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
Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting
Options
Comments
-
Thanks for that. Will have a look at the NAO stats later, but for our own patch at least, with mean minimum temps tending to rise faster than maxima over the last 15 years or so, I would have thought with regards temps at least, our weather is becoming less extreme.
In the last 50 or so years, negative NAO has become rarer, but 2009-10 was the most negative NAO on record.
I posted this graph previously in the Irish Weather Statistics thread that I generated showing the NAO values for the Winter season (December to February) since 1950-51.
Photography site - https://www.sryanbruenphoto.com/
Weather photo portfolio - https://sryanbruen.myportfolio.com/weather-1
0 -
-
How do you generate those charts Syran?, very professional looking!
Professional? That's the last thing I would describe them :pac: but thanks very much Oneiric 3
. I prefer yours honestly, I do quite envy some of your graphs at times.
I use the site below primarily to make my graphs - though sometimes I use other sources. My amendments like the particular years I've highlighted are made using Microsoft Paint.
The NAO values come from: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/hurrell-north-atlantic-oscillation-nao-index-station-based
ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/wd52dg/data/indices/nao_index.tim
https://www.onlinecharttool.com/graph
To add onto negative NAO becoming rarer for Winters, it has been getting more frequent for Summers recently with only 2013 and 2017 having a positive NAO since Summer 2007.Photography site - https://www.sryanbruenphoto.com/
Weather photo portfolio - https://sryanbruen.myportfolio.com/weather-1
0 -
sryanbruen wrote: »Professional? That's the last thing I would describe them :pac: but thanks very much Oneiric 3. I prefer yours honestly, I do quite envy some of your graphs at times.
I use the site below primarily to make my graphs - though sometimes I use other sources. My amendments like the particular years I've highlighted are made using Microsoft Paint.
The NAO values come from: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/hurrell-north-atlantic-oscillation-nao-index-station-based
ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/wd52dg/data/indices/nao_index.tim
https://www.onlinecharttool.com/graph
To add onto negative NAO becoming rarer for Winters, it has been getting more frequent for Summers recently with only 2013 and 2017 having a positive NAO since Summer 2007.
Thanks Syran, and my charts are nothing to envy about. They are just basic Excel charts, which are not really great to begin with. Very samey looking.New Moon
0 -
We might be in for a period of frequent negative NAO, not long now. Solar Cycle 25 also is expected to be extremely weak and weaker than Solar Cycle 24 (2008 to present). I'm not buying into the Ice Age, Dalton Minimum stuff yet in regards to this, but the fact that there does seem to be some sort of pattern here in the NAO index (for December to March) going by this chart is pretty compelling. They're different to my figures in the graph above because mine only covered December to February. Things seem to be getting brighter and brighter for cold lovers.
Photography site - https://www.sryanbruenphoto.com/
Weather photo portfolio - https://sryanbruen.myportfolio.com/weather-1
0 -
Advertisement
-
John Gibbons has never claimed to be a scientist and he doesn't claim to be producing research, but you don't need to be a scientist yourself to notice that Ray Bates' position on global warming and climate sensitivity is out of step with the majority of other experts in that field, and it is a very legitimate question to ask why the public should believe a contrarian opinion over and above the published statements from bodies like the American Association for the Advancement of Science and countless other highly respected scientific organisations.
I don't automatically reject any new paper that goes against the consensus just because it goes against the consensus. If we did that then many scientific theories would never have seen the light of day. Every paper should be taken on its merits (thanks Gilesy).On what basis do you think Ray Bates' study on climate sensitivity is more likely to be true than the vast majority of other studies that show a climate sensitivity of between 1.5c and 4.5c
Because the official observational temperature trend is slightly lagging behind where models say it should be at this stage.One of the major issues is that he bases his research on the UAH Satellite measurements, which were always an outlier when compared with the other temperature datasets, and which have since been shown to have been wrong and had been underestimating warming because they didn't account for Diurnal Drift. So if Ray Bates bases his research on flawed data, why should anyone trust his findings more than the research based on more reliable data?
He also relies heavily on discredited papers by Lindzen and Choi and an unproven mechanism known as the 'iris effect'. He claims that the Iris effect has been validated by Mauritsen, T., and B. Stevens (2015) but this is another misrepresentation of the science. The Mauritsen paper showed that if certain model parameters are tweaked just the right way, that an Iris effect can form, but their research also showed that the effect only has a very slight overall cooling feedback and their paper showed that even with their model runs showing the strongest iris effect, a 2.8c climate sensitivity would be reduced to about 2.3c.
When you watch Bates talk, you would be forgiven for thinking that the Mauritsen paper completely vindicated Lindzen and Choi, and his own paper, but in reality, his study is based on a lot of unproven assumptions, and several that are highly questionable given that they rely on poor quality satellite data.
In fact he was challenged on this at the end of his talk that he gave at UCD where he said he is aware of the controversy with the UAH satellite measurements, but he says that the conclusions are still valid because they match the RSS trend, but the UAH and RSS datasets do not match, Bates just waved away the controversy.
Again, look at the full dataset, lagging the projections. The trend reflects the mainly northern hemisphere-centred land warming trend, which I've always believed is affected by the UHI effect. This has recently been confirmed by Su, Connolly & Connolly. So the instrumental observational record, regardless of what satellite data you take, may contain a not-insignificant warm UHI bias and therefore a smaller GHG contribution.
I'd like to know why you think that his 2-zone argument is not scientifically plausible, given the data he shows in the paper. To me is seems plausible, given the drastically different radiational properties of the two zones.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wanderer78 wrote: »as ive said previously, i dont get into arguments of whether or not environmental issues exist or not, as ive moved on from them a long time ago, and of course i will disagree with you regarding your comment on this relating to climate change and the weather as it does, these issues are largely to do with our economic activities on this planet. again, our approach to trying to solve these issues has been nothing but diabolical, putting the blame largely on the shoulders of the individual rather than our complex economic systems and our thinking regarding the running of these global systems
Climate change is more of a holy, religious, moral thing then, as opposed to any scientific meteorological thing.
http://jesuitmissions.ie/news/390-in-the-wake-of-laudato-si
The Pope and the Jesuits are players.
Our very own climate expert John Sweeney and Fr Sean McDonagh, a Columban missionary and Bishop Theotonius Gomes, Auxiliary Bishop of Dhaka, Bangladesh all gathered to pray about it.
Here's Professor Sweeney billed to talk at Knock Shrine about "the devastating consequences of climate change in Ireland". -Yes, they said "devastating"........
https://www.knockshrine.ie/climatechange/
Elsewhere, the Anglicans have him billed as the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize:
https://www.ireland.anglican.org/news/5436/new-resource-encourages-christians-to
0 -
-
I'm starting to see why predictions have been made about us going into a mini ice age that I've always been skeptical about but now I'm beginning to think so too.
If we compare solar cycle 24 (2008 to present) to historical solar data, it's been the weakest solar cycle since the Glassberg minimum back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Every solar cycle since the early 1900s was stronger than solar cycle 24
In history, there have been 3 minimums of solar activity - the Glassberg Minimum of the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Dalton Minimum of the mid to late 1700s and early 1800s, and the Maunder Minimum of the 1600s. Solar cycle data only goes back to the Dalton Minimum so does not include the Maunder Minimum. But data of other solar activity show solar activity during the Maunder Minimum was the lowest on record and that the Northern Hemisphere was having an Ice Age. There was plenty of brutal cold Winters back then - same with the Dalton Minimum but not to the extremes or frequency of the Maunder Minimum.
Here's the chart showing the solar cycles and periods of solar activity.
Each peak is a different solar cycle. As you can see, the latest one solar cycle 24 (which is the last one on the chart) is very weak compared to anything since the early 20th century. Notice how low activity was during Maunder Minimum. Solar Cycle 25 (should begin in 2019 or 2020) is expected to be even weaker than Solar Cycle 24.
However, there are a few things that push me off of believing in these outlooks or predictions for a Mini Ice Age or severe drop off in solar activity. Time and space has changed a lot since then including warming of the planet via greenhouse gases and human activity but like I've said before, we can only compare back to a certain period so are these so called global warming records like record breaking warm years all that fascinating when you look down to the punctuation mark on the data we have?
There's a lot of speculation about this in the media and I just wanted to give my opinion on the matter.Photography site - https://www.sryanbruenphoto.com/
Weather photo portfolio - https://sryanbruen.myportfolio.com/weather-1
0 -
-
sryanbruen wrote: »I'm starting to see why predictions have been made about us going into a mini ice age that I've always been skeptical about but now I'm beginning to think so too.
If we compare solar cycle 24 (2008 to present) to historical solar data, it's been the weakest solar cycle since the Glassberg minimum back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Every solar cycle since the early 1900s was stronger than solar cycle 24
In history, there have been 3 minimums of solar activity - the Glassberg Minimum of the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Dalton Minimum of the mid to late 1700s and early 1800s, and the Maunder Minimum of the 1600s. Solar cycle data only goes back to the Dalton Minimum so does not include the Maunder Minimum. But data of other solar activity show solar activity during the Maunder Minimum was the lowest on record and that the Northern Hemisphere was having an Ice Age. There was plenty of brutal cold Winters back then - same with the Dalton Minimum but not to the extremes or frequency of the Maunder Minimum.
Here's the chart showing the solar cycles and periods of solar activity.
Each peak is a different solar cycle. As you can see, the latest one solar cycle 24 (which is the last one on the chart) is very weak compared to anything since the early 20th century. Notice how low activity was during Maunder Minimum. Solar Cycle 25 (should begin in 2019 or 2020) is expected to be even weaker than Solar Cycle 24.
However, there are a few things that push me off of believing in these outlooks or predictions for a Mini Ice Age or severe drop off in solar activity. Time and space has changed a lot since then including warming of the planet via greenhouse gases and human activity but like I've said before, we can only compare back to a certain period so are these so called global warming records like record breaking warm years all that fascinating when you look down to the punctuation mark on the data we have?
There's a lot of speculation about this in the media and I just wanted to give my opinion on the matter.
We are looking at a microscopic slice in time (20th century) and analysing it to extremes, but we don't really have anything to compare it with.
Direct atmospheric co2 measurements only exist from 1958 and satellite data from 1979.
Whether "global warming" has occurred at all is debatable given the sparsity of data.
Here, allegedly, are 350 graphs that show the long term scale and put some time perspective on our current analysis
http://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/#sthash.qNG5LlpV.dpbs
If the Artic is melting as never before where is the expected acceleration in sea level rise?
The heat in the oceans only started to appear after retrospective 140% calibrations to satellite data.
Tuvalu is not sinking.
An estimated less than a degree of "global warming", an average figure, it makes no sense.
The US, possibly the most measured land mass in terms of data experienced no extraordinary warming trends in the 20th century, at a time of coinciding rising co2 levels.
"These records consist of area-averages across the contiguous United States and northern plains. They are based on as many as 6,000 stations. Time series of these data were tested for constancy of the mean using the Spearman rank test and two-phase regression. Test results indicate that overall trends are near zero."
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989GeoRL..16...49H
NASA notes that whatever the warming experienced by the US actually is, a half degree of it comes from adjustments.
"These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990."
- https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/
No one is able to say what the degree of warming NASA cited for the US for the 20th century outside of the half degree it says is made up from adjustments.
Before talking cooling, has it even warmed?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement