Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

Weather events from around the world plus Astronomy and Geology and other Natural events.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
xironman
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2521
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: NoVA

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#41 Postby xironman » Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:45 am

Thanks,

Got it. I could not figure out what "cooler" meant, cooler than 2007, cooler than 2005 or cooler than normal? I will now assume that it is cooler than 2007 which is fifth in the list http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html#gtemp, sticking with NOAA. If it was cooler than normal I would have been surprised, but since it was comparing a very high year with a new year starting in La Nina you would have to give it a decent chance. That's weather right?
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#42 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:11 am

wbug1 wrote:
Jim, you are trying my patience. Is this average of yours a reliable source of information? I want to see the data source(s), the locations the temperature readings were taken from and the organization for which the employees or automated stations are collecting data for. In addition, you may not understand the significance of the down arrow in your last post. How's the average air temperature over Greenland figure in that diagram you just posted?


Your losing patience ? Please....Look here's the bottom line. I dropped by here and read your silly GW gloom and doom comments. And I'm not going to go running around for some data that suits your purpose. The earth has been cooling in 2008 and I could care less about Greenland. Just like I could care less about how cold the Pacifc Northwest has been lately since we're talking a global.

And BTW why don't you read this discussion. It's about the space weather effect upon the cyclical nature of the Polar Eurasian teleconnection, ozone levels-stratospheric behavior, etc...I wrote it during the late summer of 2006 and 17 of the past twenty monthly POL readings have been negative.

My forecasting methodology is different, but results speak. Why don't you also look in the Talkin Tropics forum for my January 2007 La Nina developmental call , which came out before 99.9% of the expert calls from within the climate field. And many experts within the field heard-got this early call, whether by e-mail, or telephone, or from reading it within forums like this.

Space weather forces much more than what most realize, like the El Nino/La Nina, but the community at large does not understand this. Because your only as good as what you've been taught, and the science community has always been way to conservative. And they've always been looking in the wrong direction anyway. Since there's more to space weather than just sunspots-irradiance levels.


http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php ... pic=103909
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#43 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:19 am

xironman wrote:Thanks,

Got it. I could not figure out what "cooler" meant, cooler than 2007, cooler than 2005 or cooler than normal? I will now assume that it is cooler than 2007 which is fifth in the list http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html#gtemp, sticking with NOAA. If it was cooler than normal I would have been surprised, but since it was comparing a very high year with a new year starting in La Nina you would have to give it a decent chance. That's weather right?


Yes it is weather but the La Nina was not at strong back then, and the yearly temperature pattern was on it's way up. And a good deal of the hardcore GHG's-GW crowd thinks it will always be going up.

Doesn't anyone remember some earlier calls for 2007 from some climatologists? I believe they said it was supposed to be our warmest ever, because of the El Nino.

And let me be clear about something. I am not arguing about the GHG effect upon our temperature-climate system. Just the percentages. And I do not know how it breaks down. But neither does the scientific community either in my opinion.
0 likes   

xironman
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2521
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: NoVA

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#44 Postby xironman » Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:48 am

If it was the early November time frame it was moderate and strengthening, http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_nov2007/ensodisc.html it looked pretty good.
8 November 2007

Synopsis: La Niña will likely continue into early 2008.

La Niña continued to strengthen during October 2007, as equatorial sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies became increasingly negative from 170oE to the South American coast (Fig. 1). The latest 4-week analysis shows the largest SST departures (-2ºC to -3ºC) located between 140oW and the South American coast, with departures of -0.5oC to -1oC observed near the Date Line (Fig. 2). All of the Niño region indices, except for Niño-4, remained lower than -1.0oC (Fig. 3) indicating that La Niña is approaching moderate-strength (3-month running mean value of the Niño 3.4 index below -1.0oC).


Also

The earth has been cooling in 2008


Actually it started out cooler Jan-Feb http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/feb/global.html#year-to-date at +.28C anomaly. Since then it the anomaly has gone more positive http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/may/global.html#year-to-date bringing it up to +.42C YTD.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#45 Postby x-y-no » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:10 am

Let's keep this conversation civil, please.
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#46 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:13 am

xironman wrote:If it was the early November time frame it was moderate and strengthening, http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_nov2007/ensodisc.html it looked pretty good.
8 November 2007

Synopsis: La Niña will likely continue into early 2008.

La Niña continued to strengthen during October 2007, as equatorial sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies became increasingly negative from 170oE to the South American coast (Fig. 1). The latest 4-week analysis shows the largest SST departures (-2ºC to -3ºC) located between 140oW and the South American coast, with departures of -0.5oC to -1oC observed near the Date Line (Fig. 2). All of the Niño region indices, except for Niño-4, remained lower than -1.0oC (Fig. 3) indicating that La Niña is approaching moderate-strength (3-month running mean value of the Niño 3.4 index below -1.0oC).


Also

The earth has been cooling in 2008


Actually it started out cooler Jan-Feb http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/feb/global.html#year-to-date at +.28C anomaly. Since then it the anomaly has gone more positive http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/may/global.html#year-to-date bringing it up to +.42C YTD.


The Nina model calls were not as bullish, nor even most of the experts at this time, and that was my point. And as far as global temperature data. There are debates going on every day about what data to use, or it's reliability. And 2008 is also not over yet, so the debate is a mute point at this stage of the game.

And I'm also trying to indirectly point out the possible space weather effect upon the climate system. Because it doesn't just stop with the POL, ENSO, etc.... Did you read my second link?
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

Re:

#47 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:14 am

x-y-no wrote:Let's keep this conversation civil, please.


Jan, Where was it uncivil?
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#48 Postby x-y-no » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:21 am

Jim Hughes wrote:Yes it is weather but the La Nina was not at strong back then, and the yearly temperature pattern was on it's way up. And a good deal of the hardcore GHG's-GW crowd thinks it will always be going up.

Doesn't anyone remember some earlier calls for 2007 from some climatologists? I believe they said it was supposed to be our warmest ever, because of the El Nino.


1) True, La Nina was not as strong back then, but then we did get a moderate La Nina for the winter and early spring. So I don't understand why the slight cooling relative to last year that is observed so far this year shouldn't be attributed to that La Nina rather than to some hypothetical solar forcing. I would also note that 2008 is less that halfway over yet - there's still plenty of time for the global average to move up some. I wouldn't count your forecast as verified just yet.

2) I don't know who you mean by the "hardcore GHG's-GW crowd" but I don't know of any researcher in the field who has ever claimed that the global average temperature should be "always going up." Given that the noise level is higher than the annual trend, it's trivially obvious that it will not.

3) Yes, some people predicted that 2007 would be the warmest year yet. But as you note, that prediction was based on having an extended El Nino that year. Given that the forecast for El Nino was a bust (we were neutral in February already, so in fact there was only one month of El Nino that year) it's hardly surprising that 2007 was merely the fifth warmest year on record.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: Re:

#49 Postby x-y-no » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:23 am

Jim Hughes wrote:
x-y-no wrote:Let's keep this conversation civil, please.


Jan, Where was it uncivil?


I felt it was getting borderline with the "trying my patience" comment and your reply. Not over the line, but threatening to go there. It's easy for all of us to get heated, myself included.
0 likes   

wbug1

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#50 Postby wbug1 » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:37 am

Jim Hughes wrote:
wbug1 wrote:
And I'm not going to go running around for some data that suits your purpose. The earth has been cooling in 2008 and I could care less about Greenland. Just like I could care less about how cold the Pacific Northwest has been lately since we're talking global.


:eek: I think that pretty much speaks for itself. Hopefully others don't agree.
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#51 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:52 am

wbug1 wrote:
Jim Hughes wrote:
wbug1 wrote:
And I'm not going to go running around for some data that suits your purpose. The earth has been cooling in 2008 and I could care less about Greenland. Just like I could care less about how cold the Pacific Northwest has been lately since we're talking global.


:eek: I think that pretty much speaks for itself. Hopefully others don't agree.


You need to read up on the cyclical nature, or movements-relationships of things. Like the arrival time of summer westerlies, and their strength, or even what the POL has been doing summertime wise, and QBO. You also need to consider the AMO - stratosphere.

I'm also guessing you didn't read my second link. So it's hard to talk about possible outside influences when people do not read up on other subject matters.
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#52 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:58 am

x-y-no wrote:
Jim Hughes wrote:Yes it is weather but the La Nina was not at strong back then, and the yearly temperature pattern was on it's way up. And a good deal of the hardcore GHG's-GW crowd thinks it will always be going up.

Doesn't anyone remember some earlier calls for 2007 from some climatologists? I believe they said it was supposed to be our warmest ever, because of the El Nino.


1) True, La Nina was not as strong back then, but then we did get a moderate La Nina for the winter and early spring. So I don't understand why the slight cooling relative to last year that is observed so far this year shouldn't be attributed to that La Nina rather than to some hypothetical solar forcing. I would also note that 2008 is less that halfway over yet - there's still plenty of time for the global average to move up some. I wouldn't count your forecast as verified just yet.

2) I don't know who you mean by the "hardcore GHG's-GW crowd" but I don't know of any researcher in the field who has ever claimed that the global average temperature should be "always going up." Given that the noise level is higher than the annual trend, it's trivially obvious that it will not.

3) Yes, some people predicted that 2007 would be the warmest year yet. But as you note, that prediction was based on having an extended El Nino that year. Given that the forecast for El Nino was a bust (we were neutral in February already, so in fact there was only one month of El Nino that year) it's hardly surprising that 2007 was merely the fifth warmest year on record.



Nobody said that I was basing my November temperature forecast just on a hypothetical solar forcing. (In regards to how you or some others might think about solar) But if you consider my January 07' La Nina forecast, and the November one, and my confidence level, which were based upon space weather conditions, it somewhat speaks for itself.

And the 06-07 El Nino was not a bust, since I forecasted it's development. Even in this forum and I downplayed the 06' tropical activity level ahead. But some need to look at what happened space weather wise, in December 2006. And then consider what all this meant. Because the ENSO train was heading toward La Nina, not El Nino, nor warmth, for 2007.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#53 Postby x-y-no » Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:37 am

Jim Hughes wrote:Nobody said that I was basing my November temperature forecast just on a hypothetical solar forcing. (In regards to how you or some others might think about solar) But if you consider my January 07' La Nina forecast, and the November one, and my confidence level, which were based upon space weather conditions, it somewhat speaks for itself.


OK, maybe I misunderstood. If you were predicting La Nina obviously that was a good forecast.

And the 06-07 El Nino was not a bust, since I forecasted it's development. Even in this forum and I downplayed the 06' tropical activity level ahead. But some need to look at what happened space weather wise, in December 2006. And then consider what all this meant. Because the ENSO train was heading toward La Nina, not El Nino, nor warmth, for 2007.


The part that was a bust was the idea that the El Nino would extend well into 2007. It didn't - we were back to neutral in February. So those who were predicting 2007 to be warmest on record were doing so based on a busted El Nino forecast. That's all I was saying.
0 likes   

xironman
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2521
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: NoVA

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#54 Postby xironman » Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:13 pm

Great Jim,

If you scroll down a little on the first page (12:30pm quote) , you can see where I mention a drop of at least .10,


I will keep an eye on it. If using NOAA data (easy to get to and since it is like to like not so bad) the anomaly comes out to less than .45C (.55C-.1C) you will get kudo's and respect from me for the prediction. Unfortunately I cannot read the links, because they require registration to see images.
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#55 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:37 pm

x-y-no wrote:
Jim Hughes wrote:Nobody said that I was basing my November temperature forecast just on a hypothetical solar forcing. (In regards to how you or some others might think about solar) But if you consider my January 07' La Nina forecast, and the November one, and my confidence level, which were based upon space weather conditions, it somewhat speaks for itself.


OK, maybe I misunderstood. If you were predicting La Nina obviously that was a good forecast.

And the 06-07 El Nino was not a bust, since I forecasted it's development. Even in this forum and I downplayed the 06' tropical activity level ahead. But some need to look at what happened space weather wise, in December 2006. And then consider what all this meant. Because the ENSO train was heading toward La Nina, not El Nino, nor warmth, for 2007.


The part that was a bust was the idea that the El Nino would extend well into 2007. It didn't - we were back to neutral in February. So those who were predicting 2007 to be warmest on record were doing so based on a busted El Nino forecast. That's all I was saying.



I started talking more about the El Nino starting to weaken during December 2006, and I was never on board for anything much stronger than strong end weak anyway. And I also forecasted a strong December space weather increase in this very forum back in early 2006.

Edit: I changed my earlier statement about how far this forum's threads go back. So my December 2006 space weather spike call must still be here.
Last edited by Jim Hughes on Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#56 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:41 pm

xironman wrote: Unfortunately I cannot read the links, because they require registration to see images.


You should join then since it never hurts to learn about other possible things. And my space weather-POL discussion might open your eyes up to some things. Or at the very least make you question things. Which is always good in my opinion since there is way to much of the pied piper syndrome going on these days. Because everybody seems to march to the same tune.
0 likes   

wbug1

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#57 Postby wbug1 » Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:42 pm

Jim Hughes wrote:
You need to read up on the cyclical nature, or movements-relationships of things. Like the arrival time of summer westerlies, and their strength, or even what the POL has been doing summertime wise, and QBO. You also need to consider the AMO - stratosphere.

I'm also guessing you didn't read my second link. So it's hard to talk about possible outside influences when people do not read up on other subject matters.


You need to take your thermometer, and stand in the middle of an asphalt road and realise that a black body like that absorbs more infrared radiation than a forest, which reflects and stores solar energy in the form of cellulose, and realise that concrete, asphalt and semi arid land, which has increased in size to cover 100,000+ additional square miles since 1900, is having an effect, heating up the planet, in addition to the carbon dioxide trapping the infrared radiation on the way down and up. As Greenland warms, the net black body type effect will increase as the ice melts and it does not reflect incoming radiation anymore. Of course, that's if nothing is done about it.
0 likes   

User avatar
HURAKAN
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 46086
Age: 38
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Key West, FL
Contact:

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#58 Postby HURAKAN » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:04 pm

wbug1 wrote:
Jim Hughes wrote:
You need to read up on the cyclical nature, or movements-relationships of things. Like the arrival time of summer westerlies, and their strength, or even what the POL has been doing summertime wise, and QBO. You also need to consider the AMO - stratosphere.

I'm also guessing you didn't read my second link. So it's hard to talk about possible outside influences when people do not read up on other subject matters.


You need to take your thermometer, and stand in the middle of an asphalt road and realise that a black body like that absorbs more infrared radiation than a forest, which reflects and stores solar energy in the form of cellulose, and realise that concrete, asphalt and semi arid land, which has increased in size to cover 100,000+ additional square miles since 1900, is having an effect, heating up the planet, in addition to the carbon dioxide trapping the infrared radiation on the way down and up. As Greenland warms, the net black body type effect will increase as the ice melts and it does not reflect incoming radiation anymore. Of course, that's if nothing is done about it.


Agree 100%. Moreover, ice has an albedo of around 90%, which means that it reflects almost all the solar energy that hits it. In contrast, water has a very low albedo, which means that it absorbs most of the solar energy that it receives. This means that as the ice cover in the poles continue to recede, the water will become more warmer decreasing further the amount of sea-ice. In the tropics warmer temperatures will be compensated by more clouds, but since the atmosphere in the poles is so cold, it can't hold moisture and therefore it doesn't have a defense mechanism against warmer temperatures. People that still think we don't have an effect on our planet, just look around.
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#59 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:17 pm

wbug1 wrote:
Jim Hughes wrote:
You need to read up on the cyclical nature, or movements-relationships of things. Like the arrival time of summer westerlies, and their strength, or even what the POL has been doing summertime wise, and QBO. You also need to consider the AMO - stratosphere.

I'm also guessing you didn't read my second link. So it's hard to talk about possible outside influences when people do not read up on other subject matters.


You need to take your thermometer, and stand in the middle of an asphalt road and realise that a black body like that absorbs more infrared radiation than a forest, which reflects and stores solar energy in the form of cellulose, and realise that concrete, asphalt and semi arid land, which has increased in size to cover 100,000+ additional square miles since 1900, is having an effect, heating up the planet, in addition to the carbon dioxide trapping the infrared radiation on the way down and up. As Greenland warms, the net black body type effect will increase as the ice melts and it does not reflect incoming radiation anymore. Of course, that's if nothing is done about it.


The size of the ice sheets, or how much they grow or shrink, is also about wind directions -currents, OHC etc... . So I guess you think that if space weather forces certain things, like the ENSO, POl, stratospheric behavior-ozone levels etc... that it in no way can effect long term temperature trends either.
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

Re: Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

#60 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:20 pm

HURAKAN wrote:
wbug1 wrote:
Jim Hughes wrote:
You need to read up on the cyclical nature, or movements-relationships of things. Like the arrival time of summer westerlies, and their strength, or even what the POL has been doing summertime wise, and QBO. You also need to consider the AMO - stratosphere.

I'm also guessing you didn't read my second link. So it's hard to talk about possible outside influences when people do not read up on other subject matters.


You need to take your thermometer, and stand in the middle of an asphalt road and realise that a black body like that absorbs more infrared radiation than a forest, which reflects and stores solar energy in the form of cellulose, and realise that concrete, asphalt and semi arid land, which has increased in size to cover 100,000+ additional square miles since 1900, is having an effect, heating up the planet, in addition to the carbon dioxide trapping the infrared radiation on the way down and up. As Greenland warms, the net black body type effect will increase as the ice melts and it does not reflect incoming radiation anymore. Of course, that's if nothing is done about it.


Agree 100%. Moreover, ice has an albedo of around 90%, which means that it reflects almost all the solar energy that hits it. In contrast, water has a very low albedo, which means that it absorbs most of the solar energy that it receives. This means that as the ice cover in the poles continue to recede, the water will become more warmer decreasing further the amount of sea-ice. In the tropics warmer temperatures will be compensated by more clouds, but since the atmosphere in the poles is so cold, it can't hold moisture and therefore it doesn't have a defense mechanism against warmer temperatures. People that still think we don't have an effect on our planet, just look around.


Nobody is debating the weather-climate 101 stuff about ice-abeldo. And this has nothing to do with trying to understand the forcing percentage of GHG's, or space weather, upon the earth's temperature trends anyway.
0 likes   


Return to “Global Weather”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests