The SSW of Feb 2018

[Derecho]

49 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

For me I've called the increase of F numbered tornado's as my measure Deniers cannot ignore?

We do have the largest number of vortices forming here in NW Europe/N.Italy but they are poor and rarely make more than a funnel before dissipating?

Increasing energy in the atmosphere must surely see such vortices also increase in vigour? 

When the British public see the first major twister outbreak maybe then they'll see more than just 'weather'? 

Unlike the midwest any outbreak that travels any distance will hit population centres and we've seen what 'freak' tornado's have do in the past so imagine what a multiple tornado outbreak will bring?

It will also give folk a taste of what it is like to 'fear' the weather ( as we do in multiple flood hit areas?) and not just marvel at it?

The odds favour southern Britain for such outbreaks so that'll be better for us up north?

I have to disagree with this, I believe the increase in the number of reported tornadoes is due to more being captured with mobile technology and being reported on the internet.

US tornadoes are very strongly influenced by ENSO, if El Nino's become more frequent in the future then their numbers could actually reduce. Also the increased energy in the atmosphere will lead to a decrease in wind shear. This could have the unusual effect of increasing the intensity of thunderstorms yet decreasing the number of tornadoes.

How different is the UK?, well our tornadoes mostly occur as the result of active polar fronts and are very small. Interestingly the most active period in the UK for tornadoes is October and November. A bigger one will occur very rarely but we will never get anything like what we see in the states and for that we should be thankful.

As for UK extremes, I think the biggest change I have seen is mainly just a long term general warming. In addition to this though there does seem to be an increase in rainfall since the 1990s especially intense rain in the summer.

An individual extreme would be like rolling a 7 on the dice. Seeing something completely out of character with what is expected of our climate.

For the UK, December 2015 for example was exceptional... with NW England rainfall and the biggest ever positive anomaly from the 1971-2000 mean temperature, the other thing that springs to mind is Hurricane Ophelia. I believe the above average SSTs near the Azores gave it extra fuel.

That's my two cents anyway.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Quicksilver1989

[Midlands Ice Age]

On ‎11‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 14:40, Quicksilver1989 said:

 

 

If you look back in history  (best is the CET record) we can see periods of very low temperatures in Dec/Jan/Feb. (particularly during the period of 1692 to 1698, but by no means exclusively) that can only have occurred from blocking and hence, ( I assume), a very much warmer Arctic. Particularly as most of Europe and the Northern Hemisphere recorded prolonged periods of Easterly  or North easterly winds, and very cold temperatures, at the same time.

So somehow 6 cold years in the UK has some relevance to the argument you are making? You are assuming that all cold spells in the UK have the same characteristics globally when that simply isn't true. For example compare February 1985 to January 2010, two very cold months across western Europe.


 I have seen constructions from that time of virtually the whole of the Arctic being engulfed by a huge block, with Mediterranean areas (latitudes) having an elongated area of low pressure.   

 

What was the net effect of  temperatures at the time? - It was to reduce the annual temperatures. I agree, not permanently, as pretty well afterwards the CET then recorded a massively warm decade from 1730 -1740 - and that is almost as high as those being recorded today!!.   A much larger change (2.2C on a averaged basis)  in 50 years compared to todays change of 1.0C -  (maybe 1.5C on a max basis) - over the last 150 years... 

Again CET is just a small region of the world... it doesn't represent the global picture does it?

I would presume/guess that some sort of SSW  was occurring regularly at times at this stage, and then a 'rebound' occurred  to enable that to happen so consistently.

SSW events would have happened frequently over time yes but like I said earlier what relevance does this have to global temperatures?

Please explain  how such a strange happening could have occurred. 

The AGW argument will not be complete until these 'strange effects' are explained fully. CO2 was not the cause.

So an incoherent argument about SSW events suddenly disregards the hugely convincing evidence of climate change? Something that 97% of scientists agree on. Should the Greenhouse effect theory, the unparalleled speed of global warming over the last 150 years, the extreme arctic sea ice loss, massive coral bleaching etc be ignored? I think not

If it is claimed that 'its oceans what did it',  then why did this occur?  It must have been caused by natural processes of some sorts.

The effect of the changes in the CET for the 50years from 1690 to 1740 was a far greater effect than anything we have seen in the last 150 years. You cannot/shouldnot just write off a period of history and assume it is unimportant.

But the warmth we are seeing is above anything else previously seen.


 

Hi QS...

In respect of your replies above, I decided that as I had been 'exaggerating' that  I would actually check the data I quoted and also check your presentation of the same, concerning the last few posts exchanged between us.

So as there was no other method available to me, it was time to learn Excel. 

PS I found it pretty difficult to use in comparison with SmartSuite which I had the use of for many years.

So as I decided  the charts of the CET you provided were next to useless for any detailed discussion, I decided that the best method of attack, (and to avoid cherry picking) was to select out the CET 10Year Averages, for the period 1660 to 2018 from my Xcel spreadsheet..

 

I am presenting them in the form of text to you here, as I have still not completely mastered the art in getting them to shown in  here. It is more impressive in the graph (if it appears).

Year                            CET                           Year                   CET                                                 Year                CET

1660 - 1669               9.157                        1770 - 1779         9.255                                             1860 - 1869          9.329

1670 -  1679              8.607                         1780 - 1789        8.887                                              1870 - 1879         9.111           

1680 -   1689             8.785                         1790 - 1799        9.129                                              1880 - 1889        8.892 

1690 -  1699              8.134     (including 7 years from 1692 - 98 with a CET of 7.91C)               1890 - 1899        9.207    

1700 -  1709              9.120                         1800 - 1809        9.192                                              1900 -1909         9.136         

1710 - 1719               9.177                         1810 - 1819        8.818                                              1910 - 1919        9.316

1720 - 1729               9.331                         1820 - 1829        9.375                                              1920 - 1929         9.402

1730 - 1739               9.888       (including 7 years from 1730 -36 with a CET of 9.94C)              1930 - 1939        9.638

1740 - 1749               8.882                         1830 -  1839        9.248                                             1940 - 1949         9.700                   

1750 - 1759               9.072                          1840 - 1849        9.068                                              1950 - 1959       9.521

1760 - 1769               9.083                           1850 - 1859       9.195  

                                            

Then the record to which you like to refer too -

1960- 1969               9.305  

1970 - 1979              9.572

1980 - 1989              9.554

1990 - 1999             10.124

2000 - 2009             10.392  

2010 - 2017              10.134   (including the spell of  2008 -  2013 of 9.84C.)  

 

Now the above is factual data , and I do not expect you to claim otherwise.

I have graphed the data below at the bottom   - (pray it comes out - otherwise I'll try again!)

Now it just looks like a fairly normal distribution until you realise that the last 150 years of warming has increased by approx.1.0C, whereas the temperature rose by just over 2.0C in just about 40 years between 1690 and 1730!  

Much is made of the variability of the weather today, but the above is is why I described  the last 150 years as relatively 'stable'.

So, you suggest that it was probably caused by ocean cycles....  What caused them and why are they not as great today?

(I do not disagree by the way - as I do not know).

Also note that at the end of the 1730 warming period, the CET was actually warmer over a 7 year period than it was in the period of 2008 - 2013.  Was that period especially cool? Or was it that the 1730's was very warm. Either explain why 2008 period was so cool, or why 1730 was so warm.  Also explain why the warming over the last 50 years is exceptional and can only be put down to CO2.

 An inquisitive scientific mind tells me that as all is not as it has been presented.                  

 

AJC2016finalgraph.pdf

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Midlands Ice Age

[Derecho]

Good to see you pulling out some stats this time MIA, even if we may not come to an agreement, hard stats are a constructive way of scientific debate along with the literature.

A few papers have been written about this period, currently busy with some deadlines but should get back on Wednesday to give a detailed answer with the links 

[BornFromTheVoid]

14 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Also note that at the end of the 1730 warming period, the CET was actually warmer over a 7 year period than it was in the period of 2008 - 2013.  Was that period especially cool? Or was it that the 1730's was very warm. Either explain why 2008 period was so cool, or why 1730 was so warm.  Also explain why the warming over the last 50 years is exceptional and can only be put down to CO2.

 An inquisitive scientific mind tells me that as all is not as it has been presented.                  

 

AJC2016finalgraph.pdf

 

Hi MIA,

Is this the graph you were aiming for?

 

Btw, with 10 years averages, the change between 1700 and 1738 is 1.8C (8.1C up to 9.9C). However, this warming wasn't sustained and 10 years later in 1748, the 10 year average was back down to 8.8C (1.05C in 10 years)), wiping out most of the warming. Even before 1700, the CET was milder, so in reality we had a dip to record lowest values, a spike to record high values (at the time), and then a drop back to normal. So it was pretty variable!
Similar happened between 1816 and 1834, with the 10 year average going from 8.6C up to 9.7C (+1.05C in 18 years). Once more, the CET had dropped to 8.7C by 1845 (1.0C in 11 years), wiping out the warming.
More recently, we saw a steady increase of 1.0C from the late 19th century to about 9.7C by 1950, which in itself is close to the warmest 10 year values on record. We then saw a slow decline to about 9.3C by the 70s, a small drop but not nearly enough to wipe out the warming. Since that point we've seen another big spike peaking with a 10 year average of 10.4C in 2007 - smashing all previous records by a long way. This was followed by a slow decline to the 10.1C value we sit at now.

So, it seems one might be able to argue that some of the cycles that caused previous big warm ups and subsequent cool downs are still in operation (possibly ocean/atmosphere related). The difference now is that the cool downs are no longer very effective and so our old zig-zag pattern of ups and downs is gradually beginning to resemble a stairs!
Some might argue that a big cooling event is around the corner, maybe they're correct? Hard to know where it will come from though. Many of those that take issue with the science of climate change have previously declared cooling would commence when the PDO turned -ve (it happened, we didn't cool). Then the claim shifted to when the sun goes quest, after which we had the quietest solar cycle in a century during which time both new high global and CET records were set once more.

On a global scale, we would have to discover some groundbreaking new physics to explain how the ocean are currently both releasing enough heat to cause warming while simultaneously absorbing and gathering massive amounts of heat, which appears unlikely. Where as basic physics says it's CO2/GhGs.
 

And I didn't even bother to mention the 30 year climatological averages!

[Midlands Ice Age]

7 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Hi MIA,

Is this the graph you were aiming for?

 

Btw, with 10 years averages, the change between 1700 and 1738 is 1.8C (8.1C up to 9.9C). However, this warming wasn't sustained and 10 years later in 1748, the 10 year average was back down to 8.8C (1.05C in 10 years)), wiping out most of the warming. Even before 1700, the CET was milder, so in reality we had a dip to record lowest values, a spike to record high values (at the time), and then a drop back to normal. So it was pretty variable!
Similar happened between 1816 and 1834, with the 10 year average going from 8.6C up to 9.7C (+1.05C in 18 years). Once more, the CET had dropped to 8.7C by 1845 (1.0C in 11 years), wiping out the warming.
More recently, we saw a steady increase of 1.0C from the late 19th century to about 9.7C by 1950, which in itself is close to the warmest 10 year values on record. We then saw a slow decline to about 9.3C by the 70s, a small drop but not nearly enough to wipe out the warming. Since that point we've seen another big spike peaking with a 10 year average of 10.4C in 2007 - smashing all previous records by a long way. This was followed by a slow decline to the 10.1C value we sit at now.

So, it seems one might be able to argue that some of the cycles that caused previous big warm ups and subsequent cool downs are still in operation (possibly ocean/atmosphere related). The difference now is that the cool downs are no longer very effective and so our old zig-zag pattern of ups and downs is gradually beginning to resemble a stairs!
Some might argue that a big cooling event is around the corner, maybe they're correct? Hard to know where it will come from though. Many of those that take issue with the science of climate change have previously declared cooling would commence when the PDO turned -ve (it happened, we didn't cool). Then the claim shifted to when the sun goes quest, after which we had the quietest solar cycle in a century during which time both new high global and CET records were set once more.

On a global scale, we would have to discover some groundbreaking new physics to explain how the ocean are currently both releasing enough heat to cause warming while simultaneously absorbing and gathering massive amounts of heat, which appears unlikely. Where as basic physics says it's CO2/GhGs.
 

And I didn't even bother to mention the 30 year climatological averages!

Nope... (the graph)

That had already been published by QS, and is no use whatsoever for looking at trends, within the gradually rising temperatures.

 But thanks for posting it.

I do agree, and my point was that the early 1700's were very variable, and in comparison, I have already stated make the latest 150years look quite stable.  I was going to mention the Great Strom of 1722,, where by for  a week the wind is thought to have exceeded 1000mph and culminated in a storm with 120 mph winds quite widely.

Something like that again might well signal climate change. As also might the current SSW(?), which seems to be of a very large  import according to the strat people. We will see.  

You seem to be citing the PDO as a possible cause for the past CC......        Normally it takes quite a few years to work through for a full worldwide change.

Already we see the latest change (last 4/5 months)  to even a weak La Nina beginning to affect the Tropospheric temperatures (according to Spencer in his researches). This would take a prolonged period to turn around the upward trend on a worldwide basis, so I am not certain how you can claim that world records have been set DESPITE a negative PDO.  These changes tend to work in decades which was the whole point of my 10year graph.  Is it not like trying to turn the Queen  Mary?

This means that  climate will always work with lags.

I am also not certain how you can claim that the CET has set new records  (except in the peak of the Nino in 2014) on an annual or multi year average basis,. The last 10 years have seen the CET 7 year average falling from the previous 10year average..

The other aspect of your post.I wish to comment upon,  is that it is perfectly possible to have two (or even multiple)  trends interacting at the same time.

The physics of oceans impact on earths atmosphere is very poorly understood.  Remember it is 70.3% of the earths surface.

We could still see the oceans be trying to offload any heat it has gained from a hundred years of warming whilst at the same time be entering into a period when it is being warmed (or cooled) by other outside effects.

The solar effects are poorly understood.  Is it coincidence for example that we have seen this huge tearing apart of our polar vortex at exactly the same time as we start to enter the solar minimum?  The poor weather around 2010 coincided with a slackening of the solar influence (judged by the sunspots).  The mini ice age occurred at a time of the Maunder Minimum.  To pretend that our solar has no impact on our climate other than just within the IR is rapidly being challenged/examined, I believe.

Already very high level of high energy particles are starting to bombard the stratosphere (up by an average of 7% according to US scientist balloon experiments reports, but they have seen levels as high as 25% at times) and the way they interact at high levels is unknown.

The changes say from the Mediaeval Warming  Period  to the Sporer minimum and then a lull before entering into the Little ice age  of the late 17th Century must have seen multiple forces interacting and in action. This presumably was before any CO2 variability impacting the climate.

Or do you still subscribe to the 'Mannian' view of the climate  that the temperature/climate was unchanged during the last one thousand years?. 

Final point was that my numbers clearly showed that comparing the 7 year averages of min/max temperature  showed that the difference was 2.03C  within 40 years ( 7.91 to 9.94 from 1698 to 1738). Yet warmers seem to think that 0.9C in 150 years is a potential catastrophe.

We need (IMO)  to spend more time and energy looking into what the natural climatic effects really are, before we try to simulate the future via the models.  

As already stated  I do accept that CO2 will cause some warming effect. Is it so large as to engulf all the other natural effects,  I am not so certain.

We are still miles from understanding the full oceanic and the atmospheric influences on the climate. (IMO)

 Using 'parameters' to simulate them in the models just will not work.

MIA 

[BornFromTheVoid]

16 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Nope... (the graph)

That had already been published by QS, and is no use whatsoever for looking at trends, within the gradually rising temperatures.

 But thanks for posting it.

I do agree, and my point was that the early 1700's were very variable, and in comparison, I have already stated make the latest 150years look quite stable.  I was going to mention the Great Strom of 1722,, where by for  a week the wind is thought to have exceeded 1000mph and culminated in a storm with 120 mph winds quite widely.

Something like that again might well signal climate change. As also might the current SSW(?), which seems to be of a very large  import according to the strat people. We will see.  

You seem to be citing the PDO as a possible cause for the past CC......        Normally it takes quite a few years to work through for a full worldwide change.

Already we see the latest change (last 4/5 months)  to even a weak La Nina beginning to affect the Tropospheric temperatures (according to Spencer in his researches). This would take a prolonged period to turn around the upward trend on a worldwide basis, so I am not certain how you can claim that world records have been set DESPITE a negative PDO.  These changes tend to work in decades which was the whole point of my 10year graph.  Is it not like trying to turn the Queen  Mary?

This means that  climate will always work with lags.

I am also not certain how you can claim that the CET has set new records  (except in the peak of the Nino in 2014) on an annual or multi year average basis,. The last 10 years have seen the CET 7 year average falling from the previous 10year average..

The other aspect of your post.I wish to comment upon,  is that it is perfectly possible to have two (or even multiple)  trends interacting at the same time.

The physics of oceans impact on earths atmosphere is very poorly understood.  Remember it is 70.3% of the earths surface.

We could still see the oceans be trying to offload any heat it has gained from a hundred years of warming whilst at the same time be entering into a period when it is being warmed (or cooled) by other outside effects.

The solar effects are poorly understood.  Is it coincidence for example that we have seen this huge tearing apart of our polar vortex at exactly the same time as we start to enter the solar minimum?  The poor weather around 2010 coincided with a slackening of the solar influence (judged by the sunspots).  The mini ice age occurred at a time of the Maunder Minimum.  To pretend that our solar has no impact on our climate other than just within the IR is rapidly being challenged/examined, I believe.

Already very high level of high energy particles are starting to bombard the stratosphere (up by an average of 7% according to US scientist balloon experiments reports, but they have seen levels as high as 25% at times) and the way they interact at high levels is unknown.

The changes say from the Mediaeval Warming  Period  to the Sporer minimum and then a lull before entering into the Little ice age  of the late 17th Century must have seen multiple forces interacting and in action. This presumably was before any CO2 variability impacting the climate.

Or do you still subscribe to the 'Mannian' view of the climate  that the temperature/climate was unchanged during the last one thousand years?. 

Final point was that my numbers clearly showed that comparing the 7 year averages of min/max temperature  showed that the difference was 2.03C  within 40 years ( 7.91 to 9.94 from 1698 to 1738). Yet warmers seem to think that 0.9C in 150 years is a potential catastrophe.

We need (IMO)  to spend more time and energy looking into what the natural climatic effects really are, before we try to simulate the future via the models.  

As already stated  I do accept that CO2 will cause some warming effect. Is it so large as to engulf all the other natural effects,  I am not so certain.

We are still miles from understanding the full oceanic and the atmospheric influences on the climate. (IMO)

 Using 'parameters' to simulate them in the models just will not work.

MIA 

I'm not really sure how a graph displaying annual, 10 year and 30 year averages is useless when looking at trends in that data setI can detrend that data set if you like? Detrending a data set before looking for trends seems a little odd.
I agree that for the CET area, at least with regard to temperature, things appeared more variable in the past. I might try looking at the change in standard deviation on a monthly or seasonal basis if I get a little time later on.
I wont get into anecdotal weather data, it's a debate that likely won't go anywhere!
With the PDO, we have about a century of data to check for lags. Many proponents have used the switch to the +ve phase around 1978 to explain strong warming immediately following that switch. There doesn't seem to be anything that suggests the predominantly -ve PDO from 1999 through to 2013 is still yet to impact global temperatures. Like my point before, it probably contributed to the slower warming trend globally at that time, but couldn't pack the same punch as the slight cooling mid century.

Of the 359 years in the CET record, the 3 warmest have occurred in the last 12 years while the 30 year climatological mean is racing away into record territory. All very much apparent on the graph posted earlier - I'm at a loss as to how you can't see that?

Two trends at once are very much possible, like the long term cooling trend which started back 8,000 years ago being countered by the GhG induced warming - which is why you sometimes hear mention that we've caused more than 100% of the observed warming through GhG emissions!

You can't blame the oceans for causing warming through the release of stored heat while they're actually absorbing and burying massive amounts of heat - it just doesn't make any sense! 
Solar effects, from experts in the field, are unlikely to have much impact in comparison to GhG induced warming. Lots of things change lots of the time - doesn't mean you can blame them for things where there is little scientific evidence. We had the quietest solar period in 100 years and we set global and CET records during that time. I don't disagree that solar cycles can influences out weather and in the relatively short term, the climate, but from the evidence available this doesn't seem close to the changes brought by GhGs.
Besides, solar induced warming would have several effects, such as more evenly distributed warming vertically throughout the atmosphere (which has not been observed - the opposite has in fact occurred), days warming faster than nights (opposite has occurred) and other such things. The signs of solar induced warming are simply not there, while the opposite signs that support GhG warming are there.

By "Mannian" I assume you refer to the climate denier narrative about Michael Mann, and all the other scientists, which through independent studies have come to the same conclusion as him? Even Mann's paper in 1998 showed a slight bump around the MWP and a dip for the LIA, with error margins large enough for significant variation within those periods... as did the other studies. But I know Mann is arch Nemesis of climate deniers worldwide, along with Jim Hansen  

Even the linear trend for the last 7 CET years is +0.5C/decade!  Cherry picking your average periods to get short term -ve trends and using them to argues against long term global trends and their impacts is far from good, honest science now, isn't it?

Personally, I think climate science in general has improved our understanding of the planet, how it was in the past and how it will change in the future immeasurably. The accuracy of climate models from decades ago show that well.
To move the debate forward, it would help if people didn't mainly stick to reading biased blogs where the non-expert/religious zealot author knows just enough more than his/her readers to manipulate their perspective. That's not where science happens

[Midlands Ice Age]

22 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

I'm not really sure how a graph displaying annual, 10 year and 30 year averages is useless when looking at trends in that data setI can detrend that data set if you like? Detrending a data set before looking for trends seems a little odd.
I agree that for the CET area, at least with regard to temperature, things appeared more variable in the past. I might try looking at the change in standard deviation on a monthly or seasonal basis if I get a little time later on.
I wont get into anecdotal weather data, it's a debate that likely won't go anywhere!
With the PDO, we have about a century of data to check for lags. Many proponents have used the switch to the +ve phase around 1978 to explain strong warming immediately following that switch. There doesn't seem to be anything that suggests the predominantly -ve PDO from 1999 through to 2013 is still yet to impact global temperatures. Like my point before, it probably contributed to the slower warming trend globally at that time, but couldn't pack the same punch as the slight cooling mid century.

Of the 359 years in the CET record, the 3 warmest have occurred in the last 12 years while the 30 year climatological mean is racing away into record territory. All very much apparent on the graph posted earlier - I'm at a loss as to how you can't see that?
 

BFTV...

 Thanks for your considered post above...

I would like to respond by splitting your post up into two and to discuss the two parts separately.

As I was out all day yesterday and also most of today and tomorrow could I ask if you can see the file I uploaded in my post the other day?.  (see my post below).

On ‎12‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 20:57, Midlands Ice Age said:

 

 

AJC2016finalgraph.pdf

 

As if you cannot then it explains your posting,  otherwise I feel that my previous post has not been understood.

 My comments about your posting was not that the data was incorrect, but that it was poor for identifying short to medium  term trends. (talking 10 to twenty years, and then onwards). That is why I used Excel to help document  the data so that the trends were/are clearly visible..  

Your data has the information embedded, but it is not possible to 'tease' it out clearly.  

I  will reply by adjusting my spreadsheet to perform the suggestions you have made into it, but there is no point if you cannot see the results?? 

Will be back later on this evening.

MIA

 

[Gray-Wolf]

Well isn't this like the good old days when the deniers, doing the bidding of their paid denier masters, cost us any chance of keeping the impacts of our messing up of global climate to a minimum?

I just don't understand why we should be revisiting it when we are on the verge of seeing , first hand, just how extreme our messing can prove to be?

In the past 3 years how many climate measure have given 'record' measures? How many unexpected and inforecastable events have occurred in our atmosphere?

Folk who can't be bothered to think just see 'weather'. They note it as extreme only when told that it is otherwise they fall back on the Deniers telling them it is nothing unusual and that we have 'seen it all before'...... of course we have! There are only a limited number of ways we can experience our weathers are there not?

So we see again a horrible refreeze over the Arctic and what do we hear folk talk about? 'record cold over Hudson'......chuck in another squirrel/dead cat on the desk....

So why is MJO showing such extreme shifts ( 4 std's from the 'norm'?)

Why a reversal expected to smash the last Easterlies record values? ( 40 m/s beating the old 32m/s)

 

How was QBO able to not pull its scheduled reversal 2 yrs back?

Why won't the PV set up .in station and on time, any more?

 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Gray-Wolf

[Midlands Ice Age]

3 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

Well isn't this like the good old days when the deniers, doing the bidding of their paid denier masters, cost us any chance of keeping the impacts of our messing up of global climate to a minimum?

I just don't understand why we should be revisiting it when we are on the verge of seeing , first hand, just how extreme our messing can prove to be?

In the past 3 years how many climate measure have given 'record' measures? How many unexpected and inforecastable events have occurred in our atmosphere?

Folk who can't be bothered to think just see 'weather'. They note it as extreme only when told that it is otherwise they fall back on the Deniers telling them it is nothing unusual and that we have 'seen it all before'...... of course we have! There are only a limited number of ways we can experience our weathers are there not?

So we see again a horrible refreeze over the Arctic and what do we hear folk talk about? 'record cold over Hudson'......chuck in another squirrel/dead cat on the desk....

So why is MJO showing such extreme shifts ( 4 std's from the 'norm'?)

Why a reversal expected to smash the last Easterlies record values? ( 40 m/s beating the old 32m/s)

 

How was QBO able to not pull its scheduled reversal 2 yrs back?

Why won't the PV set up .in station and on time, any more?

 

 

Still growing strong I see?

Can I ask how long your records go back?

MIA

[Midlands Ice Age]

On ‎15‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 09:40, Midlands Ice Age said:

AJC2016 Version 3.pdfBFTV...

 Thanks for your considered post above...

I would like to respond by splitting your post up into two and to discuss the two parts separately.

As I was out all day yesterday and also most of today and tomorrow could I ask if you can see the file I uploaded in my post the other day?.  (see my post below).

As if you cannot then it explains your posting,  otherwise I feel that my previous post has not been understood.

 My comments about your posting was not that the data was incorrect, but that it was poor for identifying short to medium  term trends. (talking 10 to twenty years, and then onwards). That is why I used Excel to help document  the data so that the trends were/are clearly visible..  

Your data has the information embedded, but it is not possible to 'tease' it out clearly.  

I  will reply by adjusting my spreadsheet to perform the suggestions you have made into it, but there is no point if you cannot see the results?? 

Will be back later on this evening.

MIA

 

Finally got around to producing the updated Excel spreadsheet with the  relevant years updated with the 'best 3 years in the previous 10years'. I actually cheated a bit  to help make the later years look better by selecting years outside the strict 2000 to 2010 to current  range... 

So if I cherry pick to make the last year 10 year average higher (and perform the same operation on the graphs in the 1690 - 1740 period), it looks like this -

AJC2016 Version 3.pdf

To me it seems to make the Maunder minimum period even more variable and more extreme with the increase in temp confirmed at 2.35C in the 40 year spell, where as the current warming is about 1.30C in the 100 years.

So it clearly leads to the question - what did cause the extreme warming in the earlier spell? 

Why is the current warming unique?

MIA

Edited February 16, 2018 by Midlands Ice Age

[Snowyowl9]

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 22:35, Midlands Ice Age said:

Still growing strong I see?

Can I ask how long your records go back?

MIA

Not until ancient times it seems.

[Derecho]

On 2/16/2018 at 23:55, Midlands Ice Age said:

Finally got around to producing the updated Excel spreadsheet with the  relevant years updated with the 'best 3 years in the previous 10years'. I actually cheated a bit  to help make the later years look better by selecting years outside the strict 2000 to 2010 to current  range... 

So if I cherry pick to make the last year 10 year average higher (and perform the same operation on the graphs in the 1690 - 1740 period), it looks like this -

AJC2016 Version 3.pdf

To me it seems to make the Maunder minimum period even more variable and more extreme with the increase in temp confirmed at 2.35C in the 40 year spell, where as the current warming is about 1.30C in the 100 years.

So it clearly leads to the question - what did cause the extreme warming in the earlier spell? 

Why is the current warming unique?

MIA

Been busy in the model output thread as you can imagine . For some reason I can't see your graph which is unfortunate. Anyhow we are going back to the late 17th century and I've researched these periods so they are of interest to me.

What caused the 'extreme' warming? Well the 1690s were extremely cold and had a major volcanic eruption during that period which caused particularly miserable summers. Also changes in weather patterns. The research that exists suggests the Maunder minimum was dominated by easterlies. Whereas the 1730s were dominated by south-westerlies.

The 1740s again saw a large drop in temperature as blocking highs to our east took hold. Here is a paper about the 1740 winter in western Europe with some depicted charts of what the circulation looked like. It's a great read.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-006-9078-6

Here is a key statement to take on board

The study, therefore, highlights how estimates of natural climatic variability in this region based on more recent data may not fully encompass the possible known range

This is saying that natural atmospheric circulation variability in this general region may be larger then what we are accustomed to.

Therefore we can see big swings in UK temperature with changes to extreme synoptics.

However the temperature variability is not replicated globally. Arctic Sea Ice has been far more extensive in the past compared today. I think a southerly tracking jet stream was caused by the expansion of cold air in the arctic. Look at the Greenland temperature record for example. Make a nice graph out of that. 

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/swgreenlandave.dat

Blocked synoptics were far more common back then and yet Greenland winters were exceptionally cold.

The difference is I think is that the blocking today is often fueled by very mild air reaching the arctic, reducing the temperature gradient from mid-latitudes to polar regions and therefore leading to sluggish weather patterns.

If it was the same in the past, Greenland would also be far warmer, no? High pressure can be cold based (just look at a daily SLP chart in Antarctica for example!). Whereas these arctic highs are warm based. Look at the forecast temperature anomalies for example when the cold pool moves towards the UK!



The arctic basin as a whole has temperatures a whopping 5.1C above normal so the cold around here is more then offset globally. We can still get record cold in a warming world, though the record cold is dwarfed by more extreme record highs elsewhere (hence my stuff about loaded dices).

In summary you are highlighting that UK temperatures can be very variable but are UK temperatures a good proxy for global? I don't think so... You can get cold extremes but you are just distributing the extra heat somewhere else. The global temperature has still carried on warming. We have notable high global temperatures and record low arctic sea ice despite our cold and a La Nina.

As I've mentioned in the MOD thread before the the NAO could well become more volatile and we see more in the way of mild winters but the swings the other way will be just extreme as a result. Just like we saw in 2010, 2013 and now 2018.

Fascinating stuff anyway. Hope you find it an interesting read but the extra heat sadly won't go away unless we get volcanic eruptions (we probably don't want those either....), as much as I would like it to go away I can't offer much encouragement for that as a possibility.

Sorry 

Feel free to ask more questions though.

Quicksilver.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Quicksilver1989

[Midlands Ice Age]

23 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Been busy in the model output thread as you can imagine . For some reason I can't see your graph which is unfortunate. Anyhow we are going back to the late 17th century and I've researched these periods so they are of interest to me.

What caused the 'extreme' warming? Well the 1690s were extremely cold and had a major volcanic eruption during that period which caused particularly miserable summers. Also changes in weather patterns. The research that exists suggests the Maunder minimum was dominated by easterlies. Whereas the 1730s were dominated by south-westerlies.

The 1740s again saw a large drop in temperature as blocking highs to our east took hold. Here is a paper about the 1740 winter in western Europe with some depicted charts of what the circulation looked like. It's a great read.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-006-9078-6

Here is a key statement to take on board

The study, therefore, highlights how estimates of natural climatic variability in this region based on more recent data may not fully encompass the possible known range

This is saying that natural atmospheric circulation variability in this general region may be larger then what we are accustomed to.

Therefore we can see big swings in UK temperature with changes to extreme synoptics.

However the temperature variability is not replicated globally. Arctic Sea Ice has been far more extensive in the past compared today. I think a southerly tracking jet stream was caused by the expansion of cold air in the arctic. Look at the Greenland temperature record for example. Make a nice graph out of that. 

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/swgreenlandave.dat

Blocked synoptics were far more common back then and yet Greenland winters were exceptionally cold.

The difference is I think is that the blocking today is often fueled by very mild air reaching the arctic, reducing the temperature gradient from mid-latitudes to polar regions and therefore leading to sluggish weather patterns.

If it was the same in the past, Greenland would also be far warmer, no? High pressure can be cold based (just look at a daily SLP chart in Antarctica for example!). Whereas these arctic highs are warm based. Look at the forecast temperature anomalies for example when the cold pool moves towards the UK!



The arctic basin as a whole has temperatures a whopping 5.1C above normal so the cold around here is more then offset globally. We can still get record cold in a warming world, though the record cold is dwarfed by more extreme record highs elsewhere (hence my stuff about loaded dices).

In summary you are highlighting that UK temperatures can be very variable but are UK temperatures a good proxy for global? I don't think so... You can get cold extremes but you are just distributing the extra heat somewhere else. The global temperature has still carried on warming. We have notable high global temperatures and record low arctic sea ice despite our cold and a La Nina.

As I've mentioned in the MOD thread before the the NAO could well become more volatile and we see more in the way of mild winters but the swings the other way will be just extreme as a result. Just like we saw in 2010, 2013 and now 2018.

Fascinating stuff anyway. Hope you find it an interesting read but the extra heat sadly won't go away unless we get volcanic eruptions (we probably don't want those either....), as much as I would like it to go away I can't offer much encouragement for that as a possibility.

Sorry 

Feel free to ask more questions though.

Quicksilver.

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by Midlands Ice Age
Post Deleted

[Gray-Wolf]

Qs's point about more extensive Arctic ice must be an important one?

When you look at the temp anomalies above where sea ice has retreated and exposed the ocean below you can see the issue? Over times where such waters were ice covered 2m temps could be much lower than they can become when warmed from below?

Sure there is 'Arctic cold' but far less than ever before so when it plunges it does not last long before local conditions modify it.

The UK ,border by a relatively warm ocean, sees more of this 'modification' than the continent beyond.

I'm sure we will see cold but a long period of cold?

Then what of the regions sourcing that cold? Will it recharge as we turn toward equinox? Will those areas see warmth early this spring?

[Snowyowl9]

Uncharted territory only 2 words you need.

[stubbys]

On 13/02/2018 at 16:22, Midlands Ice Age said:

To pretend that our solar has no impact on our climate other than just within the IR is rapidly being challenged/examined, I believe.

Already very high level of high energy particles are starting to bombard the stratosphere (up by an average of 7% according to US scientist balloon experiments reports, but they have seen levels as high as 25% at times) and the way they interact at high levels is unknown.

I think you are referring to galactic cosmic ray particle bombardment and it's affects on cloud cover.

Henrik Svensmark the Danish physicist did years of work on this, but was largely ignored or ridiculed by mainstream scientists at the time. The theory being (in very simple terms and excuse me if I'm wildly wrong because this is all pretty new to me) as the sun enters into a grand solar minimum, lower activity, goes to sleep, call it what you will. The heliosphere weakens, which is kind of like the solar systems protective shield, the more this weakens the more cosmic rays (which spray all over the universe, produced from things like exploding stars) enter our solar system and can hit our atmosphere. Usually our magnetosphere does a great job of protecting us (earths very own protective shield), but that is currently on the decline too unfortunately.

Svensmark theory is that ionization from cosmic rays enhances aerosol formation (clouds), the more cloud cover, the more of the suns rays and heat are reflected away from our planet and in turn this causes our planet to cool. 

Very interesting YouTube documentary on it and well worth a watch

https://youtu.be/ANMTPF1blpQ

 

[Midlands Ice Age]

2 hours ago, stubbys said:

I think you are referring to galactic cosmic ray particle bombardment and it's affects on cloud cover.

Henrik Svensmark the Danish physicist did years of work on this, but was largely ignored or ridiculed by mainstream scientists at the time. The theory being (in very simple terms and excuse me if I'm wildly wrong because this is all pretty new to me) as the sun enters into a grand solar minimum, lower activity, goes to sleep, call it what you will. The heliosphere weakens, which is kind of like the solar systems protective shield, the more this weakens the more cosmic rays (which spray all over the universe, produced from things like exploding stars) enter our solar system and can hit our atmosphere. Usually our magnetosphere does a great job of protecting us (earths very own protective shield), but that is currently on the decline too unfortunately.

Svensmark theory is that ionization from cosmic rays enhances aerosol formation (clouds), the more cloud cover, the more of the suns rays and heat are reflected away from our planet and in turn this causes our planet to cool. 

Very interesting YouTube documentary on it and well worth a watch

https://youtu.be/ANMTPF1blpQ

 

Stubbys

He is certainly one of the people looking into this 'new' area of research. I have also seen climate scientist in Russia and China are also looking into the solar effects of the chemistry of our Stratosphere. 

It is becoming more and more apparent that there is a link between EuroAsian weather, and  also the oceanic influences  with the various  cycles of the sun.

There is also little doubt that it was involved in the period known as the LIA.

I will be back with more on this forum after the current upcoming CO2-induced weather has subsided.

MIA