Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
damianslaw

Warm SE Pacific to blame for stormy winter?

Recommended Posts

What's a warmist?

 

The way things are going, a more pertinent question would be - 'what was a warmist'? Trying to eradicate popular terms for those who bought into this junk won't mean they never existed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LG is just going to keep trying to wind you up Nick!

 

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. 

 

The Dunning-Kruger effect: being so incompetent that you lack the metacognitive ability to recognise your own incompetence and, instead, think you're a genius.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

So because I reject the consensus that it is most likely caused by humans then it makes me what?

 

I firmly believe that the majority and largest player in our temperature cycles over time is down to solar activity and I have posted numerous times articles and papers that show that coorelation which is a darn better fit that rising CO2 levels.

 

Yes a warm SE pacific together with a strong artic vortex maywell be the reason why our winter has been so dire. But I've seen nothing that could explain CO2's role in this. However there is research that shows how trade winds are affected by solar cycles and activity levels and another strong coorelation cabn be shown.

 

I firmly believe our climatic patterns are in transition as a direct result of the present lower solar activity and fully expect that our winters to get colder over the next few years

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I firmly believe that the majority and largest player in our temperature cycles over time is down to solar activity and I have posted numerous times articles and papers that show that coorelation which is a darn better fit that rising CO2 levels.

 

 

Nope, you have not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar Variability & Global Warming

 

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

 

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global climate change may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global climate change are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009). Also, be sure to read this more recent article: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade.

 

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

 

post-12275-0-05432600-1392830450_thumb.p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again more sniping from the politically correct people, mentioning what newspapers people read as a jibe, I see that graph doesn't go far enough back to include periods where there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now, yet we had little ice ages, again liberal and fraudulent use of statistics from the Guardian reading brigade to try and justify high fuel tax.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again more sniping from the politically correct people, mentioning what newspapers people read as a jibe, I see that graph doesn't go far enough back to include periods where there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now, yet we had little ice ages, again liberal and fraudulent use of statistics from the Guardian reading brigade to try and justify high fuel tax.

 

More pointless rhetoric because you lack any semblance of a coherent scientific argument, Regarding ice ages, which are not relevant to this discussion anyway, you may have heard of changes in orbital eccentricity, obliquity, procession of the equinoxes, changes in orbital inclination On the other hand perhaps not. And just for the record I'm not particularly amused being called a fraud.

Edited by knocker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again more sniping from the politically correct people, mentioning what newspapers people read as a jibe, I see that graph doesn't go far enough back to include periods where there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now, yet we had little ice ages, again liberal and fraudulent use of statistics from the Guardian reading brigade to try and justify high fuel tax.

 

More CO2 than now, yet we had the little ice age? There was much less CO2 during the little ice age, about 280ppm compared to about 398ppm now.

 

Nobody is dragging politics into this but yourself. Nick's point about the Daily Mail (I believe) was that most people who deny the large effect of CO2 get their data from tabloids rather than looking at the science itself, and you're not going to get a reasonable, much less scientific, viewpoint about almost anything from just tabloids.

 

Can you demonstrate fraud in the piece knocker linked to?

Edited by BornFromTheVoid
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The libellous comments of fraud and deliberate manipulation are becoming quite frequent on here. It would be quite amusing if those accused took it up with Netweather one day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar Variability & Global Warming

 

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

 

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global climate change may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global climate change are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009). Also, be sure to read this more recent article: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade.

 

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

 

Four years later, perhaps a realisation that the sun's effects may be more than the sum of its TSI.

 

 

Jan. 8, 2013:  In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star.  While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. 

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

 

Free download of the report.

 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13519&page=1

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More pointless rhetoric because you lack any semblance of a coherent scientific argument, Regarding ice ages, which are not relevant to this discussion anyway, you may have heard of changes in orbital eccentricity, obliquity, procession of the equinoxes, changes in orbital inclination On the other hand perhaps not. And just for the record I'm not particularly amused being called a fraud.

 

You lot continually do it to Cooling Climate (a very respected member of the Netweather, yet you run off crying when anyone dares to have a go back, typical left wing bully boys, just the same as the politics thread, John Holmes made a comment that he listened to for and against arguments but the man made AGW brigade always say there is no argument against the theory so whats the point of discussing it then, no thread needed.

 

Anyone who doubts the impact of solar activity, just note the difference in temperature between night and day, if this AGW increase picks up in next 10 years with low solar activity then I will have the balls to come on here and apologise, if we get a succession of very cold winters with continually southerly tracking Jetstream then will you do the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four years later, perhaps a realisation that the sun's effects may be more than the sum of its TSI.

 

 

Free download of the report.

 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13519&page=1

 

Cheers for the link, have downloaded the report.

 

Perhaps you missed this part?

 

Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment23 and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices24 agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the past 50 years.25
 
 

 

Anyone who doubts the impact of solar activity, just note the difference in temperature between night and day, if this AGW increase picks up in next 10 years with low solar activity then I will have the balls to come on here and apologise, if we get a succession of very cold winters with continually southerly tracking Jetstream then will you do the same.

 

Nobody is denying the importance of the sun, just disagreeing that variations in the 11 year cycle have had a big influence on global temperatures. Are you aware that the Earth would be a frozen wasteland if it wasn't for Greenhouse Gasses?

A run of local cold winters and a southerly tracking jet stream doesn't disprove AGW, just as a warm winter and northerly tracking jet stream doesn't prove it. There is loads evidence for the influence of the extra CO2 we've added to the atmosphere, just pop down to the climate area and we can discuss them!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for the link, have downloaded the report.

 

Perhaps you missed this part?

 

Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment23 and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices24 agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the past 50 years.25
 
 

 

I've read it all and that is why I made the comment about TSI not being the only story in how the cycle can impact the climate. You'll see a lot is conjecture but fledgling ideas are a place to start when so little is actually known about the impacts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is so sad to see this thread descending into the shambles that is so often seen in the climate thread.

We have had a highly unusual winter, what caused it, the truth is no one knows, we may never know. Meteorologists and climatologists will be publishing their research into this over the coming months,years perhaps. We are all entitled to voice our views but why on earth can some of you not do this politely and respect each other.

As I have done with the climate area, carry on with the schoolboy antics, I will stay out of it. I have more sensible ways of occupying my time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You lot continually do it to Cooling Climate (a very respected member of the Netweather, yet you run off crying when anyone dares to have a go back, typical left wing bully boys, just the same as the politics thread, John Holmes made a comment that he listened to for and against arguments but the man made AGW brigade always say there is no argument against the theory so whats the point of discussing it then, no thread needed.

 

Anyone who doubts the impact of solar activity, just note the difference in temperature between night and day, if this AGW increase picks up in next 10 years with low solar activity then I will have the balls to come on here and apologise, if we get a succession of very cold winters with continually southerly tracking Jetstream then will you do the same.

 

I challenged him to provide scientific papers to prove his point and he hasn't responded. I'm certainly not the one running off crying. If you make a claim that goes against the broad scientific consensus, the onus is on YOU to stake your claim.

 

I'm going the same way as John here, it's getting silly. If you want to ignore science then that's your choice, I'll go with the overwhelming opinion of the majority of scientists.

Edited by Nick L
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for the link, have downloaded the report.

 

Perhaps you missed this part?

 

Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment23 and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices24 agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the past 50 years.25
 
 

 

 

Nobody is denying the importance of the sun, just disagreeing that variations in the 11 year cycle have had a big influence on global temperatures. Are you aware that the Earth would be a frozen wasteland if it wasn't for Greenhouse Gasses?

A run of local cold winters and a southerly tracking jet stream doesn't disprove AGW, just as a warm winter and northerly tracking jet stream doesn't prove it. There is loads evidence for the influence of the extra CO2 we've added to the atmosphere, just pop down to the climate area and we can discuss them!

 

My post was more inquisitive of others views rather than a statement, I agree a run of UK cold winters doesn't prove anything but as said before ACCELARATED AGW has not been happening long enough to prove that climate change is going to affect the vast majority of people significantly in the next 100 years, yes I am aware of your statement regarding greenhouse gasses, that's my point, 100 years, let alone 1000 years is to far away to predict with any certainty, if an ice age were to happen, we may regret not continuing to use CFS's as it MAY have ended up partially offsetting the cold, we just don't know and I just don't think it is acceptable to question what papers people read and massively increasing fuel tax at a time when most decent British people can hardly afford it on the basis of what might happen a 1000 years down the line, are you aware that the probability of the earth being here forever is 0, I apologise if I offended you or anyone else but people (I know it wasn't you), constantly refer to anyone who challenges the status quo on this as 'Daily Mail readers' or 'Flat Earthers'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You lot continually do it to Cooling Climate (a very respected member of the Netweather, yet you run off crying when anyone dares to have a go back, typical left wing bully boys, just the same as the politics thread, John Holmes made a comment that he listened to for and against arguments but the man made AGW brigade always say there is no argument against the theory so whats the point of discussing it then, no thread needed.

 

Anyone who doubts the impact of solar activity, just note the difference in temperature between night and day, if this AGW increase picks up in next 10 years with low solar activity then I will have the balls to come on here and apologise, if we get a succession of very cold winters with continually southerly tracking Jetstream then will you do the same.

 

Wrong. I can't speak for anyone else but I have never said that there is no argument.against the theory unless you want call me liar. What I have said is that so far I haven't seen a compelling case for the rise in global temperatures over the last 150 years and ensuing climate change that supersedes the case for CObeing the main driver. Note, not the only driver as there are many parts of this complex problem not fully understood, hence the ongoing research in many disciplines.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. I can't speak for anyone else but I have never said that there is no argument.against the theory unless you want call me liar. What I have said is that so far I haven't seen a compelling case for the rise in global temperatures over the last 150 years and ensuing climate change that supersedes the case for CObeing the main driver. Note, not the only driver as there are many parts of this complex problem not fully understood, hence the ongoing research in many disciplines.

 

Fair enough then, maybe not you but a lot of others have, I still think we need another few hundred years before we can even begin to be absolutely sure, the planet warms up and cools down all the time, to use the last 30 years as a sample size in my opinion would be to use the 1st 15 seconds of a football match to decide who you think is likely to play the better football.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its unfortunate but when climate change (global warming or lack of it) rears its head and you (rightly)  

have a different view the mockery and snide remarks start.

The thing is there has been no warming since 98 apart from little fluctuations up and down. Some

posters have a problem with that. Tough. Its a fact get use to it.

 

I don't have a problem with it. Cherry pick a Nino year as a starter and away you go  Look at it in perspective from 1984.

post-12275-0-75871100-1392839019_thumb.p

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to close this, given that it's descended into the inevitable puerile insults in order to avoid providing a coherent argument?

Edited by Crepuscular Ray
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This winter has seen a record number of days with SW-lys winds,upper air flow and looks like continuing for the rest of the month.

Last time we had a NW-ly was back in November,there were 2 days with a light easterly with that cut of low.

But overall surface winds have been S-ly..SE-ly before the low systems come in then SW-ly and some westerly flow.

Just an observation.

Edited by Snowyowl9
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ARGO fleet show the warming of the ocean there, Haiyan was able to fuel itself from waters up to 100 m down due to the incredible heat in the ocean there. The winter rainfall events in the area serve to highlight the issues such a warm ocean, to great depth, will drive.

 

You can follow the Jet from the region and see how the pattern that left us 'stuck' in our run of weather evolves. The warm oceans, the North Pacific High, the U.S. Jet trough, the Arctic air over the warm Atlantic, job done.

 

Since Dec. I've been saying as long as the north Pacific high maintains then the die will remain cast and our weather has readily obliged ( how could it do any different?).

 

As it is the north pacific high may well be showing sign of failing? ( recent 'pineapple express in West coast U.S. buckled it) and when it does Nino will form as the Trades fall light and we will see a different set of problems! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...