The_Global_Warmer Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Wxtrix post says it all. I also don't get why all of a sudden natural variance is hushed. So typically this is the cold period. AMO-, PDO-, la nina, solar min going to solar medium. Sea ice is near record lows. the Atlantic side is crippled. Warm gulf stream waters and winds are slamming into the Barents which is still 70% Ice free. The Kara is not iced over completely, the arctic basin is not 100% because of the Atlantic side. The sun is coming up and is already pushing threw the barents. Of course pattern has played the dominate role in causing the arctic to be this. But it's no surprise that inedc arctic can't recover because it's a perpetuating positive feedback. one way to look at the ice sheet/cold pool is like hurricane injesting dry air. I the past the arctic winter was typically powerful enough to not let these warm air intrusions in at this level and frequency. this prevents a recovery. I wish there was a better way to quantify the changes. Temp wise Don S. Really laid it out well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Poor posts from everyone on both sides except don and rusty. The thread title asks the wrong question. Not sure how responding to whether this winter is a sign of global warming with how sensitive our region is to multi-decadal cycles is poor. It was answering the question with regards to our winters in North America. Going on a tangent about other regions and longer time periods of global temperatures is irrelevant to the thread title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Global temperatures appear to have stabilized over the last 14 years. Interesting chart. I guess if we were warming, we would have been breaking records every year since 97, and we haven't. These last years might wind up being the new average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue sky Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Wxtrix post says it all. I also don't get why all of a sudden natural variance is hushed. So typically this is the cold period. AMO-, PDO-, la nina, solar min going to solar medium. Sea ice is near record lows. the Atlantic side is crippled. Warm gulf stream waters and winds are slamming into the Barents which is still 70% Ice free. The Kara is not iced over completely, the arctic basin is not 100% because of the Atlantic side. The sun is coming up and is already pushing threw the barents. Of course pattern has played the dominate role in causing the arctic to be this. But it's no surprise that inedc arctic can't recover because it's a perpetuating positive feedback. one way to look at the ice sheet/cold pool is like hurricane injesting dry air. I the past the arctic winter was typically powerful enough to not let these warm air intrusions in at this level and frequency. this prevents a recovery. I wish there was a better way to quantify the changes. Temp wise Don S. Really laid it out well Glopal sea ice is not near record lows. Global sea ice is normal. Natural variance was not included in failed Ipcc referenced models. AGW fans had Co2 has king. Now they are talking natural variance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Interesting chart. I guess if we were warming, we would have been breaking records every year since 97, and we haven't. These last years might wind up being the new average. Your assertion that if we were warming we would be breaking records every year (highlighted above) is a strawman argument - one that has been rebutted numerous times. AGW theory has never predicted that warming will be monotonic - with every year warmer than the previous. Natural variability has in the past, and will in the future, be able to swamp the signal of AGW, at least in the short term. But these periodic and quasi-periodic processes can't explain the long-term trend of more than a century of global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Glopal sea ice is not near record lows. Global sea ice is normal. Natural variance was not included in failed Ipcc referenced models. AGW fans had Co2 has king. Now they are talking natural variance? How do you figure that global sea ice is normal? Here is the long-term plot of global sea ice area and anomaly from Cryosphere Today: There is a very strong downward trend.in recent decades. Where are you getting your misinformation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 While this January may only just make the top 10 in Toronto, December and February have warmed substantially in this city over the past 100 years with the top 10 all being in the last 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Glopal sea ice is not near record lows. Global sea ice is normal. Natural variance was not included in failed Ipcc referenced models. AGW fans had Co2 has king. Now they are talking natural variance? I didn't say global sea ice. I said Sea Ice, infering to Arctic Sea Ice. The Sea Ice that matters. You can deflect all you want with strawman about Antarctic Sea Ice being normal or slightly above. But even so, it's affect in AGW warming is much less than the arctic's and much less important to near zero importance with our Winter Weather in the US or Northern Hemisphere at large. Global Sea Ice Area is also -600,000Km2. Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice that affects us is about to be dead last in the next couple of days. And it is also -1,000,000km2 below normal in Area. This is just ludicris. This forum has trumpeted natural variance for years. Now when we are in a extended cold period and all that happens is that temps hang out around all time highs for a little over a decade. Without something preventing it, why on Earth would temps not fall to 1970s levels? 1950s levels?, 1920s levels? OHC is at all time highs, the arctic OHC has rapidly risen the last decade. I have no idea what the IPCC models say. But if they failed, they need to be revamped and updated. This doesn't nessecarily mean the IPCC stuff will work out or that the sea ice will melt out, or that US winters will be dramatically changed. But we have seen the affects of AGW with the changes in extreme cold. So if one accepts the reality of AGW and the reality that there is less cold in the Northern Hemisphere, it will always affect the weather, it just is hard to quantify on a year to year basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Glopal sea ice is not near record lows. Global sea ice is normal. Natural variance was not included in failed Ipcc referenced models. AGW fans had Co2 has king. Now they are talking natural variance? This is simply untrue. The global sea ice just ended a record period of 502 days beneath normal anomaly's according to Cryosphere Today. neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/01/a-negative-year.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Not sure how responding to whether this winter is a sign of global warming with how sensitive our region is to multi-decadal cycles is poor. It was answering the question with regards to our winters in North America. Going on a tangent about other regions and longer time periods of global temperatures is irrelevant to the thread title. The thread title is stupid. Individual events by definition are never a sign of climate change. Climate is the mean and distribution of all events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The thread title is no better than asking whether the lack/surplus of money in my bank account is a sign of the weakness/strength of the U.S. economy. It's a completely illegitimate question and doesn't deserve a yes or a no answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelathos Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 To the original question, that's not even remotely possible. All of AGW is, what, 0.7c? Less than a degree. Now observe the difference between this year and last for a local region: Plants Blooming Early From Unseasonably Warm Weather On this date last year, the Tri-state area was covered with a quarter of an inch of ice and temperatures were in the 20s. But lately we’ve experiencing 50 and 60 degree temperatures and most people aren’t complaining. Point is, this is far beyond the scope of what is claimed. Normal, natural, variances are this dramatic. Weather changes all the time and this is what it looks like. That is the difficulty in dealing with climate, the signal is much smaller and measured over a life time. You cannot know climate by looking out your window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue sky Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 How do you figure that global sea ice is normal? Here is the long-term plot of global sea ice area and anomaly from Cryosphere Today: There is a very strong downward trend.in recent decades. Where are you getting your misinformation? the chart you use shows recent glopal sea ice right at the average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue sky Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I didn't say global sea ice. I said Sea Ice, infering to Arctic Sea Ice. The Sea Ice that matters. You can deflect all you want with strawman about Antarctic Sea Ice being normal or slightly above. But even so, it's affect in AGW warming is much less than the arctic's and much less important to near zero importance with our Winter Weather in the US or Northern Hemisphere at large. Global Sea Ice Area is also -600,000Km2. Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice that affects us is about to be dead last in the next couple of days. And it is also -1,000,000km2 below normal in Area. This is just ludicris. This forum has trumpeted natural variance for years. Now when we are in a extended cold period and all that happens is that temps hang out around all time highs for a little over a decade. Without something preventing it, why on Earth would temps not fall to 1970s levels? 1950s levels?, 1920s levels? OHC is at all time highs, the arctic OHC has rapidly risen the last decade. I have no idea what the IPCC models say. But if they failed, they need to be revamped and updated. This doesn't nessecarily mean the IPCC stuff will work out or that the sea ice will melt out, or that US winters will be dramatically changed. But we have seen the affects of AGW with the changes in extreme cold. So if one accepts the reality of AGW and the reality that there is less cold in the Northern Hemisphere, it will always affect the weather, it just is hard to quantify on a year to year basis. I did know think sea ice means artic sea ice. No sense there. There is plenty cold in the Northern hemisphere...check out Alaska and eastern Europe. The climate models did not forcast natural varience 10-20 years ago. now that those predictions have failed...it's natural varience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I did know think sea ice means artic sea ice. No sense there. There is plenty cold in the Northern hemisphere...check out Alaska and eastern Europe. The climate models did not forcast natural varience 10-20 years ago. now that those predictions have failed...it's natural varience. Which models are you referencing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The thread title is stupid. Individual events by definition are never a sign of climate change. Climate is the mean and distribution of all events. So responding by pointing out our main drivers of temperature is a bad response? I don't get it. Maybe the thread title isn't what you like, but mentioning some important multi-decadal oscillations doesn't seem irrelevant since it drives our weather on a long enough time period to be perceived as climate. Whether you want to argue the semantics of if its actually climate or not is a different argument altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 the chart you use shows recent glopal sea ice right at the average. As others have done you are confusing transient weather events with long-term climate trends. Currently the global sea ice area is about 600K km2 below the average for this date (the full plot is hard to resolve at this scale). Even if a cold period of weather pushes the total over the average for a while that would not be the same as a recovery to historic levels. The areas of sea ice around Europe, Canada and Alaska are included in the Cryosphere Today figures - so there is not any significant area of sea ice unaccounted for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue sky Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 As others have done you are confusing transient weather events with long-term climate trends. Currently the global sea ice area is about 600K km2 below the average for this date (the full plot is hard to resolve at this scale). Even if a cold period of weather pushes the total over the average for a while that would not be the same as a recovery to historic levels. The areas of sea ice around Europe, Canada and Alaska are included in the Cryosphere Today figures - so there is not any significant area of sea ice unaccounted for. Sea ice is normal.....nothing you say changes that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Sea ice is normal.....nothing you say changes that. Why are you doing this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I did know think sea ice means artic sea ice. No sense there. There is plenty cold in the Northern hemisphere...check out Alaska and eastern Europe. The climate models did not forcast natural varience 10-20 years ago. now that those predictions have failed...it's natural varience. Do you mean to say you believe the models predicted the natural variance which has always been a feature of climate was somehow supposed to no longer occur? Think about what you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Sea ice is normal.....nothing you say changes that. It's not what Friv says, its what observations tell us. Arctic sea ice is dramatically depleted in volume and mass. Antarctic sea ice has been expanding due to a freshening of surface waters surrounding the continent as the land based ice increasingly deposits meltwater runoff into the sea. In both cases sea ice has changed compared to decades ago. So, what do you mean by "normal"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 While this year has been similar to 1949-50 and the 1974-75 in Ontario, it must be pointed out that 1949-50 was absolutely frigid in the Canadian prairies, which this year has most certainly not. Winnipeg January 1950: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?timeframe=2&Prov=MB&StationID=3698&dlyRange=1938-01-01|2008-07-24&Year=1950&Month=1&Day=01 Winnipeg January 2012: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?StationID=47407&Month=1&Day=1&Year=2012&timeframe=2 A massive 16 degree celcius difference! The fact is that this winter has been abnormally warm across southern Canada, which 1949-50 was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 While this year has been similar to 1949-50 and the 1974-75 in Ontario, it must be pointed out that 1949-50 was absolutely frigid in the Canadian prairies, which this year has most certainly not. Winnipeg January 1950: http://www.climate.w...&Month=1&Day=01 Winnipeg January 2012: http://www.climate.w...012&timeframe=2 A massive 16 degree celcius difference! The fact is that this winter has been abnormally warm across southern Canada, which 1949-50 was not. Its all about the jet stream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Its all about the jet stream. "It's" always about the jet stream. That's a given. During the ice ages I'm sure there were jet streams within the general circulation of the atmosphere doing much as they do today, only displaced from their current average positions. The dinosaur atmospheric scientists would have been aware of weaker, displaced jet streams back when the global temp was 10C warmer than today. Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 It's not necessarily global warming. If you look at Australia for example, that area is below normal and wetter than normal. Alaska is colder than normal and lots of areas are at -50< which tells me its all normal if averaged out Or Europe the last few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Someone compared what we are seeing to a top that's winding down - the wobbles get more pronounced and further from what had been the norm. Extreme heat, cold, wet, dry - all because we're moving from one more or less stable climate to another. The transition is going to be rough on most - but the destination could be much worse. A few degrees C we can handle, but is there a point of stability centered around 2C warmer than normal? Who knows, 2C might be enough to totally destabilize large quantities of CH4 at present held in hydrates, 2C might be enough to destroy the Arctic ice causing an albedo change that forces temperatures to climb much higher. 2C more may in fact be an impossible point for us to stop at, and at anything above that it's reasonable to expect major problems to affect all of civilization's mechanisms. Romans discovered what happens when you can't feed the people, Easter Islanders when you burned the last fuel and Mayans watched as drought ravished their empire. Mad Max might not be as fanciful as thought. Happy Valentines Day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easternsnowman Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 It seems the east coast US and Canada are warming up faste than most areas, perhaps the warm waters of the atlantic ocean are playing more of a sinificant role then we think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 It seems the east coast US and Canada are warming up faste than most areas, perhaps the warm waters of the atlantic ocean are playing more of a sinificant role then we think. Could be. I got snow today in Cambridge - happiness is!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2104040,00.html Time magazine article asking the same question as this thread: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I guess the Gulf Stream is abnormally north or are those just very warm waters north of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.