Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by the Weather Forums! Please take the time to register and join our community. Feel free to post or start new topics on anything related to the weather or the climate.


Photo

Global Warming

climate change solar co2 agw ice age

  • Please log in to reply

#301
snow_wizard

Posted 29 September 2016 - 10:31 PM

snow_wizard

    The Snow Wizard

  • Mods
  • 11048 posts
  • LocationCovington, WA

I'm not forgetting about the solar aspect, I just don't it's going to have much of an impact on global temps. The next solar minimum will be a small, short term blip down in a climate that has been, and will continue to steadily warm over the long term.

 

And globally, the mid 80s weren't cold at all compared to what we saw pre-1980. 

 

 

The point was there is usually a strong reversal of global temps after a very strong Nino.  That alone should easily cool the globe to pre 2014 levels for a while at least.  The mid 1980s were pretty cold.


Death To Warm Anomalies!

 

Winter 2017-18 stats

 

Total Snowfall = 0.0

Coldest Low = 32

Lows 32 or below = 1

Highs 32 or below = 0

Lows Below 20 = 0

Highs Below 40 = 0

 

 


#302
James Jones

Posted 29 September 2016 - 10:35 PM

James Jones

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 415 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

I think that's pretty silly. Regardless of the next century's trend, it's not going to be a runaway process and we'll see some peaks and valleys and ENSO of course plays a big part in that. We will certainly see another major La Nina event in the future that will significantly cool things for a year or two.

 

It's easy to forget that the 20th century warming saw a complete halt and in some multi-year instances a reversal of course between 1950 and 1980. It's likely that that same scenario will play out again to some extent at some point during the 21st century. It wouldn't take much to get to 2012 level temperatures again in our lifetimes.

We'll see.

 

And yeah, there will be relatively long stretches of years where global temps will stagnate - we just came out of one. 



#303
Phil

Posted 29 September 2016 - 10:38 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14546 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

I'm not forgetting about the solar aspect, I just don't it's going to have much of an impact on global temps. The next solar minimum will be a small, short term blip down in a climate that has been, and will continue to steadily warm over the long term.

And globally, the mid 80s weren't cold at all compared to what we saw pre-1980.


Steadily warming, eh? Well, let's look at some DO^18 isotope ratios, to gauge the significance of the modern warming (ice core proxies for hemispheric temperatures based on the differential weight ratios, just FYI).

Here's the instrumental record spliced into the proxy data. Looks like temperatures today are the warmest in ~1000 years, which isn't very noteworthy:

95CEBCBA-7E0B-404C-BD53-64D8EF4B3E7F_zps

Zooming out a bit, note how insignificant even the most prolific Holocene temperature variations are compared to those within the ice age:

94724F0B-0D91-452A-BF68-BEFC303A4F11_zps

Zooming out a bit farther, note the cyclical nature of the ice age cycles, that arise via differences in orbital eccentricity, as well as obliquity and precession:

E014803C-B58E-4E94-A01F-5EC91A485DD5_zps

Now, for perspective, zooming even father out, looking at the transition into the Pleistocene:

070C01B7-536E-4358-835B-FDE6BEC2C679_zps

Humans are just ignorant crybabies sometimes. There's nothing unusual of unprecedented about today's climate.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#304
BLI snowman

Posted 29 September 2016 - 10:39 PM

BLI snowman

    Special Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5524 posts
  • LocationRidgefield, WA

The point was there is usually a strong reversal of global temps after a very strong Nino.  That alone should easily cool the globe to pre 2014 levels for a while at least.  The mid 1980s were pretty cold.

 

1985 was cooler globally than 1941 and 1993 was cooler than 1944. 

 

We're always going to see individual outliers going forward. The past couple years have been very anomalous and fed by a major El Nino and globally warm SSTs. Clearly a unique combination. It seems probable that even with a steadily warming baseline, an outlier year 40 or 50 years from now could be colder than these recent warm outliers. 



#305
Phil

Posted 29 September 2016 - 10:41 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14546 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

The surface datasets tell a different story.

But anyway, I shouldn't have started this. It's a tired discussion that never leads to anything productive.


The satellite data measures a larger portion of the atmosphere, where GHG-induced warming should be amplified, if anything, given thermodynamic/radiative transfer processes in the upper troposphere.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#306
ShawniganLake

Posted 29 September 2016 - 10:45 PM

ShawniganLake

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3456 posts
  • LocationShawnigan Lake, BC. Southern Vancouver Island, 500ft

cfsr_t2m_2005.png



#307
Phil

Posted 29 September 2016 - 10:45 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14546 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
In the very recent past, the global climate has warmed and cooled by 6-10 degrees centigrade very rapidly (in a decade or less). Here we humans are whining about less than one degree centigrade over 150yrs, oblivious to what could (and eventually will) happen again.

http://science.scien...nt/321/5889/680

The younger dryas was one of dozens rapid climate excursions to occur in the recent past.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#308
Phil

Posted 29 September 2016 - 10:56 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14546 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
Also, orbitally speaking, we're right at the "stage" where every interglacial appears to terminate. Eccentricity maximum, rapidly falling obliquity, and precession just past perihelion.

It's almost ice time again.

632E5DD5-D5DE-4124-AC7B-ACB8022781FB_zps

895746CA-10D6-4684-8C12-933B172952D0_zps
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#309
snow_wizard

Posted 29 September 2016 - 10:58 PM

snow_wizard

    The Snow Wizard

  • Mods
  • 11048 posts
  • LocationCovington, WA

In the very recent past, the global climate has warmed and cooled by 6-10 degrees centigrade very rapidly (in a decade or less). Here we humans are whining about less than one degree centigrade over 150yrs, oblivious to what could (and eventually will) happen again.

http://science.scien...nt/321/5889/680

The younger dryas was one of dozens rapid climate excursions to occur in the recent past.

 

The global warming freaks have no concept of natural cycles.  An even better example is how sea level has risen over 50 feet since the last ice age, and yet now we have alarm bells going off about a 1 inch rise! :lol:


Death To Warm Anomalies!

 

Winter 2017-18 stats

 

Total Snowfall = 0.0

Coldest Low = 32

Lows 32 or below = 1

Highs 32 or below = 0

Lows Below 20 = 0

Highs Below 40 = 0

 

 


#310
Phil

Posted 29 September 2016 - 11:00 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14546 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

The global warming freaks have no concept of natural cycles. An even better example is how sea level has risen over 50 feet since the last ice age, and yet now we have alarm bells going off about a 1 inch rise! :lol:


Sea levels have risen between 350-400ft since the end of the last ice age, actually, with periods where it was rising 7-10ft per century. After the termination of the younger dryas, it rose up to one foot per year.

http://noc.ac.uk/new...nd-last-ice-age

And yeah, we're a bunch of crybabies. The global climate is just about perfect right now. It can only get worse from here.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#311
TT-SEA

Posted 03 October 2016 - 07:45 PM

TT-SEA

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23460 posts

New post from Cliff on CO2 levels...

 

http://cliffmass.blo...m-you-will.html



#312
Phil

Posted 03 October 2016 - 08:10 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14546 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
CO^2 at 400ppm? Yikes, sounds like a global scale catastrophe of unprecedented proportions, especially considering the theorized 3.1C/per doubling from the IPCC. That'd be a warming of 30C by 4000ppm. 😖

Except for the fact CO^2 and temperature are negatively correlated over geologic time..seems like solid science.

910D1E82-594F-4D79-A52E-9DC856DA6F0C_zps

0BB03790-5C7E-4B55-9378-CDF091C8BD9F_zps
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#313
TT-SEA

Posted 03 October 2016 - 08:14 PM

TT-SEA

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23460 posts

CO^2 at 400ppm? Yikes, sounds like a global scale catastrophe of unprecedented proportions, especially considering the theorized 3.1C/per doubling from the IPCC. That'd be a warming of 30C by 4000ppm.

Except for the fact CO^2 and temperature are negatively correlated over geologic time..seems like solid science.


 

 

 

Snowball Earth at 12,000ppm!   


  • Phil likes this

#314
Phil

Posted 03 October 2016 - 08:20 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14546 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
This is the trend I'm more worried about, in regards to our long term future on this planet. We've got ~100yrs of fossil fuels left to burn. Hopefully these guys have their science right (positive feedback loops and all), and it delays the inevitable long enough for us to find a solution and/or plan ahead.

This stable climate won't last forever.

E9692480-5A44-4EEF-9E28-0CDBA6D75351_zps

A074EBBE-60B7-4ABD-9A37-8C3195D5DC57_zps

0DA4B7A3-050E-4B00-B73F-E339C511BB56_zps
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#315
Phil

Posted 03 October 2016 - 08:26 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14546 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Snowball Earth at 12,000ppm!


The Sun was ~25-30% dimmer then, assuming our physical understanding of stars is adequate (big question). If this is true, then if anything, Earth was warmer than it should have been, all else considered.

It's usually referred to as the "faint sun paradox".
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#316
Phil

Posted 03 October 2016 - 08:40 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14546 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Ed Berry created a very interesting graphic to show just how insignificant the recent small increase in CO2 really is. He is brilliant when it comes to understanding the atmosphere and he thinks this all a bunch of BS.


There's a measurable radiative forcing from CO^2. I think it's more likely (given the paleoclimate data and satellite derived spectrography) that the feedback aggregate is moderately to strongly negative. Most of the predicted warming arises via positive, self-reinforcing feedback loops. In a way it's quite self defeating.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#317
Andie

Posted 05 October 2016 - 05:19 PM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1476 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
The sun has gone spotless for the 4 th time this year. That's got to indicate some serious cooling here.
  • OKwx2k4 likes this

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#318
richard mann

Posted 05 October 2016 - 05:42 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3426 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

The sun has gone spotless for the 4th time this year. That's got to indicate some serious cooling here.

 

.. Likely you've meant "... got to be indicative of the idea, that there has been."
 
— But you haven't said where.
 
— This nor, to whom, or with what other reasoning set juxtaposed or along side, what you've suggested here above. 
 
... Perhaps you could re-phrase what you've suggested, differently—for better clarity. 
 
".. got to", being the chief idea that I'm having trouble with, minus the better clarity that I've suggested "here".


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#319
Tom

Posted 20 October 2016 - 08:36 PM

Tom

    Community Mod

  • Mods
  • 13535 posts
  • LocationDes Plaines, IL

I thought I'd share this article from a NASA study regarding Mass Gains of Ice on the Antarctic Ice Sheet:

 

http://www.nasa.gov/...ter-than-losses



#320
weatherfan2012

Posted 29 October 2016 - 10:49 AM

weatherfan2012

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 622 posts
Robert filex posted a great Article about the difference between global warming and cooling https://iceagenow.in...global-cooling/

#321
Andie

Posted 30 October 2016 - 07:35 AM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1476 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
Summary of an article on ice age intervals and CO2 being trapped and released. Cardiff Univ.

http://www.futurity....medium=webfeeds

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#322
weatherfan2012

Posted 17 November 2016 - 10:35 PM

weatherfan2012

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 622 posts
Robert filex is on coast to coast tonight on now actually https://iceagenow.in...ar-coast-coast/

#323
weatherfan2012

Posted 21 November 2016 - 07:47 PM

weatherfan2012

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 622 posts
Robert filex on coast to coast from last Thursday night https://youtu.be/i3YgumJ3cpA

#324
Andie

Posted 27 November 2016 - 08:47 AM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1476 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
MIT Climatologist disagrees with US winter forecast.

Early Cold Winter.

http://www.bloomberg...d-winter-in-u-s

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#325
weatherfan2012

Posted 13 December 2016 - 01:53 PM

weatherfan2012

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 622 posts
Interesting article that Robert posted on his blog https://www.iceageno...al-temperatures

#326
Andie

Posted 21 May 2017 - 02:17 PM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1476 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
Mini ice age here to stay

Attached File  IMG_2459.JPG   174.11KB   2 downloads
  • OKwx2k4 likes this

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#327
Chris

Posted 29 June 2017 - 02:36 PM

Chris

    Community Mod

  • Admin
  • 1107 posts
  • LocationOregon Coast Range 1000'

Well "technically" yes, but the effect was so small it's essentially undetectable. To put it into perspective, the structural uncertainties in the 1850-1950 data are ~ 500% larger than any AGW signal during that timeframe.

The warming of the climate during the 19th and early/mid 20th centuries was almost 100% natural. Actually, the global warming began sometime between 1650 and 1700. Glaciers began retreating in Europe and Eurasia during the 1690s, and almost 35% of the total NH glacier melt (up to today) had occurred by 1800. That warming from 1700-1800 was actually very impressive and is often overlooked.

There was a moderate cooling from ~ 1800 to 1830, followed by another "jumpy" but vigorous warming that began in the 1830s and peaked in the 1940s. The rest is obviously more straightforward, with the moderate cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s, then the most recent period of vigorous warming which took place from the 1970s until the middle 2010s.

Through the cumulative process of all this climate change during the last several centuries, the global circulations have changed drastically, with the most radical change in the NH being a more +NAM/+NAO during the winter, compared to the LIA which featured a nearly perpetual -NAM/-NAO during the cold season.

Today's winter circulation is more reminiscent of that of the Medieval Warm Period, which featured a pronounced +NAM/+NAO bias during the cold season. That brief -NAO stretch from 2009 to 2011 was a (modest) throwback to what winters used to be. Even those recent -NAOs were nothing compared to the monstrous high latitude blocking regimes that defined the LIA in the NH.


Interesting. My attention is drawn more towards the lack of warm Septembers towards the beginning of the graph.

 

 

Good stuff. You're (as always) too quick to discount AGW, but you are contributing interesting information about global circulation patterns. 

 

It makes sense that we would see a significant rebound following the Maunder Minimum (regarding the 1700-1800 warming). The entirety of the LIA was a series of fits and starts, nothing is ever as smooth as it seems when it comes to a system as complex as climate. I think that part gets glossed over by pretty much everyone outside of the climate science field. 

 

I remember reading a paper that singled out a volcanic eruption - or possibly a series of volcanic eruptions - around the 1260-1280 period (as identified from Greenland ice cores) that provided the initial "push" into cooler conditions. This disruptive cooling set in motion a series of feedbacks (presumably) that jolted the system out of the MWP/MCA, and started the initial descent into LIA conditions. Europe didn't feel the shock until the famine of 1315-1317, and the initial "lobe" of the LIA didn't bottom out until the Sporer minimum. I believe the 1430s were 2nd coldest decade in the NH after the 1690s. There was a major arid pulse around 1450 in reconstructed Ponderosa Pine tree-ring chronologies from eastern Oregon. We haven't seen similarly dry conditions since that time. 

 

The 16th century was apparently rather warm, at least compared to the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minimums. Then we had the Maunder minimum, which peaked in the 1690s, the post-Maunder recovery (although Europe still pulled off some incredibly cold winters in the 1780s and 1790s), followed by the Dalton Minimum which was augmented by major volcanic pulses in both the 1810s and 1830s. Interestingly, the Dalton minimum was coeval with long-term moist conditions and reduction of fire in the southwestern US, as reconstructed from tree ring chronologies. These low-fire conditions lasted from something like 1780-1840. Then we had the post-Dalton warmup which finally pushed us toward the modern climate. The post-1850 warming push was accompanied by a binge of La Nina's, apparently. I just read a study in which ENSO conditions were reconstructed from corals in the tropical Pacific. There were two long-term La Nina phases from 1855-1863 and again from 1879-1888. We've seen nothing like that since, as post-1900 La Nina episodes have lasted on the order of 1-3 years max. My thinking is that the excess of -ENSO conditions might have actually delayed/dampened the post-LIA warmup (and possibly an AGW warmup) in the 1850-1890 timeframe, otherwise we might have seen the post-1900 spike happen a few decades earlier. Who knows. 

 

So yeah, its obviously a much more complex picture than simply saying we "had a Little Ice Age from 1350 to 1850" which is something you see quoted in places. 

 

As far as the NAO/NAM, it would stand to reason that these indices would mirror NH temperatures. They're both coupled to sea level pressure in the Arctic, which correlates to temperatures and therefore ice extent. Warmer conditions = less ice = lower sea level pressure (weaker high pressure) = higher NAO/NAM. It should hold true today just as it did during the MWP/MCA, with the inverse being true during the LIA. 

 

 

Thanks for the kind words.

I don't discount AGW in of itself (there is some anthropogenic component to the more recent warming), however, I've seen no evidence for the positive feedback loops suggested by the climate modeling, which are responsible for well over 50% of the projected warming. In particular, without getting into a wordy physics-based description of the issue, the theorized H2^O/tropical lapse rate feedback has failed to materialize (based on radiosonde and microwave data, as well as CERES/AIRS measurements of the OLWR budget @ the TOA boundary). The thermalization of the common bi-atomic molecules that's forecasted to occur in the upper troposphere via H2^O loading and subsequently slacken the lapse rate just isn't happening as modeled. If anything, the feedback appears to be negative, at least since 1995.

Also, since both the ECS and TCR values can (possibly) change over time depending on large scale boundary conditions, I've never been a fan of prescribing a "fixed" climate sensitivity to any particular forcing. I'm pretty sure climate sensitivity changes over time.


I definitely agree here. As a community, I think we've largely abandoned the idea of a stable, gradually-changing climate system, and have recognized that the system instead appears to jump between quasi-stable system states. Most, if not all, of the significant climate changes over the last 140,000 years have occurred as "step changes", so to speak.


Yeah, I've read a few papers proposing similar theories. It's a very interesting hypothesis, and I agree volcanism could definitely have been a factor in the timing of some of those transitions.

I think it should also be noted that solar forcing was also decreasing from its "medieval maximum" before the Sporer minimum, so this was already priming the system for cooling via the -NAM/-SAM.

Basically, the reduced solar forcings leads to a cooling of the top of the Hadley Cells and strengthened Brewer Dobson Circulation over time, which reduces tropical static stability/steepens the lapse rate. This strengthens tropical convection, which increases cloud cover and surface wind speeds in the tropics/subtropics, which increases evaporative cooling of the sea surface and corresponding latent heat release in the upper troposphere, so more energy is lost to space.

The increased convection also dumps more heat/mass poleward, leading to the -NAM/-SAM. So really, the processes that force the polar blocking are rooted in the tropics and their interaction with the surrounding thermo-kinetic boundary condition(s), rather than being a polar-based phenomenon. The entire -NAM/-SAM process is one of global cooling when it occurs in boreal winter, as a matter of fact.


Interesting! I haven't done as much research on the 1400s in Europe, so that's intriguing for sure. I do know that, based on the proxy work I've done with stalagmites from Chinese Caves, the Asian monsoons weakened dramatically in the 1300s, after having been very robust from ~ year 950 to 1250. From ~ 1350 to 1470, the Asian monsoons were at their weakest levels in over 10,000 years, and their overall weakening since over the last 5000 years is notable, yet typical of the later stages of interglacials, as boreal summer insolation bottoms out at the North Pole.


Hmm..very interesting. I was aware the 1500s were warm across North America and the North Atlantic, but I've been under the impression they were quite frigid across the extratropical eastern hemisphere and Arctic, based on the borehole data. Maybe I'm mistaken there, though.


Oh yeah, that's a major head scratcher.

Also, during the heart of the LIA, the ENSO state was actually largely El Niño dominated, and during the Medieval Warm Period, it was largely La Niña dominated. Really makes you think about the nature of ENSO, doesn't it?

Knowing how tropical convection relates to the NAM/SAM, the dominance of El Niño during the blocky LIA makes sense, as does the dominance of La Niña during the MWP, which featured a notable +NAM during boreal winter. I can't help but wonder if ENSO is the conduit through which the system operates a negative feedback loop of sorts, perhaps resisting change on certain shorter term frequencies rather than embracing it, until such a time where it jumps into a new state.


I definitely think it's more complicated than that, but I'm sure the thermodynamic effects you mention here play a role.

In the paleoclimate data (and the observational data), the NAM/SAM appear to be governed by the exchange gradients of heat/mass/momentum between the tropics and poles. Which (IMO) is why solar forcing is so crucial here, and appears to influence ENSO significantly.

So I would argue that the NAM/SAM are climate change in action, with the -NAM/-SAM circulations cooling the globe via enhanced heat loss to space, and the +NAM/+SAM circulations warming the globe via reduced heat loss to space.

 

 

Check out this C^14 based solar activity reconstruction. Note that the Oort and Wolf solar minimums both preceded the Sporer minimum:

63DA1F85-4A3A-4183-8B5F-481AA4C429EE_zps
More evidence that solar minimums may favor El Niños is found in the reconstructions of the weakened south Asian monsoons during reduced solar activity, which suggests convection was enhanced over the Pacific during these times.

The monsoon shutdown in the 1300s coincides with the start of the Sporer minimum. There were other noted weakenings in the monsoon, both coinciding with solar minimums (Oort and Wolf, respectively).

9FB1A20E-ED2B-49F3-BD80-54BA0D7277A5_zps


  • iFred and Webberweather53 like this

#328
weatherfan2012

Posted 01 July 2017 - 01:24 PM

weatherfan2012

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 622 posts

very interesting from Phil Robert filex also has stated a number of times that patterns doing ice ages resemble El ninos like patterns quite ofton.

#329
Andie

Posted 18 July 2017 - 06:28 AM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1476 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
Chris, looks like your monsoon rains are here this year at least.


Pope Francis, formerly of Argentina, needs to be informed that his former nation is having a heavy winter.
He actually produced an Encyclical on the dangers and ravages of Global Warming soon after becoming Pope and made it a major focal point of his papacy.

The Southern Hemisphere has had quite a winter and the Pope, all chilled out in the Vatican, is clearly out of touch with the facts (an snow) ont he ground. Now, weather isn't Climate, I know that, but the Southern Hemisphere has been having some rough winters lately and it flies in the face of his Holiness.

Here's Santiago, pictured. Also Chili has been dealing with blizzards as well.
Wake up Pope, your reality check is calling.

Attached File  IMG_2622.JPG   84.83KB   0 downloads

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#330
Andie

Posted 20 July 2017 - 02:34 PM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1476 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
Check out this graph of Vostok ice cores.

Attached File  IMG_2629.JPG   56.97KB   0 downloads

The temp drops but CO2 is delayed in its drop.

From iceagenow.com post

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#331
Phil

Posted 20 July 2017 - 02:59 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14546 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
Yeah, the Earth reached the depth of the previous ice age before CO^2 even nudged. A simple redistribution of solar radiation via orbital harmonics is all it takes to force a change in circulation which produces the ice ages.

Oh, and these bigger shifts are "threshold" based, controlled within preferred quasi-stable boundary conditions. So they occur rapidly, within a few centuries or less in the case of the last glacial inception (following the Eemian insterstadial).
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#332
Andie

Posted 21 July 2017 - 07:38 PM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1476 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
Greenland is gathering more ice and snow.

http://www.dmi.dk/en...ce-mass-budget/

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#333
Andie

Posted 23 July 2017 - 08:06 PM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1476 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
The year Without an Arctic Summer

https://realclimates...-arctic-summer/

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#334
Andie

Posted 25 July 2017 - 06:21 AM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1476 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
https://www.sott.net...ppress-findings


© Climate Change Dispatch.com
Dr. Christian Schlüchter's discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with "a wild landscape and wide flowing river."

Dr. Schlüchter's report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

http://juneauempire....zen-forest-tomb

(Some interesting photos here)

The most recent stumps she’s dated emerging from the Mendenhall are between 1,400 and 1,200 years old. The oldest she’s tested are around 2,350 years old. She’s also dated some at around 1,870 to 2,000 years old.

“We’re seeing the Mendenhall wax and wane through time a little bit,” Connor said.
  • Tom likes this

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#335
Andie

Posted 01 August 2017 - 05:53 AM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1476 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
http://dailycaller.c...limate-numbers/

Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers

"Meteorologist Lance Pidgeon watched the 13 degrees Fahrenheit Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website. The temperature readings fluctuated briefly and then disappeared from the government’s website."

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#336
Scott26

Posted 03 August 2017 - 06:11 AM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 561 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

http://dailycaller.c...limate-numbers/

Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers

"Meteorologist Lance Pidgeon watched the 13 degrees Fahrenheit Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website. The temperature readings fluctuated briefly and then disappeared from the government’s website."

Andie, there is no conspiracy here. Instead of finding websites that fit your viewpoint how about I post the thousands of peer reviewed articles on anthropogenic climate change? Or maybe I can post the list again of every scientific organization on Earth that accepts the conclusions made about human-caused climate change.

 

Believing that scientists are fudging the numbers personally offends me as a potential future scientist. I would suggest that many of you go to the closest university to where you live and have a chat with professors in the climate science or related fields. There isn't a professor or even student for that matter in my department that doesn't accept the scientific consensus over anthropogenic climate change. Maybe they are all in on it too, huh?



#337
Scott26

Posted 03 August 2017 - 06:15 AM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 561 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

I am currently interning at Argonne National Laboratory this summer in the climate science field. Scientists here aren't spending time debating humans role in our changing climate, but instead we are researching ways to move towards renewable energy and mitigate the potential impacts of climate change in the future. I wish the discussion was more geared towards that on this forum rather than posting conspiracy theories about how the scientists are fudging the data. 



#338
Phil

Posted 09 August 2017 - 08:58 AM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14546 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Andie, there is no conspiracy here. Instead of finding websites that fit your viewpoint how about I post the thousands of peer reviewed articles on anthropogenic climate change? Or maybe I can post the list again of every scientific organization on Earth that accepts the conclusions made about human-caused climate change.


Unfortunately, we humans have a terrible track record when it comes to "scientific consensus". From stomach ulcers to the laws of physics themselves, approximately 95% of all scientific theories have been proven wrong over the years, many with even stronger scientific "consensus" than AGW/climate. So, forgive me for rolling my eyes at your naïveté here.

That said, yes, I do believe humans are altering the climate system to some degree. Most scientists share this belief. But there's a difference between acknowledging some level of anthropogenic/CO^2 radiative forcing on the climate system, and promoting the fictitious, nonsensical idea(s) that:

- The systematic conduits to equilibration run through a slew of cascading, self-sustaining positive feedback loops that amplify responsive boundary state perturbations from external forcings. This idea is contrary to both real world observations and the paleoclimate data, yet the climate modeling community can't seem to break away from this clearly incorrect interpretation of the system state.

- The fictitious idea that the modern day climate change is somehow "unprecedented" by Holocene standards. This might be the most preposterous idea ever put forth in climate science, and it runs contrary to all reliable, high resolution proxy data. Heck, you have the remains of ancient trees and cutting tools (dated as recently as 900-1000 years ago) being revealed under melting glaciers today, where it is still too cold/arid for anything to grow today.

- The fictitious idea that humans have somehow "taken over" the climate system and pushed it beyond a "tipping point". Again, this idea is nonsensical and confined to the fairytale world within climate models that completely and utterly fail to simulate natural climate change, and run outrageously large warm biases almost immediately after initialization. See the sub-seasonal warm bias on the CFSv2 weekly temperature forecasts if you want an example of this. And the CFSv2 weekly extrapolations run on a higher resolution than the majority of climate models used to fortify the AGW theory. :lol:

Believing that scientists are fudging the numbers personally offends me as a potential future scientist. I would suggest that many of you go to the closest university to where you live and have a chat with professors in the climate science or related fields.


Your naïveté offends me, as a scientist. Do you fully understand how tri-atomic gases like CO^2 are able to intercept and redirect infrared radiation at particular frequencies under boundary conditions for thermalization that vary in efficiency with geopotential height, and why this alters the thermodynamic budget of the climate system?

My well-intentioned suggestion to you is that, instead of blindly appealing to authority and/or "consensus", you actually do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Feeling "insulted" over others' interpretations of the physical workings of the climate system, despite not understanding them yourself, is laughably arrogant and reveals you to have emotional and/or political reasons for your "scientific" opinions. Please try to abandon any preconceived ideas you have about the climate system before beginning a career in climate science. It will help your career and your conscience in the long run. :)

There isn't a professor or even student for that matter in my department that doesn't accept the scientific consensus over anthropogenic climate change. Maybe they are all in on it too, huh?


For the record, I'm also (apparently) a member of your silly "consensus" club, as worthless as it may be. You can rightfully acknowledge the anthropogenic forcing(s) on the climate system without jumping into the rabbit hole of positive feedback loops and other alarmist fairytales.
  • weatherfan2012 and Webberweather53 like this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#339
Scott26

Posted 09 August 2017 - 04:25 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 561 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

Unfortunately, we humans have a terrible track record when it comes to "scientific consensus". From stomach ulcers to the laws of physics themselves, approximately 95% of all scientific theories have been proven wrong over the years, many with even stronger scientific "consensus" than AGW/climate. So, forgive me for rolling my eyes at your naïveté here.

That said, yes, I do believe humans are altering the climate system to some degree. Most scientists share this belief. But there's a difference between acknowledging some level of anthropogenic/CO^2 radiative forcing on the climate system, and promoting the fictitious, nonsensical idea(s) that:

- The systematic conduits to equilibration run through a slew of cascading, self-sustaining positive feedback loops that amplify responsive boundary state perturbations from external forcings. This idea is contrary to both real world observations and the paleoclimate data, yet the climate modeling community can't seem to break away from this clearly incorrect interpretation of the system state.

- The fictitious idea that the modern day climate change is somehow "unprecedented" by Holocene standards. This might be the most preposterous idea ever put forth in climate science, and it runs contrary to all reliable, high resolution proxy data. Heck, you have the remains of ancient trees and cutting tools (dated as recently as 900-1000 years ago) being revealed under melting glaciers today, where it is still too cold/arid for anything to grow today.

- The fictitious idea that humans have somehow "taken over" the climate system and pushed it beyond a "tipping point". Again, this idea is nonsensical and confined to the fairytale world within climate models that completely and utterly fail to simulate natural climate change, and run outrageously large warm biases almost immediately after initialization. See the sub-seasonal warm bias on the CFSv2 weekly temperature forecasts if you want an example of this. And the CFSv2 weekly extrapolations run on a higher resolution than the majority of climate models used to fortify the AGW theory. :lol:


Your naïveté offends me, as a scientist. Do you fully understand how tri-atomic gases like CO^2 are able to intercept and redirect infrared radiation at particular frequencies under boundary conditions for thermalization that vary in efficiency with geopotential height, and why this alters the thermodynamic budget of the climate system?

My well-intentioned suggestion to you is that, instead of blindly appealing to authority and/or "consensus", you actually do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Feeling "insulted" over others' interpretations of the physical workings of the climate system, despite not understanding them yourself, is laughably arrogant and reveals you to have emotional and/or political reasons for your "scientific" opinions. Please try to abandon any preconceived ideas you have about the climate system before beginning a career in climate science. It will help your career and your conscience in the long run. :)


For the record, I'm also (apparently) a member of your silly "consensus" club, as worthless as it may be. You can rightfully acknowledge the anthropogenic forcing(s) on the climate system without jumping into the rabbit hole of positive feedback loops and other alarmist fairytales.

My issue was with Andie posting websites claiming that scientists are some how "manufacturing the warming" or "fudging the data." You are welcome to your own view on the significance of human's role in our climate system, but I expect you to give the same scrutiny to members on this forum posting links from right-wing blogs as you do with my apparently "alarmist" viewpoint. 

 

That being said, your advice is much appreciated. I enjoy reading your posts on here and I think they promote good scientific discussion. I am just frustrated with others that call climate change a "hoax" or claim that scientists are changing the data to promote some sort of agenda. I think this hinders the discussion as much as you claim the more alarmist viewpoints do. 


  • Phil likes this

#340
Phil

Posted 09 August 2017 - 10:00 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14546 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

My issue was with Andie posting websites claiming that scientists are some how "manufacturing the warming" or "fudging the data." You are welcome to your own view on the significance of human's role in our climate system, but I expect you to give the same scrutiny to members on this forum posting links from right-wing blogs as you do with my apparently "alarmist" viewpoint.


Today was the first time I'd opened this thread in months. I also try to remain as apolitical as possible when it comes to climate science, so you'll never hear political scrutiny from me unless I'm posting in the politics thread, which I consider to be a separate conversation from the science, and far and less academic in general.

That being said, your advice is much appreciated. I enjoy reading your posts on here and I think they promote good scientific discussion. I am just frustrated with others that call climate change a "hoax" or claim that scientists are changing the data to promote some sort of agenda. I think this hinders the discussion as much as you claim the more alarmist viewpoints do.


I appreciate the kind words, and I apologize if my post came off as nasty, egotistical, or self-righteous. Certainly, I agree that calling climate change a "hoax" is both dangerous and disingenuous, given that the climate is changing, and that humanity will inevitably face more severe, abrupt climate changes at some point, regardless of what we do:
  • weatherfan2012 and Chewbacca Defense like this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#341
weatherfan2012

Posted 07 October 2017 - 05:26 PM

weatherfan2012

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 622 posts

Today was the first time I'd opened this thread in months. I also try to remain as apolitical as possible when it comes to climate science, so you'll never hear political scrutiny from me unless I'm posting in the politics thread, which I consider to be a separate conversation from the science, and far and less academic in general.


I appreciate the kind words, and I apologize if my post came off as nasty, egotistical, or self-righteous. Certainly, I agree that calling climate change a "hoax" is both dangerous and disingenuous, given that the climate is changing, and that humanity will inevitably face more severe, abrupt climate changes at some point, regardless of what we do:

I really think the true problem with the whole debate is really how it is being worded in other words many calling it climate change when in fact climate changes regardless of any Human role play or not and there's been proven history of major climate changes  from ices ages to major warm ups and or major warm ups to all out glacer periods  in a matter of a 20 year time span in earth history.Climate change isn't what this debate is about it's about how much of a play humans have or are having in the climate system.Because it has turned into being a climate change debate and political with that it has made things to the point where the real facts have gotten lost unfortunately.As you said most certainly we have some role in climate but I tend to side with you Geos and Robert Felix  and others that our impacts are to small to over ride the natural effects causes of our climate and we will have cold and warm periods and major climate changes in either direction  regardless of what we do.Those at the same time I don't disagree that we should  find ways to make things cleaner pollution wise on our earth and having a clean earth is a good thing in the end.But there are much better ways of finding solutions then what a lot of our political leaders really want to do.



#342
LNK_Weather

Posted 14 October 2017 - 07:55 AM

LNK_Weather

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 364 posts
  • LocationLincoln, NE

I really think the true problem with the whole debate is really how it is being worded in other words many calling it climate change when in fact climate changes regardless of any Human role play or not and there's been proven history of major climate changes  from ices ages to major warm ups and or major warm ups to all out glacer periods  in a matter of a 20 year time span in earth history.Climate change isn't what this debate is about it's about how much of a play humans have or are having in the climate system.Because it has turned into being a climate change debate and political with that it has made things to the point where the real facts have gotten lost unfortunately.As you said most certainly we have some role in climate but I tend to side with you Geos and Robert Felix  and others that our impacts are to small to over ride the natural effects causes of our climate and we will have cold and warm periods and major climate changes in either direction  regardless of what we do.Those at the same time I don't disagree that we should  find ways to make things cleaner pollution wise on our earth and having a clean earth is a good thing in the end.But there are much better ways of finding solutions then what a lot of our political leaders really want to do.

What really irks me is fear mongering from politicians who don't know the first thing about climate. Hearing things like "THE EARTH WILL BE UNINHABITABLE IN 100 YEARS IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING NOW!!!1!" from a politician when there is no solid evidence proving that really gets me heated. I also agree that we should find ways to lower pollution, but we have time to figure that out because we are not going into an apocalypse any time soon.


  • weatherfan2012 likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: climate change, solar, co2, agw, ice age