Cloudman

Happy Valley Labrador Canada Happy Valley Goose Bay Live Camera - Labrador Region - Transportation and Infrastructure WWW.GOV.NL.CA Current Camera Image Camera Options Camera Location Additional Information Return to Main Camera Page Current Camera Image Happy Valley Goose...

Happy Valley Labrador in Canada Happy Valley Goose Bay Live Camera - Labrador Region - Transportation and Infrastructure WWW.GOV.NL.CA Current Camera Image Camera Options Camera Location Additional Information Return to Main Camera Page Current Camera Image Happy Valley Goose...

Yes that was an exciting day, I was 9 . I recall helping the milk man with his deliveries, the snow turned to rain for a time in Manchester but the remnants of the snow that day remained until the end of January as I recall

I have often thought that GFS underestimates the heat flux from the ocean so tends to have 850s too low in polar maritime airmasses

Storms forming on the mid latitude jet move predictably in straight lines in intensify predictably as they develop only turning left out of the jet when they get very intense. They should have male names. Storms forming in the tropics on the other hand meander around less predictably and make sudden unexpected changes of direction

I see this is in ACP, I publish there quite frequently. It is a high impact journal with good refereeing standards with open discussion. An excellent avenue for scientific discussion.

The winter tyres available in the UK are made of soft rubber with a deep tread they are not studied 'snow tyres' but they are a big improvement over conventional tyres in ice and snow.

Really ? Reviewers report herehttp://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

We know from GCM hindcasts that most of the warming up until 1950 or thereabouts was natural. The odd thing about the paper is that it does not seek to identify the driver of the warming from the analysis over the period 1860 to 1950 then 1950 to date. This would be quite an interesting result as the GCM studies do identify the source of the early 20 th century warming, does this technique agree?

What is required here though is a statistical analysis. I am disputing that there has been a period of 15 years with zero trend as this is not achieved by drawing a graph and then cherry picking start and end points. To do this properly you need to take into acount the much longer data set to avoid start and end point bias and so get a reliable analysis.

I agree the solution with temperature series is to always show the full length of the series and highlight the relevant region. Another option is to show a subset of a series where the chage is demonstrated to be statistically significant

The root of the problem is that all these graphs showing 'no warming' start in the year of the Super El-Nino in 1997. As such they are bound to be accused of cherry picking. With an underlying warming rate due to AGW of about 0.2C per decade then it is very unlikely that you will find statistically significant warming over time periods of 20 years or less due to the internal variability due to ENSO etc.

Yes and the CO2 rise caused significant global warming as those papers and related studies show.

1999 and 2000 are quite well down compared to recent years, the fact is that warming has continued from the late 90s to date.

Well as I said the warming has been between 0.1C and 0.2C per decade for the last 15 years in line with model predictions with 2010 the warmest year on record, so I think we know a lot about what is going on.

Typical of the Fail, if you haven't got a story make one up. Obviously it is continuing to warm at about 0.2 C per decade. I am sure Judith Curry has been misquoted, she has had this problem before with the fail , she should have more sense than to speak to them.

Does anyone have a source for the Rostherne data set yet ?

There is no doubt we are part of the cause, any scientist in the field will tell you that, equally the extreme loss in arctic ice this year is likely partly a result of natural variability superimposed on the downward trend caused by AGW. There was actually a proposal to parliament to Geoengineer the arctic this year which I opposed for just the reasons mentioned above. We wil have to see how the climate responds in the next few years/ decades as mitigation by reducing Co2 emissions is a long term not short term solution. I am afraid you have to allow excitement at records of any type on a forum of weather enthusiasts. As a scientist I am excited to see the consequences of conditions in the arctic on weather patterns (goes with the territory I am afraid, not I think the dramatic loss in arctic ice is a good thing).

Well attribution of recent extreme events to man-made climate change is certainly a news story and I notice Booker has attacked the journal Nature in his recent blog confirming what an excellent Journal we have in Nature. I know most about my specialist subject revealed by my user name but I certainly also know enough about the climate system to know that increasing carbon dioxide will cause warming and that the sensitivity to doubled CO2 is likely in the range 2C to 4C. Most specialists in atmospheric physics would be able to say the same.

Well there are numerous causes of climate change but a key one is changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations whether natual or as they are now man-made.

There is a well known flaw in Lindzen's work in using short term satellite data to investigate feedbacks. The problem is that the data he is looking at is caused by regional changes ie ENSO induced fluctuations in the tropical Pacific SSTs. These regional changes are accompanied by changes in cloud cover over the locally warmer regions producing a negative feedback. This is not the same as the global warming produced by CO2 changes which produces a posiitive feedback.

Yes you can trust the data, the satellites show exactly the same warming as the surface data over the last 30 years and recent studies carried out by skeptics (now former skeptics) have confirmed the warming trend in the surface data. The warming is undisputed.

Totally wrong there is no manipulation of the data indeed the BEST study has confirmed again that the warming rate is robust, and if anything the UEA series slightly underdoes the recent warming relative to the satellite data (which cannot be contaminated by UHI) , GISS, NOAA. and BEST

That does go to the heart of the matter, changes in solar output over these timescales only have quite small impacts on global temperature relative to greenhouse gas forcing but the larger changes in UV do have an impact on atmospheric circulation and hence regional weather but not global temperature.

What an amazing comment, how do you think natural climate change over geological time is explained in paleoclimatology ? The influence of UV on atmospheric circulation has been known since Jo Haigh's paper in 1995. Are you aware if Shindell's paper from 2001 using a GCM to simulate the little ice age attributing it to increased northern blocking over Europe associated with a long term drop in UV