Jump to content

Warm SE Pacific to blame for stormy winter?


Recommended Posts

I won't bother-keep your blinkered view, fortunately the majority of people have a more open mind, dare I say  ? more common sense than a lot of your posts suggest with you

You are getting very fond of putting people down. Do you remember Mr Ian pennell from the late Autumn

and Winter thread 2013/14 who made a very well reasoned and explained forcast back in October 2013.

He then updated on the 3rd of December saying that he forecast for the winter was looking very good to

which you replied "Come on you COMIC its the 4th of December and you seriously believe your forecast

is correct for WINTER after just 3 days today being the 4th.

His forecast has been virtually spot on together with his reasoning and made more incredible by the fact

that it was made in October. I wonder if you will take your blinkers off for long enough to acknowledge this

and withdraw your insulting comment.

Netweather would do well to sign him up for their longrange forecasting team.As for the Meto I love the

way they portray themselves as all knowing after the event. May be they should contact Mr Pennell

themselves.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You are getting very fond of putting people down. Do you remember Mr Ian pennell from the late Autumn

and Winter thread 2013/14 who made a very well reasoned and explained forcast back in October 2013.

He then updated on the 3rd of December saying that he forecast for the winter was looking very good to

which you replied "Come on you COMIC its the 4th of December and you seriously believe your forecast

is correct for WINTER after just 3 days today being the 4th.

His forecast has been virtually spot on together with his reasoning and made more incredible by the fact

that it was made in October. I wonder if you will take your blinkers off for long enough to acknowledge this

and withdraw your insulting comment.

Netweather would do well to sign him up for their longrange forecasting team.As for the Meto I love the

way they portray themselves as all knowing after the event. May be they should contact Mr Pennell

themselves.

 

Not putting folk down, just like you, expressing my viewpont.

I do recall Ian and his forecast, I was not ridiculing his forecast but what he suggested as being able to say with certainty what the weather would do up to 3 months down the line. I totally accept his forecast was pretty good and apologise to him if he feels any upset at what I posted. My memory being what it is I cannot recall what scientific reasoning Ian used for his forecast? Can anyone help please?

As to the report you quote, I still have not had time to copy, paste and read carefully. To my mind the comment you make about their comment, see below

"the warming we are already  committed to over the next few decades". 

 

I think you misunderstand their, admittedly poor phaseology, to me they are referring not to them adjusting values to suit themselves as you imply but simply that the rise as already predicted and seen so far, nothing more sinister than that. As someone from a similar work background, in meteorology I mean, I can assure you that when you are working to try and 'fiddle' what you see is so far removed from reality as to be comical, although one or two might find your suggestion rather objectionable. But then as we both suggest we are all entitled to our viewpoints providing we try to not make personal attacks on any one elses' integrity.

Edited by johnholmes
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who seem convinced that climate change is a fraud, I would love to read your peer-reviewed scientific research that disproves it, so send me a PM please Posted Image

Climate change has been going on for millenia and will continue to do so.

Edited by cooling climate
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate is always and has always been changing since the dawn of time! Mini Ice age, warm periods and I'm sure many, many more events before us deluded human beings ever existed!

 

Good lord it's catching although to be fair my good friend Sammy Rechevsky always said the self-evident was obscure to most people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had the physics explained, of the supposed ability of the jet stream to influence the movement and variation in the weather systems of the lower troposphere.

 

How can a phenomenon with high speeds in the near friction-free thin atmosphere at around 250 millibar (i.e. with 75% of the atmospheric column below it and upwards of 20% of the atmosphere above), at a temperature of around minus 40 C, contain enough energy to influence the planetary boundary layer with the necessary friction that the dense atmosphere near the surface imposes on the topology of the surface features?

 

I can understand that this feature is easier to model computationally, and thus to extrapolate to the motions  of the lower troposphere for forecasting models, but surely it is the energetic features below that impart a little of their energy to the layer below the tropopause, rather  than the other way around?

 

Like cracking a whip - the tip may break the sound barrier, but the arm that wields it supplies the much greater force that powers it!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right of course.Just read the article and they are still banging on about the fallacy of

global warming. There has been a hiatus of warming for the past 16 plus years and there own

predictive forcasts over the last several years have all been found to be to warm compared to

what actually verified.They go on to say and I quote "the warming we are already  committed to

over the next few decades". Does that mean that even if the climate which hasn't warmed shows

a cooling trend they will ignore it and continue to promote global warming.

In summary they say it is down to a number of varibles although my bet would be that the very

strong westerly QBO played an important part and perhaps along with a sun that was at times

asleep and the next very active which may have aided the strength of the QBO.

On the BBC one morning last week they blamed it on a cyclone in the southeast pacific in

November that led to the winter we have had. Had a laugh over that one.

 

 

It's been explained to you numerous times! Over short time frames factors such natural variability is dominant. ENSO can add or take  >0.2C from the global annual average temperature, while the effect of CO2 is less that 0.2C per decade. So when you start a trend line at a very strong El Nino, such as 1997/1998 (possibly adding around 0.3C to the temperature) and then follow it through a La Nina dominant period, the warming trend will be reduced, which is what we see.

 

GISS ................ .................... .................... HADCRUT

Posted Image Posted Image

 

UAH, JMA, NCDC and others show a similar slow warming trend, actually only RSS shows no warming trend. But when you consider the record strong Pacific trade winds, the low solar activity, the -ve PDO, increased aerosols, etc, it's remarkable that we're not rapidly cooling!

 

Not putting folk down, just like you, expressing my viewpont.

I do recall Ian and his forecast, I was not ridiculing his forecast but what he suggested as being able to say with certainty what the weather would do up to 3 months down the line. I totally accept his forecast was pretty good and apologise to him if he feels any upset at what I posted. My memory being what it is I cannot recall what scientific reasoning Ian used for his forecast? Can anyone help please?

As to the report you quote, I still have not had time to copy, paste and read carefully. To my mind the comment you make about their comment, see below

"the warming we are already  committed to over the next few decades". 

 

I think you misunderstand their, admittedly poor phaseology, to me they are referring not to them adjusting values to suit themselves as you imply but simply that the rise as already predicted and seen so far, nothing more sinister than that. As someone from a similar work background, in meteorology I mean, I can assure you that when you are working to try and 'fiddle' what you see is so far removed from reality as to be comical, although one or two might find your suggestion rather objectionable. But then as we both suggest we are all entitled to our viewpoints providing we try to not make personal attacks on any one elses' integrity.

 

Too many people think that because a forecast was vaguely correct, that the methodology and science behind it must be correct. The fact of the matter is, that so many forecast are made each year that some are bound to be right, whether their method uses tea leaves, hallucinogenic conversations with rabbits, their misunderstanding of teleconnections or whatever else. The odd correct forecast doesn't mean that the methodology is either sound or scientific.

Only time and a thorough analysis of the scientific basis to ones forecasting methodology will show it to be worthwhile or not.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been explained to you numerous times! Over short time frames factors such natural variability is dominant. ENSO can add or take  >0.2C from the global annual average temperature, while the effect of CO2 is less that 0.2C per decade. So when you start a trend line at a very strong El Nino, such as 1997/1998 (possibly adding around 0.3C to the temperature) and then follow it through a La Nina dominant period, the warming trend will be reduced, which is what we see.

 

GISS ................ .................... .................... HADCRUT

Posted Image Posted Image

 

UAH, JMA, NCDC and others show a similar slow warming trend, actually only RSS shows no warming trend. But when you consider the record strong Pacific trade winds, the low solar activity, the -ve PDO, increased aerosols, etc, it's remarkable that we're not rapidly cooling!

 

 

Too many people think that because a forecast was vaguely correct, that the methodology and science behind it must be correct. The fact of the matter is, that so many forecast are made each year that some are bound to be right, whether their method uses tea leaves, hallucinogenic conversations with rabbits, their misunderstanding of teleconnections or whatever else. The odd correct forecast doesn't mean that the methodology is either sound or scientific.

Only time and a thorough analysis of the scientific basis to ones forecasting methodology will show it to be worthwhile or not.

 

Be careful using actual science there, BFTV :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had the physics explained, of the supposed ability of the jet stream to influence the movement and variation in the weather systems of the lower troposphere.

 

How can a phenomenon with high speeds in the near friction-free thin atmosphere at around 250 millibar (i.e. with 75% of the atmospheric column below it and upwards of 20% of the atmosphere above), at a temperature of around minus 40 C, contain enough energy to influence the planetary boundary layer with the necessary friction that the dense atmosphere near the surface imposes on the topology of the surface features?

 

I can understand that this feature is easier to model computationally, and thus to extrapolate to the motions  of the lower troposphere for forecasting models, but surely it is the energetic features below that impart a little of their energy to the layer below the tropopause, rather  than the other way around?

 

Like cracking a whip - the tip may break the sound barrier, but the arm that wields it supplies the much greater force that powers it!

 

Try

 

http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=jetstream-tutorial;sess=

 

I'll bung in a diagram for good measure.

post-12275-0-76707000-1392647468_thumb.j

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who seem convinced that climate change is a fraud, I would love to read your peer-reviewed scientific research that disproves it, so send me a PM please Posted Image

 

Peer -reviewed? Ha ha ha ha. What it really means is 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'. Why don't the 'peers' just do the damn work themselves? Anyway guys, where is this warming, actually? Silly me - it's now totally morphed into climate change.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer -reviewed? Ha ha ha ha. What it really means is 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'. Why don't the 'peers' just do the damn work themselves? Anyway guys, where is this warming, actually? Silly me - it's now totally morphed into climate change.

 

Are you unable to answer the question or just being awkward?

Constructive answers for and against are fine-why not try?

Edited by johnholmes
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer -reviewed? Ha ha ha ha. What it really means is 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'. Why don't the 'peers' just do the damn work themselves? Anyway guys, where is this warming, actually? Silly me - it's now totally morphed into climate change.

 

Actually the term 'climate change' was used years before global warming and in scientific terms mean two different things.. And actually they do if you are idiotic enough to take any notice of Lawson.

Edited by knocker
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been explained to you numerous times! Over short time frames factors such natural variability is dominant. ENSO can add or take  >0.2C from the global annual average temperature, while the effect of CO2 is less that 0.2C per decade. So when you start a trend line at a very strong El Nino, such as 1997/1998 (possibly adding around 0.3C to the temperature) and then follow it through a La Nina dominant period, the warming trend will be reduced, which is what we see.

 

GISS ................ .................... .................... HADCRUT

Posted Image Posted Image

 

UAH, JMA, NCDC and others show a similar slow warming trend, actually only RSS shows no warming trend. But when you consider the record strong Pacific trade winds, the low solar activity, the -ve PDO, increased aerosols, etc, it's remarkable that we're not rapidly cooling!

 

 

Too many people think that because a forecast was vaguely correct, that the methodology and science behind it must be correct. The fact of the matter is, that so many forecast are made each year that some are bound to be right, whether their method uses tea leaves, hallucinogenic conversations with rabbits, their misunderstanding of teleconnections or whatever else. The odd correct forecast doesn't mean that the methodology is either sound or scientific.

Only time and a thorough analysis of the scientific basis to ones forecasting methodology will show it to be worthwhile or not.

You do not have to explain anything to me Voidy. There has been no warming for years apart from small

fluctuations in temperature up and down,but if the sun is to go into hibernation ( most pointers are looking

that but you probably can not see that either)  then there is only one way the temperatures are going and

that is not up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer -reviewed? Ha ha ha ha. What it really means is 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'. Why don't the 'peers' just do the damn work themselves? Anyway guys, where is this warming, actually? Silly me - it's now totally morphed into climate change.

 

So you have no scientific understanding or publications to back up your claims? That's fine, just checking. In response to Lord Lawson's ridiculous comments, this is fantastic...

 

Posted Image

Edited by Nick L
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not have to explain anything to me Voidy. There has been no warming for years apart from small

fluctuations in temperature up and down,but if the sun is to go into hibernation ( most pointers are looking

that but you probably can not see that either)  then there is only one way the temperatures are going and

that is not up.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have these scientists, who dismiss the Maunder because the LIA started well before, never heard of the Spörer Minimum? ...and has he not read that the effects being regional may be explained by changes in localised (to Europe) circulation patterns (wind direction change or ocean current - take your pick)

I know solar science and its effects on climate are disregarded for the most part but some of that video is as cringe worthy as the media reports he scoffs at. Posted Image

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not have to explain anything to me Voidy. There has been no warming for years apart from small

fluctuations in temperature up and down,but if the sun is to go into hibernation ( most pointers are looking

that but you probably can not see that either)  then there is only one way the temperatures are going and

that is not up.

 

Is the earth's temperature not higher than 150 years ago then?

Has it not stopped rising for short spells in that time only to start the upward trend again?

Has the sun not decreased in activity before during the same period?

 

basic questions CC, have you the answers please?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium

 

The climate of the past millennium was marked by substantial decadal and centennial scale variability in the Northern Hemisphere1. Low solar activity has been linked to cooling during the Little Ice Age (AD 1450–1850; ref.  1) and there may have been solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly2, 3, 4, 5 (AD 950–1250; ref. 1). The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained5, 6, with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude7, 8, 9. Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions10, 11, 12, 13. Here we compare the climatic fingerprints of high and low solar forcing derived from model simulations with an ensemble of surface air temperature reconstructions14 for the past millennium. Our methodology15 also accounts for internal climate variability and other external drivers such as volcanic eruptions, as well as uncertainties in the proxy reconstructions and model output. We find that neither a high magnitude of solar forcing nor a strong climate effect of that forcing agree with the temperature reconstructions. We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period.

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2040.html

 

Sun not a key driver of climate change

http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2013/sun-221213

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a documentary a few years ago which reckoned the ice sheets can quickly melt and also quickly freeze over,i guess we are in quick melt at the moment but we are also overdue a major volcanic eruption and I think that that is the big correcting factor.Once that has happened the sun will be limited allowing enough ice regrowth to reflect more sun for continued ice growth,reversing the cycle!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have these scientists, who dismiss the Maunder because the LIA started well before, never heard of the Spörer Minimum? ...and has he not read that the effects being regional may be explained by changes in localised (to Europe) circulation patterns (wind direction change or ocean current - take your pick)

I know solar science and its effects on climate are disregarded for the most part but some of that video is as cringe worthy as the media reports he scoffs at. Posted Image

 

Solar effects aren't disregarded, but variations in the 11 year cycle have been studied and analysed and are not believed to have a significant influence on the global climate.

Even a maunder style minimum would be very unlikely to have a noticeable impact on temperatures over the coming century.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the earth's temperature not higher than 150 years ago then?

Has it not stopped rising for short spells in that time only to start the upward trend again?

Has the sun not decreased in activity before during the same period?

 

basic questions CC, have you the answers please?

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...