|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 6, 2010 11:27:14 GMT
"I am still thinking the drop into solar minimum has impacted all the metrics downwards (sea level, ocean heat content, global surface and satellite temperature, although im more certain about the last two)"An interesting thought SoCold. Perhaps you could tell glc what the mechanism is for that as he feels there is no correlation at all of climate with solar minima. Never said that at all. There is ~0.1% difference in TSI between solar max and solar min which would account for a change of ~0.1 deg over the cycle. In other words we should have cooled about 0.1 deg since ~2001 due to the solar cycle. The difference between grand maxima and grand minima is possibly slightly more but the biggest effect of solar variability seems to be a shift in weather patterns which means some regions cool while others warm. Solar theorists mistake these shifts for periods of cooling (and warming). Just to get this clear - you agree with SoCold that the Solar reduction of 0.1% TSI GLOBALLY "has impacted all the metrics downwards (sea level, ocean heat content, global surface and satellite temperature, although im more certain about the last two)" |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 6, 2010 19:39:09 GMT
There does seem to be a signal of the 11 year solar cycle in the surface temperature data. It is about 0.1C from solar max to min as glc says, although the recent minimum has been deeper and more extended than usual so possibly the cooling due to this solar minimum has been slightly more than 0.1C.
Heat content and sea level I am less sure about (the two are linked). First there's no 11 year signal in that data, second a 0.2wm-2 solar forcing shouldn't be enough to negate the overall imbalance.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 6, 2010 21:34:35 GMT
Just to get this clear - you agree with SoCold that the Solar reduction of 0.1% TSI GLOBALLY "has impacted all the metrics downwards (sea level, ocean heat content, global surface and satellite temperature, although im more certain about the last two)"
The earth receives slightly less energy during a solar minimum than it does during a solar maximum so it follows that temperatures will be lower at solar minimum than at solar maximum (all other things being equal). The relationship between in energy (E) and temperature (T) is as follows:
E = k x T4 where k is S-B constant
If E increases by 0.1% then T will increase by a factor of (1.001)0.25, i.e.
Tnew = Tinit x (1.00025)
If Tinit = 288K then Tnew = 288.072 deg
Temperature will increase by 0.072 deg which is ~0.1 deg (rounded to 1 decimal place)
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 7, 2010 0:20:17 GMT
Just to get this clear - you agree with SoCold that the Solar reduction of 0.1% TSI GLOBALLY "has impacted all the metrics downwards (sea level, ocean heat content, global surface and satellite temperature, although im more certain about the last two)" The earth receives slightly less energy during a solar minimum than it does during a solar maximum so it follows that temperatures will be lower at solar minimum than at solar maximum (all other things being equal). The relationship between in energy (E) and temperature (T) is as follows: E = k x T 4 where k is S-B constant If E increases by 0.1% then T will increase by a factor of (1.001) 0.25, i.e. T new = T init x (1.00025) If T init = 288K then T new = 288.072 deg Temperature will increase by 0.072 deg which is ~0.1 deg (rounded to 1 decimal place) And this standard formula applies if the changes are linked to energy from the Sun although around the same overall level moving toward the extreme ultra violet? |
|
|
|
Post by richdo on Oct 7, 2010 1:08:13 GMT
Just to get this clear - you agree with SoCold that the Solar reduction of 0.1% TSI GLOBALLY "has impacted all the metrics downwards (sea level, ocean heat content, global surface and satellite temperature, although im more certain about the last two)" The earth receives slightly less energy during a solar minimum than it does during a solar maximum so it follows that temperatures will be lower at solar minimum than at solar maximum (all other things being equal). The relationship between in energy (E) and temperature (T) is as follows: E = k x T 4 where k is S-B constant If E increases by 0.1% then T will increase by a factor of (1.001) 0.25, i.e. T new = T init x (1.00025) If T init = 288K then T new = 288.072 deg Temperature will increase by 0.072 deg which is ~0.1 deg (rounded to 1 decimal place) What? No feedbacks? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 7, 2010 8:03:20 GMT
What? No feedbacks?
Do you think there should be feedbacks?
Since we're looking at the ~11 year cycle we can only really consider "fast" feedbacks. There might be a feedback effect which bumps the temp change up to or slightly above the 0.1 deg mark. But observations suggest the temperature change is close to the theoretical calculation.
And this standard formula applies if the changes are linked to energy from the Sun although around the same overall level moving toward the extreme ultra violet?
Same answer as above applies. It's possibe to detect a slight rise/fall in temperatures which correlates to the solar cycle.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 7, 2010 10:00:28 GMT
The "slight" rise and fall is greater than .1C so there's obviously some sort of feedback. The question is...is it a generic feedback (to temperature) or is it a specific feedback (to UV, the solar wind, etc).
I lean toward specific. The holocene just doesn't show enough variation.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 7, 2010 21:35:18 GMT
The "slight" rise and fall is greater than .1C so there's obviously some sort of feedback. The question is...is it a generic feedback (to temperature) or is it a specific feedback (to UV, the solar wind, etc). I lean toward specific. The holocene just doesn't show enough variation. Like a hockey stick handle? |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 8, 2010 4:21:31 GMT
The "slight" rise and fall is greater than .1C so there's obviously some sort of feedback. The question is...is it a generic feedback (to temperature) or is it a specific feedback (to UV, the solar wind, etc). I lean toward specific. The holocene just doesn't show enough variation. Like a hockey stick handle? LOL, I mean there's something about the system that specifically amplifies solar forcing...but that the climate system its self generally reduces the impacts of any forcings during the interglacial periods...leading to the interglacial plateaus we see in the proxy records. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 9, 2010 18:34:05 GMT
And, your point is what Steve? If you look at the real world weather in 2010, this is exactly what we have seen - heavy deluges, and extensive flooding throughout the world.I think Steve's point is that your prediction was garbage. This is the impact of planetary bodies relative to the earth, and the earth's climate always responds.Hmmm. I was the only forecaster I know of that accurately forecasted El Nino and La Nina - from 2006 (four years ago) for the time cycle the world is now experiencing.Since ENSO events occur at frequencies of anything between 2-7 years predicting one 4 years in advance isn't terribly impressive - particularly as you seem to want to claim an error of 18+ months as a success. In late 2008 I predicted 2009 would be warmer than 2008 and that 2010 would be warmer than both due to the likelihood of an El Nino. And more is to come...
The La Nina I forecasted can easily be seen growing, and will have great impact on at least 50% of the world's weather in 2011.Really! Are you telling us that La Nina will affect the world's weather. We are certainly priviledged that you have chosen to share your knowledge and expertise with us. For North America and Europe, my astronomical calculations show that the months of February, March & April 2011 are the months when we will see La Nina full force, with a cooler summer to follow next year. You're a bit late. We had those same predictions about 3 months ago from the model runs. Let's get a few things straight Glc ~ First, if you are to insult me, then at least do so with respect, which, by the way, comes from a non-forecaster as yourself who uses the word "garbage" to attack a professional forecaster. I've yet seen you forecast anything remotely resembling weather, or climate. Second - I forecasted El Nino and La Nina for this time period back in 2006. It is also curious how you say I am wrong about a time period of La Nina's impact before February, March and April 2011 has arrived. That proves your bias, and lack of knowledge about long-range forecasting. Third - I chose to share my expertise here because I am an expert astrometeorologist and worked many years to hone this scientific craft. I share it where I will, if you don't like, bite me. Lastly ~ From the contents of your comments here Glc, and like that of "Steve," what is frustrating about you guys is that you just do not appear to get it. What I mean by "get it," is that there is no synthesis in anything you say about global warming, the climate, or the weather in general, and I am at once surprised, and also baffled as to why you would show interest in climatology yet would propose to call astronomical forecasting of weather (which has be done since the dawn of humanity) simply "garbage" yet knowing not a thing about that which you speak? Rather than play with "model runs," which will teach you little about the climate or weather, you would be better off observing, and noting the climate of your own location relative to the positions of the Sun, Moon and planets. That way, you might actually learn something. I can forecast your own weather, in your location, from wherever I am. I doubt you can do the same, in your own region, from two weeks to a month out. So, your insults are not appreciated, nor is your lack of seriousness about the climate and weather in general. If you cannot make sense, and show good manners, I suggest you go back to the peanut gallery and play there, okay? We're serious people here. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 9, 2010 19:14:09 GMT
Second - I forecasted El Nino and La Nina for this time period back in 2006. It is also curious how you say I am wrong about a time period of La Nina's impact before February, March and April 2011 has arrived. That proves your bias, and lack of knowledge about long-range forecasting. That's wonderful that you predicted it back in 2006. Unfortunately just a couple months back you swore that there would be an El Nino continuing into 2011 |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 9, 2010 20:38:52 GMT
Second - I forecasted El Nino and La Nina for this time period back in 2006. It is also curious how you say I am wrong about a time period of La Nina's impact before February, March and April 2011 has arrived. That proves your bias, and lack of knowledge about long-range forecasting. That's wonderful that you predicted it back in 2006. Unfortunately just a couple months back you swore that there would be an El Nino continuing into 2011 Are you watching the world's weather or what? Also, I don't "swear" when I forecast, and my forecast is not my opinion, which some non-forecasters, amateurs, or wannabes confuse with doing the real work of forecasting. Hey pal, I just work here. You can do better? Be my guest. The remnants of El Nino is still with us. Suggest you think less linear, and synthesize more, while learning much more about the Earth's atmosphere, and oceans to start. I predicted a very wet 2010, and that is exactly what many regions of the world has seen. Check out the rainfall totals in the northern hemisphere this year alone for the facts, as well as the torrential rains I forecasted, and of course the floods. If you want to learn how to actually forecast climate and weather long-range, then it's best you quit with the silliness, and get to work observing your own weather and learning to read an astronomical ephemeris. ENSO, as I correctly called, arrived at the end of 2009, and the El Nino I also forecasted is to be followed by La Nina, which I predicted as well - long in advance. La Nina will dominate the first six-months of 2011 according to my astronomical calculations. The weather will become colder, and wetter. The strongest cycle is between February 2011 through to about mid-May, more or less. The months of February, March, and April 2011 are the winter months this year in the northern hemisphere. We will see colder temps in October, and snow at higher elevations; however, the brunt of La Nina's winter 2011 will be experienced from Feb. through April 2011. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 9, 2010 23:01:14 GMT
There's no need to repeat, it's all right here: www.almanac.com/forum/weather-forum/theos-astromet-forecast-el-nino-2010Although I have forecasted the return of El Nino in 2009, into 2010, and 2011, I am also forecasting what appears to be some kind of "mini" La Nina event for the Northern hemispheric winter of 2011 to take place in the months of February, March, and April of that year. Do you still stand by the "mini" La Nina forecast? With due respect, I wouldn't classify the current transition to La Nina a "mini" event. Then again, I'm not a forecaster, only a casual observer of patterns and ocean behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 11, 2010 12:57:05 GMT
There's no need to repeat, it's all right here: www.almanac.com/forum/weather-forum/theos-astromet-forecast-el-nino-2010Although I have forecasted the return of El Nino in 2009, into 2010, and 2011, I am also forecasting what appears to be some kind of "mini" La Nina event for the Northern hemispheric winter of 2011 to take place in the months of February, March, and April of that year. Do you still stand by the "mini" La Nina forecast? With due respect, I wouldn't classify the current transition to La Nina a "mini" event. Then again, I'm not a forecaster, only a casual observer of patterns and ocean behavior. I would, because as a forecaster, I have a longer perspective, that's why. Even if you are only a casual observer of patterns and ocean behavior, then you should observe the celestial bodies. My call on the arrival of both El Nino, to be followed by La Nina should be good enough for you, since I forecasted both climate events four years ago for this particular era. The La Nina I expect for the United States in 2011 will affect various regions more than others, though the general climate will be colder, almost a "mini" ice age with much colder than normal temperatures, along with the increased precipitation, which I forecasted also for this year and next. If you look around the world, you will have seen that my long-range forecast was accurate, and, the heavy rains, and significant levels of floods in 2010 was also on target. There is more to come - we're not done with the increased levels of heavy precipitation. The harvest season, as forecasted, was short, and will fall well short of goals this year. If you look to the price of corn for instance, it is up 8% already, and will rise higher. This is climate-related. These transitions are cyclic, according to the positions of the planets, the condition of the Sun, Moon, etc., relative to the Earth. That is where all climate and weather patterns begin - in space. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 11, 2010 13:02:25 GMT
Second - I forecasted El Nino and La Nina for this time period back in 2006. It is also curious how you say I am wrong about a time period of La Nina's impact before February, March and April 2011 has arrived. That proves your bias, and lack of knowledge about long-range forecasting. That's wonderful that you predicted it back in 2006. Unfortunately just a couple months back you swore that there would be an El Nino continuing into 2011 Jeez. You just can't win with people these days. Feel free to do your own forecasting months and years in advance then. Thanks for the compliment, I think... |
|
