Warm SE Pacific to blame for stormy winter?

[Nick L]

To answer all three questions in one I will say

I am not denying there has been warming but that stoped some 16 years ago. Before then

there has been cooling and warming periods which would tie in with natural climate cycles

PDO, AMO, NAM, enso etc but the warming we have seen in the eighties and nineties I

believe was due to a very active sun lag effect during the 20th century which is now going in

the opposite direction.

The IPCC said the warming would go on unabated reaching Xc by the year blah, blah. Then

when the warming went into hiatus as it has done they ran around like headless chickens

trying to explain it and finally came up with enso and PDO cycle to explain the pause.

How come they missed this. The truth is they probably didn't it is just a poor excuse for the

missing warming. There are so many other things I could go into but to tell you the truth I

really can't be bothered I know the warmists have their blinkered view and the sceptics have

theirs and to keep going over and over the same arguments is tidious to the extreme.

If there had been warming for the past 15 years or more then there would be no argument but

there hasn't pure and simple.

 

When? The fact you think 15 years is statistically significant in terms of climate says it all really. And you can't accuse people believing evidence-backed science blinkered when all you have to offer is anecdotal comments with no scientific backing.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Nick L

[feb1991blizzard]

When? The fact you think 15 years is statistically significant in terms of climate says it all really. And you can't accuse people believing evidence-backed science blinkered when all you have to offer is anecdotal comments with no scientific backing.

 

You cannot have it both ways though, you also praise the met office's use of one wetter and milder than average season when they conveniently forget Dec 10 and winter 09 / 10, I know that is weather and we are talking about climate but why use it in the first place then?,  also its only really over the last 30 years that climate change has become accelerated, hardly a large sample size when the planet has existed for billions of years.

[knocker]

You cannot have it both ways though, you also praise the met office's use of one wetter and milder than average season when they conveniently forget Dec 10 and winter 09 / 10,

 

I rather think they didn't forget, see the latest report and in 2010 Julia Slingo said

 

a) Prolonged snowfall and low temperatures, comparable with conditions seen during November and December 2010 are within the range of natural climate variability observed over the past 50 years.

b) The latest available regional climate projections for the UK (UKCP09) indicate a reducing likelihood of severe winters in future, due to the long-term warming climate. Natural climate variability implies that severe events remain possible but with reduced likelihood.

 

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/pgr-resilience-briefing-pdf/report.pdf

[Nick L]

You cannot have it both ways though, you also praise the met office's use of one wetter and milder than average season when they conveniently forget Dec 10 and winter 09 / 10, I know that is weather and we are talking about climate but why use it in the first place then?,  also its only really over the last 30 years that climate change has become accelerated, hardly a large sample size when the planet has existed for billions of years.

 

Huh? When have I ever praised Met Office long range forecasts?

[damianslaw]

Whilst I don't claim to know much about how solar energy impacts temperatures over northern hemisphere, it is noteworthy how the peak of the last solar cycle maximum in 2000 coincided with the wettest season on record in Autumn 2000 and generally a period of atlantic dominance. The peak of the last solar minimum in 2008 coincided with a marked cooldown and a change in the Jetstream with a generally cooler cyclonic period with the cold winters of 09/10 and 10/11 and relative dryness of 2010 and 2011.

 

And now we see the peak solar max of the current solar cycle coinciding with an exceptionally wet 5 month period and atlantic in full gusto (though the max is nowhere near as strong as 2000 max).

 

Is it pure coincidence? mmm not so sure, I do think the sun has a strong influence on our weather. Look at how earthquakes can affect the global climate preventing the full suns rays from penetrating the earth - the year of no summer in 1816 being evidence of this.

[knocker]

 

Is it pure coincidence? mmm not so sure, I do think the sun has a strong influence on our weather. Look at how earthquakes can affect the global climate preventing the full suns rays from penetrating the earth - the year of no summer in 1816 being evidence of this.

 

I rather think that was the Tambora volcano eruption. The sun was only indirectly involved, the main culprit being volcanic ash reducing the solar input.

[damianslaw]

I rather think that was the Tambora volcano eruption. The sun was only indirectly involved, the main culprit being volcanic ash reducing the solar input.

 

Yes thanks, what I was emphasising is how the sun is an important factor on our weather - without it we simply wouldn't survive, a preety obvious statement. Weaker solar input obviously affects temperatures. Incidentally the summer of 2016 coincided with a period of record low solar energy.

 

It must have been an exceptionally powerful volcanic explosion.. to have had such effect.

 

Will we see another like it in our lifetimes?

Edited February 18, 2014 by damianslaw

[knocker]

The IPCC said the warming would go on unabated reaching Xc by the year blah, blah. Then

when the warming went into hiatus as it has done they ran around like headless chickens

trying to explain it and finally came up with enso and PDO cycle to explain the pause.

How come they missed this. The truth is they probably didn't it is just a poor excuse for the

missing warming. There are so many other things I could go into but to tell you the truth I

really can't be bothered I know the warmists have their blinkered view and the sceptics have

theirs and to keep going over and over the same arguments is tidious to the extreme.

If there had been warming for the past 15 years or more then there would be no argument but

there hasn't pure and simple.

 

They never said it would go on unabated and rather than run around like headless chickens various climate scientists have written papers on the hiatus which in any case was only a slow down of the surface temps and not a halt of climate change, If by chance you feel the need to catch up on the latest science on the subject rather than rely on aimless rhetoric quite a fair summary here.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/02/going-with-the-wind/

Edited February 18, 2014 by knocker

[Crepuscular Ray]

 Incidentally the summer of 2016 coincided with a period of record low solar energy.

 

Que?

[Nick L]

I'm currently studying my climate change module at university, and have covered the impact of solar energy. We actually put together a "back of the envelope" model to show how the 11-year cycle can effect temperature, using some integrals that I won't go into... But the short answer is that it has very little impact on temperatures, the solar irradiance varies by around 0.1% with the cycle, which in itself is pretty small. But it's the frequency of this cycle that is of more importance. The changes in solar output are so quick that the climate system doesn't have chance to reach an equilibrium level, so by the time it's started to react to a spike in solar output, the solar output has started to decrease.

 

For this reason I don't think the 11-year cycle is as important as some make out.

[Gael_Force]

 

Sun's role in Earth's climate

Many of the ways the scientists proposed these fluctuations in solar activity could influence Earth were complicated in nature. For instance, solar energetic particles and cosmic rays could reduce ozone levels in the stratosphere. This in turn alters the behavior of the atmosphere below it, perhaps even pushing storms on the surface off course. [Sun's Wrath: Worst Solar Storms Ever]

"In the lower stratosphere, the presence of ozone causes a local warming because of the breakup of ozone molecules by ultraviolet light," climate scientist Jerry North at Texas A&M University told SPACE.com.

When the ozone is removed, "the stratosphere there becomes cooler, increasing the temperature contrast between the tropics and the polar region. The contrast in temperatures in the stratosphere and the upper troposphere leads to instabilities in the atmospheric flow west to east. The instabilities make for eddies or irregular motions."

These eddies feed the strength of jet streams, ultimately altering flows in the upper troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth's surface. "The geographical positioning of the jets aloft can alter the distribution of storms over the middle latitudes," North said. "So the sun might have a role to play in this kind of process. I would have to say this would be a very difficult mechanism to prove in climate models. That does not mean it may not exist — just hard to prove."

In addition, climate scientist Gerald Meehl at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and his colleagues suggest that solar variability is leaving a definite imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific Ocean.

When researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific showed a pattern very much like that expected with La Niña, a cyclical cooling of the Pacific Ocean that regularly affects climate worldwide, with sunspot peak years leading to a cooling of almost 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, peaks in the sunspot cycle were linked with increased precipitation in a number of areas across the globe, as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific.

"The Pacific is particularly sensitive to small variations in the trade winds," Meehl said. Solar activity may influence processes linked with trade wind strength.

 

I've highlighted two parts for consideration in respect of recent weather patterns.

 

According to the NOAA page there is much work to be done in fully understanding all the complex processes on the sun - TSI is only a part of the story.

 

 

 

c.) Variations in Solar Activity:

NOAA's plan for the U.S. Global Change Research Program has a strong focus on solar influences. The solar influences research plan Atmospheric Responses to a Changing Sun (ARCS) studies solar inputs at the top of the Earth's atmosphere and their effects on the Earth's system, whether immediate, secondary or tertiary. This block diagram excerpted from the NOAA Climate and Global Change Special Report No. 8 (1994) indicates the different levels of effects. The top row lists the solar influences at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. We've indicated the estimated energy fluxes, their change (D) over the 11-year solar cycle, and the regions where this energy is deposited. This information is found in Table 1.1 of the National Research Council (NRC) report Solar Influences on Global Change (1994).

The group of blue blocks lists known immediate effects of solar radiation and its variations. These effects have not been fully quantified. The blocks in red list possible secondary and tertiary effects. These effects have not been investigated in any depth. The ARCS program will address these issues.

 

Sources http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarda3.html

  http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

[syed2878]

 

I take it then that it must've contained 'AGW' references? Well thanks for saving me from wasting my time. This winter is just what the AGW faithful have had their fingers crossed for, for a very long time. Had to happen sooner or later - law of averages an' all that.

 

[syed2878]

 

I take it then that it must've contained 'AGW' references? Well thanks for saving me from wasting my time. This winter is just what the AGW faithful have had their fingers crossed for, for a very long time. Had to happen sooner or later - law of averages an' all that.

 

[syed2878]

@laserguy. Totally agree with your post 1 thing i will say to u though there r mor pro globle warming supporters on here i wouldn't bang your anti globle warming too loud or u will get shot down with flames. As for this winter the pro gw' supporters must be thrilled that their prares has been answered at last. As for the puppets at the met less said the better it is. To john holms i do respect your posts and i have learnd quite alot from u, how ever i kno and u know that the figgures can be tampered with and over the last few years we seen some of that by those leacked documents.

[knocker]

Yes thanks, what I was emphasising is how the sun is an important factor on our weather - without it we simply wouldn't survive, a preety obvious statement. Weaker solar input obviously affects temperatures. Incidentally the summer of 2016 coincided with a period of record low solar energy.

 

It must have been an exceptionally powerful volcanic explosion.. to have had such effect.

 

Will we see another like it in our lifetimes?

 

Yes the sun is of course the ultimate driver and has been the mechanism in the past for high latitude climate change. The climate responded to changes of insolation forcing due to orbital variations.

 

Such as changes in orbital eccentricity, obliquity, procession of the equinoxes, changes in orbital inclination and the Milankovitch theory although the latter is still up for grabs. There are also Heinrich events but we won't go there.

 

But we aren't talking about them but rapid changes, geological time speak, over the last 150 years. As you pointed out global dimming plays a role but some recent papers have made the point that Nick made other changes seem to be too small to make a significant difference.

 

There have of course been other theories such as variations in the earths magnetic field but they are just theories and nothing so far has been presented to replace the current thinking, or as far as I can see, even come close.

[knocker]

@laserguy. Totally agree with your post 1 thing i will say to u though there r mor pro globle warming supporters on here i wouldn't bang your anti globle warming too loud or u will get shot down with flames. As for this winter the pro gw' supporters must be thrilled that their prares has been answered at last. As for the puppets at the met less said the better it is. To john holms i do respect your posts and i have learnd quite alot from u, how ever i kno and u know that the figgures can be tampered with and over the last few years we seen some of that by those leacked documents.

 

Complete twoddle and not worthy of a primary school debate.

[knocker]

Further to an earlier post some interesting thoughts by Tamino.

 

Gone with the Wind

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/gone-with-the-wind/

Edited February 19, 2014 by knocker

[johnholmes]

@laserguy. Totally agree with your post 1 thing i will say to u though there r mor pro globle warming supporters on here i wouldn't bang your anti globle warming too loud or u will get shot down with flames. As for this winter the pro gw' supporters must be thrilled that their prares has been answered at last. As for the puppets at the met less said the better it is. To john holms i do respect your posts and i have learnd quite alot from u, how ever i kno and u know that the figgures can be tampered with and over the last few years we seen some of that by those leacked documents.

 

AV to suggest that professional meteorologist have tampered with the data is a shocking comment, it is about as likely as severe cold affecting the UK tomorrow in my view. Politicians perhaps but meteorologists or climatologists absolutely not. I just wish folk would read rather than jump on media headlines and make 2+2 anything but 4. I am sad that you too have joined this brigade. I am neither pro nor anti just someone who is open to both sides and trying to make my own mind up. The earth is warmer than 150 years ago, is it natural or man made or a mix, the latter in my view but something we should try and something about. I also find it sad that this thread is becoming highjacked as others have with this GW/AGW debate.

Just to close with your liking of the post from laserguy. I honestly dount he has actually read what I asked him to read. perhaps you have not either. I refer to the official first thoughts from Met about the storms this winter and global warming. Nothing in that report suggests anything other than they think there might be. Why does that wind folk up I wonder?

Edited February 19, 2014 by johnholmes

[knocker]

AV to suggest that professional meteorologist have tampered with the data is a shocking comment, it is about as likely as severe cold affecting the UK tomorrow in my view. Politicians perhaps but meteorologists or climatologists absolutely not. I just wish folk would read rather than jump on media headlines and make 2+2 anything but 4. I am sad that you too have joined this brigade. I am neither pro nor anti just someone who is open to both sides and trying to make my own mind up. The earth is warmer than 150 years ago, is it natural or man made or a mix, the latter in my view but something we should try and something about. I also find it sad that this thread is becoming highjacked as others have with this GW/AGW debate.

Just to close with your liking of the post from laserguy. I honestly dount he has actually read what I asked him to read. perhaps you have not either. I refer to the official first thoughts from Met about the storms this winter and global warming. Nothing in that report suggests anything other than they think there might be. Why does that wind folk up I wonder?

 

Apologies John I've no wish to hijack any debate so will keep out in future. Just to add I think debate is debatable

[BornFromTheVoid]

AV to suggest that professional meteorologist have tampered with the data is a shocking comment, it is about as likely as severe cold affecting the UK tomorrow in my view. Politicians perhaps but meteorologists or climatologists absolutely not. I just wish folk would read rather than jump on media headlines and make 2+2 anything but 4. I am sad that you too have joined this brigade. I am neither pro nor anti just someone who is open to both sides and trying to make my own mind up. The earth is warmer than 150 years ago, is it natural or man made or a mix, the latter in my view but something we should try and something about. I also find it sad that this thread is becoming highjacked as others have with this GW/AGW debate.

Just to close with your liking of the post from laserguy. I honestly dount he has actually read what I asked him to read. perhaps you have not either. I refer to the official first thoughts from Met about the storms this winter and global warming. Nothing in that report suggests anything other than they think there might be. Why does that wind folk up I wonder?

 

To be fair John, there really hasn't been much "debate" here, just certain folks making silly and unfounded comments, then getting annoyed when actual evidence is presented to defend climate change and the scientists involved.

It is a pity that so many threads get ruined like this though. It would be great to be able to discuss the different teleconnections, their influence on and how they've been influenced by the changes in the eastern Pacific, and to even speculate on the role of our changing climate in all this. But claims of fraud, global conspiracies and money hungry scientists trying to maintain some illusory jet set lifestyle seems to get regurgitated most times "climate" is mentioned.

 

Anywho, the unusual strength of the Pacific trade winds have been piling up warm water in the eastern tropical Pacific for some time now, which may have contributed to conditions there. I think the cause of these unusually strong trade winds is something worth investigating, as I haven't seen much explanation for it yet.

 

 

.. All of these factors are consistent with a picture of strengthened trade winds, enhanced heat uptake in the western Pacific thermocline, and cooling in the east – as you can see in this schematic:

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/gone-with-the-wind/#more-7082

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/02/going-with-the-wind/

Edited February 19, 2014 by BornFromTheVoid

[Lettucing Gutted]

 Incidentally the summer of 2016 coincided with a period of record low solar energy.

 

Que?

I think damianslaw has been forward in time and seen the future.  2016 will be "The Year Without A Summer Mark II! 

Edited February 19, 2014 by Craig Evans

[johnholmes]

Apologies John I've no wish to hijack any debate so will keep out in future. Just to add I think debate is debatable

 

 

keep your views coming no reason why not, I am probably going to leave this area anyway, for the same reason I keep out of the main climate thread. Debate yes, discussion yes, arguing as usually happens no. The only way science of any kind is by different scientists proposing dfferent ideas and these being discussed rationally with no yah boo comments-seems not possible about this topic. Flat earth society comes to mind.

Please folk read what is published then make comment not comment on some media hype headline.

[Nick L]

Yeah there's no point having a scientific discussion with those who choose to blindly ignore science. 

[laserguy]

Yeah there's no point having a scientific discussion with those who choose to blindly ignore science. 

 

You can't talk about warmists like that!

[Nick L]

You can't talk about warmists like that!

 

What's a warmist? I'm referring to those that reject scientific consensus that warming IS happening and is most likely caused by humans, but with no scientific reasoning of their own. Those who don't understand the intricacies of our climate system in the slightest and choose to get their "scientific" knowledge from the Daily Mail. 

Edited February 19, 2014 by Nick L