Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The sun is dead!! Mini iceage???
Comments
-
You can't simply assume that a decrease in output from the sun will amount to a certain offset value of climate change...A small decrease in output could result in tenfold decrease...how would you know?! What we have to realise is that we as a human race do not have the slightest clue what is going on, even with all our advancements in technology. we can come up with all the hypothesis's we can want but at the end of the day it could all change by a simple discovery...Don't just assume that you are a part of a time that we know everything ,because in the future we will probably look back in disbelief that we did not even consider some factors...eg not so long ago you would be killed for believing the earth is round!0
-
whitebriar wrote: »Agreed.
This current stormy pattern has a specific explanation caused by a here and now anomaly with extreme cold air exiting the states,the recipe for storms that is and the buckled jet stream.
It's annoying to hear it consistently hauled out as evidence of climate change.
it is an anomaly pure and simple.
There will be snowy winters in Ireland in the future,just as much as there will be stormy ones and dry ones etc depending on what chaos theory throws up.
Next time someone goes on about global warming,ask them why the NH globe currently has more extensive snow cover than often and why ice breaking ships trying to rescue other ships got stuck in ice in Antarctica.
Very windy here in East Wicklow btw,gusting above 70kmph,rain band not here yet but knocking.
What's the recipe for a buckled jet stream?
Why do you think winter snow cover in the NH has been above average in recent years?
Why has sea ice in Antarctica been increasing?0 -
What's the recipe for a buckled jet stream?
Why do you think winter snow cover in the NH has been above average in recent years?
Why has sea ice in Antarctica been increasing?
The cold air entering the Atlantic is the perfect recipe for these storms.
It has also sent the js buckled directly up towards us,being it's only preferred route in the circumstances and of course strengthened it.
This years Nh snow cover is as strong as it's ever been.
oh and to elaborate,even with global temps rising very slightly,it's wheeled out as a tax increasing excuse,government revenue generating.
That's the premise for promoting it in my opinion.0 -
White Briar wrote:it is an anomaly pure and simple
It is a striking anomaly though. Using just the 5 station mean that makes up the IMT index (which MT uses in competition), the MSLP anomaly for January this year seems to be the lowest since at least 1961. This little chart I did shows the MSLP deviation for each month of January since 1961 (data is from ERA-40 & Ogimet)
Only 1988 really on par, which, spookily, was pretty similar to January this year in that it was wet, but not excessively windy, despite media reports to the contrary.New Moon
0 -
whitebriar wrote: »I thought I posted that in another thread not this one? Anyway,reading my post more slowly,it's easer to interpret,I should have used more full stops.
The cold air entering the Atlantic is the perfect recipe for these storms.
It has also sent the js buckled directly up towards us,being it's only preferred route in the circumstances and of course strengthened it.
This years Nh snow cover is as strong as it's ever been.
oh and to elaborate,even with global temps rising very slightly,it's wheeled out as a tax increasing excuse,government revenue generating.
That's the premise for promoting it in my opinion.
For the cold air to enter the Atlantic (I guess you mean the US) there must be a jet stream trough, just as the record heat in Alaska all winter, there must be a strong jet stream ridge. What's causing these large scale troughs and ridges, and why are they becoming stuck? Why does it disprove climate change?
I'm asking you why the northern hemisphere winter snow cover is doing well. I want to see what reason you come up with, and how it disproves climate change.
This isn't about taxes, though unfortunately, many people take their dislike of certain taxes as a foundation for an understanding of a scientific topic. Like me basing my understanding of geology on the Bible... it isn't going to work well, as it introduces and almost insurmountable bias from the beginning.0 -
Advertisement
-
For the cold air to enter the Atlantic (I guess you mean the US) there must be a jet stream trough, just as the record heat in Alaska all winter, there must be a strong jet stream ridge. What's causing these large scale troughs and ridges, and why are they becoming stuck? Why does it disprove climate change?
I'm asking you why the northern hemisphere winter snow cover is doing well. I want to see what reason you come up with, and how it disproves climate change.
This isn't about taxes, though unfortunately, many people take their dislike of certain taxes as a foundation for an understanding of a scientific topic. Like me basing my understanding of geology on the Bible... it isn't going to work well, as it introduces and almost insurmountable bias from the beginning.
Weather varies,it is chaos.Sometimes it goes off on one altogether.We don't know why,we just know the immediate causes.It is opinion to say anything else and mine is,the climate change thing is pure opportunism
There are not enough accurate scientific records of what's going on in the atmosphere in the last few hundred years to make a case for either.
Even oneric is saying we had a period like this in the late 80's.
Ok,when there's an established pattern of several years like this ,ie when something has actually changed,i will observe the climate change band wagon more closely.
And yes,taxes are invented to raise revenue on the climate change scare in some countries which is enough to make me sceptical on its own.0 -
whitebriar wrote: »But lad,that's like an atheist asking a catholic to prove God exists.
Weather varies,it is chaos.Sometimes it goes off on one altogether.We don't know why,we just know the immediate causes.It is opinion to say anything else and mine is,the climate change thing is pure opportunism
There are not enough accurate scientific records of what's going on in the atmosphere in the last few hundred years to make a case for either.
Even oneric is saying we had a period like this in the late 80's.
Ok,when there's an established pattern of several years like this ,ie when something has actually changed,i will observe the climate change band wagon more closely.
And yes,taxes are invented to raise revenue on the climate change scare in some countries which is enough to make me sceptical on its own.
The climate/weather is a matter of reality and physical processes, God, well, is a matter of faith.
I'd just suggest leaving taxes out of it all together, it certainly won't help with a scientific understanding.
Anywho, the main point is, you cannot use events to dismiss climate change if you don't know how those event occur, and vice versa when it comes to using them as proof of climate change.
There are several theories as to why the jet stream has been slowing down, and it's troughs and ridges elongating. As one of the primary drivers of the jet stream is the temperature difference between the Arctic and more southern latitudes (why the jet stream is stronger in winter, as the temperature difference is greater), we'd expect a weakening of that temperature difference to influence the jet stream. As the Arctic is warming several times faster than than the global average, this temperature differences is becoming reduced, which may be resulting in a slower and more wavy jet stream pattern (like meanders in a slow moving river). This temperature differences can also be seen in the solar cycles, as the UV output drops, the stratosphere in the tropics cools, which is balanced by a weaker jet stream and more easterly air flows. Natural variability will always play a role, but the last few years strange jet stream pattern may well be linked to Arctic warming, which is strongly tied to global warming/climate change in general.
As for the snow cover, overall, it's in decline. Winters and Autumn have been doing a bit better though. Why? As the Arctic warms, it's sea ice coverage is being reduced drastically in summer. This results in a large accumulation of ocean heat, which gets released in Autumn and Winter during the polar night. This displaces the cold air into the continents, it also means that more of the Arctic ocean is exposed to the air, so there's more moisture, further aiding the snow fall.
Come Spring and Summer though, the snow cover melts rapidly and a very strong trend for anomalous snow loss is clearly established. Summer is when we need the snow to reflect back the suns energy. So increased Autumn and Winter snow cover, but decreased Spring and Summer snow, is entirely consistent with climate change.
Now, you would be perfectly entitled to say that you need more evidence, or more time, before you'll believe that climate change is occurring (and influenced by humanity) but the snow cover and jet stream cannot be taken as proof against climate change (nor by themselves, proof of its existence).0 -
The climate/weather is a matter of reality and physical processes, God, well, is a matter of faith.
I'd just suggest leaving taxes out of it all together, it certainly won't help with a scientific understanding.
Anywho, the main point is, you cannot use events to dismiss climate change if you don't know how those event occur, and vice versa when it comes to using them as proof of climate change.
Now, you would be perfectly entitled to say that you need more evidence, or more time, before you'll believe that climate change is occurring (and influenced by humanity) but the snow cover and jet stream cannot be taken as proof against climate change (nor by themselves, proof of its existence).
There are those that do.
I admire science (obviously) but it gets up my goat a tad at the god like complexes some over zealous scientists appear to have in declaring the answer when we are on a planet so much more intelligent (for want of a better way of putting it) than the people,here only a spec of the time the planet is.
intelligent that is in hiding the answers as to how mysterious and random it is.
Bah,I am all philosophical today,don't mind me when I go like that0 -
whitebriar wrote: »I'm not disagreeing with the analysis,Just picking a camp,have you picked a camp? I am as entitled to say not enough information and arguably more entitled as I have no vested interest in promoting one camp or the other.
There are those that do.
I admire science (obviously) but it gets up my goat a tad at the god like complexes some over zealous scientists appear to have in declaring the answer when we are on a planet so much more intelligent (for want of a better way of putting it) than the people,here only a spec of the time the planet is.
intelligent that is in hiding the answers as to how mysterious and random it is.
Bah,I am all philosophical today,don't mind me when I go like that
I was once firmly in the sceptic/denier camp, but alas, a scientific education and learning how to employ critical analysis has swayed me!
You'll find that scientists rarely say anything will definitely happen or is 100% caused by anything in particular, that's generally the role of the media. We have much to learn about the planet, which is why the research and data continues to pile up. At the same time, our tiny flicker of existence here can be mitigated by the use palaeoclimatology to help us understand how past changes occur, and put our current climate and our own influence into context.
Nothing wrong with a bit of philosophy every now and then!0 -
I was once firmly in the sceptic/denier camp, but alas, a scientific education and learning how to employ critical analysis has swayed me!
You'll find that scientists rarely say anything will definitely happen or is 100% caused by anything in particular, that's generally the role of the media. We have much to learn about the planet, which is why the research and data continues to pile up. At the same time, our tiny flicker of existence here can be mitigated by the use palaeoclimatology to help us understand how past changes occur, and put our current climate and our own influence into context.
Nothing wrong with a bit of philosophy every now and then!
I think the difficulty in relation to climate change is that the primary hypothesis that human activity has increased global temperature has been accepted but that the extent of its influence is disputed. This gets you into more grey areas.
As a result, you get an argument that yes, of course, humans releasing carbon dioxide influences an increase in global temperature and changes the climate but that these effects are less than the influences of solar output or natural climate variability etc. etc. The difficulty for those in the human influenced climate change camp is that we still don't have a comprehensive understanding of all the factors that affect climate change.
For example, in your previous post on snow cover, you mention that "there are several theories as to why the jet stream has been slowing down". The result is that there is a gap between what is believed in the mainstream camp and what is known and provable. Into this gap come climate-change-deniers (I hate the term), some of whom may be charlatans but some of whom (like a modern-day Galileo) may have theories and explanations that explain the whole picture better than the mainstream camp. Identifying potential realistic explanations is problematic though amid all of the crap.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think the difficulty in relation to climate change is that the primary hypothesis that human activity has increased global temperature has been accepted but that the extent of its influence is disputed. This gets you into more grey areas.
As a result, you get an argument that yes, of course, humans releasing carbon dioxide influences an increase in global temperature and changes the climate but that these effects are less than the influences of solar output or natural climate variability etc. etc. The difficulty for those in the human influenced climate change camp is that we still don't have a comprehensive understanding of all the factors that affect climate change.
For example, in your previous post on snow cover, you mention that "there are several theories as to why the jet stream has been slowing down". The result is that there is a gap between what is believed in the mainstream camp and what is known and provable. Into this gap come climate-change-deniers (I hate the term), some of whom may be charlatans but some of whom (like a modern-day Galileo) may have theories and explanations that explain the whole picture better than the mainstream camp. Identifying potential realistic explanations is problematic though amid all of the crap.
Science advances with evidence. Galileo and the like had evidence on their side, but were battling against established authority, power and faith, who believed that these new discoveries would weaken their power. This is happening now, with the evidence of anthropogenic climate change being resisted by the powerful industries that stand to lose profits if we act on the current evidence.
At the moment, there is very little evidence to support the idea that climate sensitivity is low, <1.5C, but ever increasing amounts to suggest that it's greater than 3C. As with all things in science, if there is a sudden influx of research suggesting that our influence in small compared to say the 11 year solar cycle variability, or for an alternative explanation for recent climate trends, then the consensus will change accordingly, but that's not the case.
We have a good understanding of the drivers of climate, enough to be able to create quite good simulations, but it's the technical details that still need more work, like near surface atmospheric mixing, the type and elevation of cloud cover changes, etc, but we are getting a good handle of these things. That doesn't mean that predictions cannot be made.
Likewise, there's much we don't know about the working of the human body, our immune system, cancer development, etc, but we can conclusively say that smoking does cause cancer.0 -
Year of extreme weather.
http://www.bbc.com/weather/features/26056360
Do not know if a trend has started?0 -
I was once firmly in the sceptic/denier camp, but alas, a scientific education and learning how to employ critical analysis has swayed me!
You'll find that scientists rarely say anything will definitely happen or is 100% caused by anything in particular, that's generally the role of the media. We have much to learn about the planet, which is why the research and data continues to pile up. At the same time, our tiny flicker of existence here can be mitigated by the use palaeoclimatology to help us understand how past changes occur, and put our current climate and our own influence into context.
Nothing wrong with a bit of philosophy every now and then!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/06/satellites-show-no-global-warming-for-17-years-5-months/#more-102767
Some of this could simply be down to thermal equilibrium has set in at a higher temperature hased on the extra thermal input from human activity that appears to have stabilised over the past few years. Recessions kill growth and China is using more dirty fuel that may be blocking some of the suns energy from warming the planet and the biggest thing of all...
The weakening solar magnetic fields that allow more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere and generate more clouds.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I'm still a sceptic (not a denier, that's a completely different thing altogether) and the evidence that warming has stopped rising is becoming clearer.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/06/satellites-show-no-global-warming-for-17-years-5-months/#more-102767
Some of this could simply be down to thermal equilibrium has set in at a higher temperature hased on the extra thermal input from human activity that appears to have stabilised over the past few years. Recessions kill growth and China is using more dirty fuel that may be blocking some of the suns energy from warming the planet and the biggest thing of all...
The weakening solar magnetic fields that allow more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere and generate more clouds.
Good then, I'm a also a scientific sceptic, as most climate scientists are too.
I find sceptics can change their opinion when presented with data that shows their own to be in error, deniers usually resort to conspiracy theories in order cling to their false assertions.
Anywho, why choose RSS? Even the prominent climate change sceptic, Dr Roy Spencer, who's one of those that maintain the UAH satellite temperature data says that RSS has a cool bias, something he's corrected for in his own data set. RSS is the only temperature series that shows no warming when starting at the 1997/1998 El Nino, hence WUWT choosing to promote it.
Here are the others
NASA GISSTemp
HADCRUT4
UAH
Cowtan and Way
NCDC
Have a read here https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/
When looking at short time periods in order to assess the role of CO2 induced warming, you need to take into account the role of natural internal variability anyway.
ENSO, the main driver of year to year variability, can add or take more than 0.2C from the global average annual temperature, while the warming from CO2 is less than 0.2C/decade.
So if you take your starting point at a mega El Nino (1997/1998) then draw a trend line from that point through a La Nina dominated period, the warming trend will appear reduced. Include the lowest solar activity in a century, -ve IPO, -ve PDO, increased human and volcanic aerosols, increased GCR (mentioned below) it's a wonder that we're not cooling.
As for the cosmic ray theory, that's been largely debunked. Sure, they can cause aerosol formation, but there's little evidence that they lead to a measurably enhanced cloud formation. Even if they did have as large an impact as some believe, they've been increasing since the late 70s (more cloud and cooling), while surface temperatures have risen at their fastest rates.0 -
Going a bit off topic. Either way I can still see us having to reduce our carbon emissions due to ocean acidification. Doubling the CO2 content of the seas cant be good for mollusc shells.0
-
Classic shows below.
http://youtu.be/L_861us8D9M
http://youtu.be/ZtyM9mPbMUo
Just for fun, not to be looked at and thinking at the same time.0 -
rickdangerouss wrote: »Classic shows below.
Just for fun, not to be looked at and thinking at the same time.
Neither of the videos are working for me?0 -
Pasted in the direct links, now.0
-
rickdangerouss wrote: »Pasted in the direct links, now.
Cheers.
Well the media does like to exaggerate!
The stance of peer reviewed climate papers around that times shows a different story. Most predicted warming, despite it having cooled very slightly from the 40s to the 70s.0 -
Just something a little noteworthy, as the Sun begins it's long wind down to solar minimum.
www.spaceweather.comSUNSPOT NUMBER DROPS TO ZERO: Solar activity is very low. July 17th brought the first spotless day in nearly three years. The face of the sun was completely blank and the sunspot number dropped to zero.0 -
Advertisement
-
Just something a little noteworthy, as the Sun begins it's long wind down to solar minimum.
www.spaceweather.com
Here's another interesting chart, showing the solar activity over the past year.
It's as if there is only one active region on the suns surface and it is earth facing once a month, it is showing up as a wave on the chart
They're all around the other side.0 -
0
-
What a whopper!!!!0
-
Despite being the weakest sunspot cycle (to date) in out lifetime, it's still spectacular!0 -
We still appear to be trending towards a "little Ice Age!", summer temperatures so far this year have been nothing to write home about.http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity
Britain faces FREEZING winters as slump in solar activity threatens 'little Ice Age'
BRITAIN could face colder than average winters with a plunge in solar activity threatening a new "little ice age" in the next few decades.
Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels "not seen for centuries".
They fear a repeat of the so-called 'Maunder Minimum' which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago.
The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters.
A spokesman said: "A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn't halt global warming.
"Return of 'grand solar minimum' could affect European and eastern US winters."
Long episodes of low solar activity were seen during the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 and the 'Dalton Minimum' from 1790 to 1830.
Both periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures earning the title from scientists of "Little Ice Age."
The latest study, published in Nature Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.
A much bigger cooling effect is expected for Britain, northern Europe and North America where thermometers could drop by 0.8C.
I must order some extra turf!0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Meanwhile, other parts of the planet are experiencing record highs, like the heatwave that's hitting Pakistan right now.
It's as if the global weather patterns are settling into bands of warm & cold air that are mixing less, so the hot areas are not been cooled and vice versa.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Meanwhile, other parts of the planet are experiencing record highs, like the heatwave that's hitting Pakistan right now.
It's as if the global weather patterns are settling into bands of warm & cold air that are mixing less, so the hot areas are not been cooled and vice versa.
Don't Pakistan always get a heat wave this time of year, the guys in work from there says its nothing new0 -
average_runner wrote: »Don't Pakistan always get a heat wave this time of year, the guys in work from there says its nothing new
2015 is on track to smash the global average temperature record (that record was set in 2014)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-06-18/this-year-is-headed-for-the-hottest-on-record-by-a-long-shot
Anyone who thinks that global warming isn't happening, sorry, but you're completely and utterly wrong.0 -
Advertisement
-
average_runner wrote: »Don't Pakistan always get a heat wave this time of year, the guys in work from there says its nothing new0
Advertisement