average over the coming decades solar activity will decline.
If so, not only will cold European winters become more common, but global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.
This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too." |
|
s12a
New Member
Posts: 6 
|
Post by s12a on Oct 15, 2011 9:17:34 GMT
Have a look at this:  |
|
] 
