stellarfun Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/science/earth/25cold.html?hp Conclusion: two years of negative AO do not a trend make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 http://www.nytimes.c.../25cold.html?hp Conclusion: two years of negative AO do not a trend make. Another conclusion: two years is variable weather, 30 years averaged to the mean is climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 http://www.nytimes.c.../25cold.html?hp Conclusion: two years of negative AO do not a trend make. I guess whatever genius wrote that article forgot about the period 1956-1970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I guess whatever genius wrote that article forgot about the period 1956-1970. JBG I cant wait until 2020 when we have some "real" normals-- we'll be beyond the curse of the 70s and 80s lol. JFK and LGA period of record starts in 1960, so 60 year means can also be started once we get to 2020 and "see clearly." (pun intended!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 JBG I cant wait until 2020 when we have some "real" normals-- we'll be beyond the curse of the 70s and 80s lol. JFK and LGA period of record starts in 1960, so 60 year means can also be started once we get to 2020 and "see clearly." (pun intended!)I'm not quite sure I get the pun. Maybe I'm a bit dense today.I did start a thread about base periods. We do have Central Park data going back more than 60 years. What I was referring to was the fact that we've had earlier periods of NAO "blockiness" before, such as1956-1970 (actually early 1971). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I'm not quite sure I get the pun. Maybe I'm a bit dense today. I did start a thread about base periods. We do have Central Park data going back more than 60 years. What I was referring to was the fact that we've had earlier periods of NAO "blockiness" before, such as1956-1970 (actually early 1971). 20/20..... see clearly..... 2020 and yes we've bad blocky periods like this before.... and I also think we have some intact records going back into the nineteenth century that are indicative of the kind of pattern we're in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 20/20..... see clearly..... 2020 and yes we've bad blocky periods like this before.... and I also think we have some intact records going back into the nineteenth century that are indicative of the kind of pattern we're in. Not that Al Gore will approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Could they be onto something here? Could it be that the main driver of persistent -AO regimes is melting Arctic ice? I've read that there was a similar minimum of Arctic ice around the late 1950's due to warming during the 1950's. Look how negative was the AO during the winters of the late 50's to early 60's. Might this be a key way that the earth balances things out every few decades? http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/monthly.ao.index.b50.current.ascii.table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wokeupthisam Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Another conclusion: two years is variable weather, 30 years averaged to the mean is climate. Really? Who authored that dictionary? You touched on the central issue in the 'climate change' debate - the time sample involved. One person's 'climate' is another person's 'variable weather'. Taking a 420,000 year view, the earth's mean looks pretty chilly for us warm-blooded creatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Really? Who authored that dictionary? You touched on the central issue in the 'climate change' debate - the time sample involved. One person's 'climate' is another person's 'variable weather'. Taking a 420,000 year view, the earth's mean looks pretty chilly for us warm-blooded creatures. You are correct that the choice of 30 years is somewhat arbitrary. However, what we mean by climate is weather averaged over a given number of years. If you use 420,000 years you would say we have been in an ice age climate overall, but the climate has changed many times over that time period. Interglacial periods are much warmer than full fledged ice age climates and stadials lie somewhere in between. There are distinct climate conditions. We are currently enjoying a warm interglacial period, however we stand to drive the climate to a warmer condition than it has seen in 15 million years and do it far more quickly than natural processes typically do. The difference between a full ice age and today's warmer conditions is 5C or 6C taken globally. If we push temps up by 3C the world will become a very different place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.