|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 15, 2011 14:33:32 GMT
Have a look at this:  wow |
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 15, 2011 14:44:32 GMT
Have a look at this: wow Looks like it's searching for the missing heat... |
|
|
|
Post by codetalker on Oct 15, 2011 18:04:11 GMT
Wow is right! The Atlantic is also cold and the UK is getting ready for a drop in temperatures. www.express.co.uk/posts/view/277583I received the other day a composite of studies going back to 1908 from an employee of the CPC. I was told to expect cold, but not as cold, temps this year with a slightly higher amount of moisture. I'm waiting to hear if that means additional snow? I will keep everyone posted. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 16, 2011 2:32:06 GMT
Add the 15th to the flip chart!!  Looks like they are going to need to increase the scale of the chart unless the next run goes warmer than the red lines. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 16, 2011 8:30:29 GMT
|
|
s12a
New Member
Posts: 6 
|
Post by s12a on Oct 16, 2011 8:43:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 18, 2011 1:57:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 18, 2011 4:31:40 GMT
I don't put much faith in NCEP after following it for the last 4-5 years, but hey, I'm just a casual observer. It should be noted however the oceans did not recharge after the last La Nina, as evidenced in the latest SST/OHC data, if they are accurate. On a side note: Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009
Hi Tom How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty! Kevin  Have a nice day. |
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 18, 2011 8:29:20 GMT
I don't put much faith in NCEP after following it for the last 4-5 years, but hey, I'm just a casual observer. It should be noted however the oceans did not recharge after the last La Nina, as evidenced in the latest SST/OHC data, if they are accurate. On a side note: Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009
Hi Tom How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty! Kevin Have a nice day. Yes, a question arose two long years ago. This flattening of temperatures certainly has provided a chance to learn about climate. Now we think, but as icefisher pointed out we don't exactly know, that energy has gone into the deep ocean. I'd guess that the sea level measurements would be the place to try to refute this hypothesis. Trenberth's contention that we'd never know if geoengineering worked is suspect in my mind. The physics is fairly well known, and by performing the experiment, as in a constantly varied geoengineering program that learned from results, we'd figure out geoengineering pretty quickly. It would be a super high priority for many governments, since millions could get flooded, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 18, 2011 12:37:49 GMT
I don't put much faith in NCEP after following it for the last 4-5 years, but hey, I'm just a casual observer. It should be noted however the oceans did not recharge after the last La Nina, as evidenced in the latest SST/OHC data, if they are accurate. On a side note: Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009
Hi Tom How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty! Kevin Have a nice day. Yes, a question arose two long years ago. This flattening of temperatures certainly has provided a chance to learn about climate. Now we think, but as icefisher pointed out we don't exactly know, that energy has gone into the deep ocean. I'd guess that the sea level measurements would be the place to try to refute this hypothesis. Trenberth's contention that we'd never know if geoengineering worked is suspect in my mind. The physics is fairly well known, and by performing the experiment, as in a constantly varied geoengineering program that learned from results, we'd figure out geoengineering pretty quickly. It would be a super high priority for many governments, since millions could get flooded, for example. So with no idea of the metrics and no idea of why the temperatures in the ocean appear to be going down, just start spending money to more than likely harm the environment. That is not commonsense. It is foolish hubris. Mr. Green would be proud of his acolyte. Come to think about it a bit is the experiment to warm the oceans? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 18, 2011 19:43:12 GMT
So with no idea of the metrics and no idea of why the temperatures in the ocean appear to be going down, just start spending money to more than likely harm the environment. That is not commonsense. It is foolish hubris. Mr. Green would be proud of his acolyte. Come to think about it a bit is the experiment to warm the oceans?
Indeed! These kind of proposals tend to come from the money grows on trees sector, though they usually have none and pay no taxes either.
If its going into the ocean then sea level should be accelerating as it has to account for 1) the normal warming going into the ocean; 2) All the missing heat in the atmosphere; 3) The incremental heat that the atmosphere and the surface would have normally sent to space from being warmer.
Not likely you are going to find all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by codetalker on Oct 20, 2011 20:38:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Oct 20, 2011 21:03:23 GMT
Something looks a little loopy about the recent Nina 3-4 CFS forcast shown above... Now I'm not an astro-meteorologist like our buddy Astronut. But I do not see how SST's (anomalies)in that region can get that low. I do not see any huge pools of subsurface (extra) cold water, or cold water coming up from the south... I don't see how the models get there. In other words, this model ensemble appeared to be off the rails. Then I went here www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf and found that the published model results are different from what appears above... I think we will have a moderate to strong la nina winter, but not biblical... at least as far a la nina is concerned. On the other hand the AO and the ongoing negative PDO and the cooling of the tropical Atlantic might have something to say about that... |
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Oct 20, 2011 21:05:47 GMT
One thing is certain. Somebody needs to find the missing heat, and get it back on the job!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Oct 20, 2011 21:19:28 GMT
I dunno, looks like a pretty huge pool of cold water to me.  The plot on the cpc weekly update is probability density function corrected. Is this a good idea when we have such a short record of 3.4 temperatures? I have no idea - I'm not a statistician! |
|
Have a nice day. 
