Climate Change Banter

[forkyfork]

at least 28 people in the hiatus poll thread are going to be off by decades. lol

[AvantHiatus]

This is simply what occurs in a classic Niño split flow pattern.

Why hasn't it happened in the 20th century ninos? Don't be a denier, there is an AGW component here. The percentage is hard to quantify.

 

I would believe you but the difference is way more than one decimal place.

[ORH_wxman]

Why hasn't it happened in the 20th century ninos? Don't be a denier, there is an AGW component here. The percentage is hard to quantify.

 

I would believe you but the difference is way more than one decimal place.

 

 

The difference between May 2015 and May 1957 was 0.12"....4.36" to 4.24". That is a 2.8% increase over the previous record. The water holding capacity of the atmosphere increases about 7% per 1 degree celsius of warming. Considering the U.S. is roughly a half degree celsius warmer than the late 1950s, that would mean a general 3.5% increase...so it's not too far off from the 2.8% actual difference calculated above. 

 

 

So yeah, very similar stuff happened before, but just a smidge less. We'd expect them to increase slightly in the future as we warm too. But there's a big difference in blaming all these events on AGW and attributing only a small portion. 

[stadiumwave]

The difference between May 2015 and May 1957 was 0.12"....4.36" to 4.24". That is a 2.8% increase over the previous record. The water holding capacity of the atmosphere increases about 7% per 1 degree celsius of warming. Considering the U.S. is roughly a half degree celsius warmer than the late 1950s, that would mean a general 3.5% increase...so it's not too far off from the 2.8% actual difference calculated above.

So yeah, very similar stuff happened before, but just a smidge less. We'd expect them to increase slightly in the future as we warm too. But there's a big difference in blaming all these events on AGW and attributing only a small portion.

Wonderful post!!

I'm not a denier in any shape form or fashion but the exaggerated hyperbole by some with every event is just nauseating. Not much of a difference...certainly no concern with that component.

[WinterWxLuvr]

WeatherBoy007 keeps putting marks on the wall and ORH keeps painting the wall. Fun to watch the slapdowns.

[AvantHiatus]

WeatherBoy007 keeps putting marks on the wall and ORH keeps painting the wall. Fun to watch the slapdowns.

62' was a bad year.

[AvantHiatus]

ORH, the difference between the May average among 2015 and 1957 is minor. You need to look at the individual events, which were extreme in their own right. The monthly average was toned down by the drier east and west with the majority of the wet record on the 'backs of the Midwest.

[CoastalWx]

ORH, the difference between the May average among 2015 and 1957 is minor. You need to look at the individual events, which were extreme in their own right. The monthly average was toned down by the drier east and west with the majority of the wet record on the 'backs of the Midwest.

We haven't seen many of these Ninos this strong and having this much of an influence on the pattern, so sample size is small. It's a classic split flow pattern that is ripe to produce heavy rain. To blame this on AGW is simply irresponsible. Of course the world has warmed, but attribution to AGW with this specific event is pretty much useless. Split flow Patterns are stubborn to break. The same split flow pattern produced a warm and dry east and far NW.

[The_Global_Warmer]

at least 28 people in the hiatus poll thread are going to be off by decades. lol

To be fair. In a way it's kinda b like people like myself who expected the -NAO JJA to be consistent and the ice to only see what you want to see or what held verify the result you expect.

Granted the evidence for a hiatus to last to 2030 or longer doesn't exist.

But folks got used to it and for some it verified the result they expected or wanted to happen.

Its been proven part of the slow down is some change in the SH oceans.

The ssts are record low around the SP.

But OHC further down started to rapidly climb.

Its even effecting glacial outlets from below.

But it's also theorized that some of that stored heat is riding a train back to the Indian ocean South of Australia as well as towards the equatorial Pacific. Well see.

But the "hiatus" is over.

[AvantHiatus]

To be fair. In a way it's kinda b like people like myself who expected the -NAO JJA to be consistent and the ice to only see what you want to see or what held verify the result you expect.

Granted the evidence for a hiatus to last to 2030 or longer doesn't exist.

But folks got used to it and for some it verified the result they expected or wanted to happen.

Its been proven part of the slow down is some change in the SH oceans.

The ssts are record low around the SP.

But OHC further down started to rapidly climb.

Its even effecting glacial outlets from below.

But it's also theorized that some of that stored heat is riding a train back to the Indian ocean South of Australia as well as towards the equatorial Pacific. Well see.

But the "hiatus" is over.

My prediction was not based on what I wanted to happen. For the record. I'm kind of disappointed that you did tho. The end of the hiatus was staring us in the face as early as 2013 with the warming trend without el nino processes and the on-going OHC increase.

[stadiumwave]

To be fair. In a way it's kinda b like people like myself who expected the -NAO JJA to be consistent and the ice to only see what you want to see or what held verify the result you expect.

Granted the evidence for a hiatus to last to 2030 or longer doesn't exist.

But folks got used to it and for some it verified the result they expected or wanted to happen.

Its been proven part of the slow down is some change in the SH oceans.

The ssts are record low around the SP.

But OHC further down started to rapidly climb.

Its even effecting glacial outlets from below.

But it's also theorized that some of that stored heat is riding a train back to the Indian ocean South of Australia as well as towards the equatorial Pacific. Well see.

But the "hiatus" is over.

To be honest...predicting the hiatus is over is way premature. What happens after this El Nino in the next few years will determine whether the hiatus is over.

[nflwxman]

To be honest...predicting the hiatus is over is way premature. What happens after this El Nino in the next few years will determine whether the hiatus is over.[/quote

It's over. There OHC is rapidly rising at 0-700. Even if we Descend back into La Niña, the imbalance is too high

For the surface not to respond.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The "hiatus" never had anything to do with OHC, and it's pretty obvious where the heat was/is going.

Energy flows from the atmosphere/sea surface boundary into the deeper oceans via diffusion and kinematic transport. The amount of heat transported to depth is kept in equilibrium by surface winds, which govern both the evaporative cooling process at the sea surface, and vertical overturning within the upper ocean mixing layer(s). When surface winds slow, as they have, the evaporative process will slow at the sea surface, warming the upper oceans as less thermal energy is converted into latent form and released in the upper troposphere. This spikes OHC and warms the planetary surface.

This is the mechanism behind the warming at the surface/oceans, and the absence of warming in the lower troposphere for the last 15 years.

[chrisf97212]

Now I'm even more confused....
 
It was just a few years ago that strong trades were blamed for the hiatus, as they transported surface heat down below.  Now weaker winds are also causing the ocean to warm, via less mixing and evaporating.  By the way, how long does it take heat to transport down 700 meters?  It seems like the top 50 meters would be a much better way to measure how much heat the ocean is taking up.
 
As long as I'm asking questions that no one will answer...
Weren't the higher SST's supposed to be caused by broad Hadley cells and reduced cloud coverage?

There are 3886 free drifting floats around the world.  The oceans are 139 millions square miles.  This gives us a float on average of every 35,000 square miles.  Is there also satellite data to measure SST?

[ORH_wxman]

Now I'm even more confused....

 

It was just a few years ago that strong trades were blamed for the hiatus, as they transported surface heat down below.  Now weaker winds are also causing the ocean to warm, via less mixing and evaporating.  By the way, how long does it take heat to transport down 700 meters?  It seems like the top 50 meters would be a much better way to measure how much heat the ocean is taking up.

 

As long as I'm asking questions that no one will answer...

Weren't the higher SST's supposed to be caused by broad Hadley cells and reduced cloud coverage?

There are 3886 free drifting floats around the world.  The oceans are 139 millions square miles.  This gives us a float on average of every 35,000 square miles.  Is there also satellite data to measure SST?

 

 

Yes. NCDC got rid of their satellite component to the data a few years ago on their SSTs. I know HadSST still uses it to help infill sparse regions. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Now I'm even more confused....

It was just a few years ago that strong trades were blamed for the hiatus, as they transported surface heat down below. Now weaker winds are also causing the ocean to warm, via less mixing and evaporating. By the way, how long does it take heat to transport down 700 meters? It seems like the top 50 meters would be a much better way to measure how much heat the ocean is taking up.

As long as I'm asking questions that no one will answer...

Weren't the higher SST's supposed to be caused by broad Hadley cells and reduced cloud coverage?

There are 3886 free drifting floats around the world. The oceans are 139 millions square miles. This gives us a float on average of every 35,000 square miles. Is there also satellite data to measure SST?

Every 35k sq/mi is more than enough to measure OHC.

The infilling is likely extremely accurate near surface dropping with depth and low coverage.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

things being different 20 years ago to now :

 

Every spring and summer :  there'd be warm spells for 3 to 5 days ...followed a cold front (and thunderstorms) to cool things down for a few days...along with lower humidity.  Things are just more erratic these days...across the whole globe.      The observations by Weatherguy (or whatever his name is now)  of weather currents slowing down is an interesting one.  As the amount of training of storms , and slower moving bigger storms seems to be increasing.  Bigger winter storms even.  (for the snow geese out there) 

 

Even with the arctic, getting these very warm pushes at times aren't the norm. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Let us know when "about to" turns to actually happening. Comical how certain posters ONLY show up when big melting is occurring, or when "something about to/in 7 days/ lets show hour 384 GFS to prove our point" is maybe going to occur LOL. Try a bit harder to hide your ridiculous bias man/women/ no actual education about said subject other than climate of gavin.

So whos 2nd or 3rd account is this ?

Any guesses

[stadiumwave]

So whos 2nd or 3rd account is this ?

Any guesses

I'm not as familiar with all the posters...so who is it?

[Jonger]

10 year USCRN data for the US.

 

Adjustment free - no bias data.

 

I thought it was interesting to see that its been out for 10 years now.

 

[nflwxman]

10 year USCRN data for the US.

 

Adjustment free - no bias data.

 

I thought it was interesting to see that its been out for 10 years now.

 

 

This matches up very well with GISS and NCDC data.  The US has seen very cold weather the last 2-3 years.  No surprise there was no rise in the temperature  The US is 1.9% of the world's surface area.

[AvantHiatus]

Both globals show GIS ridging and WAA steadily increasing

[AvantHiatus]

Please stay out of this thread if all you are going to do is spout nonesense. It is starting to get old.

 

"we must keep the train going from 2013, no set backs"....what does that even mean? And how is it relevant to an interpretation of the long range Euro?

I don't take lectures from an incompetent moderator. Don't do what every other person did in a position of leadership, which was to provide climate change with a false balance. I don't want to be affiliated with alarmism anymore, it hasn't done me any favors for sure.

 

The trouble now is convincing others that I 100% objectively think the Arctic is doing poorly this melt season and that there is much at stake for this year in particular. A ice free September before 2020 is possible if the pivotal melt season of 2015 fails to stabilize.

 

Let's assume that every year in the Arctic will be at least 0.1C warmer every year going forward during the melt season, that means every consecutive season will need 350km2+ (placeholder value) volume to remain in the same state every summer. This has been my argument from the beginning but it was derailed by the unusual conditions present in the 2013/2014 melt seasons. A status quo arctic summer is now equivalent to summer 2010 when we remove all the natural variability signals. 

 

You should be able to figure it out ORH. The years of research papers and Bluewave posts have provided us with enough knowledge of the Arctic so that we may extrapolate successfully.

 

My next goal is to discover a link between the cold summers of 2013 and 2014 and the Pacific 'Blob' in the Gulf of Alaska, because there is obviously a connection there. Again, the cold summers would of been a product of AGW and not natural variability.

[ORH_wxman]

Regardless of what you think of my moderating skills (which I hardly ever use in this forum, so I'm not sure how you could have such a strong opinion of them)....you post garbage in the arctic sea ice thread 9 times out of 10.

 

 

Why on earth would you assume every year in the arctic is 0.1C warmer than the previous one?

 

We've discussed the state of the arctic numerous times. We posted a pretty useful paper (and reposted it since) a few years ago...the Tiestche et al paper in 2011....it showed how there's no "tipping point" if you get an extremely low extent/volume one year. The winter rebuilds the volume...it's too cold in the winter. 2012 is a living example of this...perfect timing....right after the paper was published. So many assumed that 2012 was the springboard for an ice free arctic. But it wasn't because we rebuilt volume in the winter and then didn't have another horrific pattern. So the ice recovered somewhat.

[AvantHiatus]

 

Fair enough. This goes back to our argument about PIOMAS vs HYCOM. Clearly 2014 was not the game-changer everyone thought it was, just like 2012. The coming el nino heatwave will surely make the Arctic warmer next year. The overall big picture is down.

 

I have no compassion for those who cannot see it, this subject deals with some every important issues in how we run our lives and how we adapt/mitigate AGW. Please take care, this is like political correctness on steroids.

 

All of the papers about polar amplification are irrelevant to you it seems. We don't have enough meltwater injection to overcome that signal. If global temperatures warm, Arctic temperatures will warm much faster, albeit with a 1-2 year delay at times in either the warm or cold direction. We can say with confidence that the latter portions of this decade will be warmer than 2012 in the Arctic because the hiatus has ended. 

 

Tiestche el al 2011 was not a hollistic paper, and thus is not useful in projecting future conditions. 

 

The 0.1C+ warming was just hypothetical FWIW. I don't know the exact values going forward.

[ORH_wxman]

Fair enough. This goes back to our argument about PIOMAS vs HYCOM. Clearly 2014 was not the game-changer everyone thought it was, just like 2012. The coming el nino heatwave will surely make the Arctic warmer next year. The overall big picture is down.

 

I have no compassion for those who cannot see it, this subject deals with some every important issues in how we run our lives and how we adapt/mitigate AGW. Please take care, this is like political correctness on steroids.

 

All of the papers about polar amplification are irrelevant to you it seems. We don't have enough meltwater injection to overcome that signal. If global temperatures warm, Arctic temperatures will warm much faster, albeit with a 1-2 year delay at times in either the warm or cold direction. We can say with confidence that the latter portions of this decade will be warmer than 2012 in the Arctic because the hiatus has ended. 

 

Tiestche el al 2011 was not a hollistic paper, and thus is not useful in projecting future conditions. 

 

The 0.1C+ warming was just hypothetical FWIW. I don't know the exact values going forward.

 

 

Tiestche et al 2011 actually assumed an ice free arctic in mid-21st century...so even WARMER conditions than now.

 

 

Arctic amplification is irrelevant to tipping points in the arctic sea ice unless you can show that all of the sudden the arctic itself becomes massively warmer in one year due to an ice free arctic. The Tiestche paper showed this wasnt the case because much of the heat accumulated in the open water in the summer is then lost back to space when the sun sets.

 

 

Without some mechanism to keep the heat in, the volume loss will decrease methodically with temperature increase (with variations in between of course)...it doesn't just dive off a cliff in tippuing point fashion like many tried to claim back a few years ago.

 

 

Additionally, it was argued by some that the 2005-2012 period had accelerated because of natural variation enhancing the warmth in the arctic, not because of a tipping point or some monster arctic amplifcation that we couldn't explain. The last few years has strengthened that argument that it was aided by natural variabilibilty. Therefore, it is not a shock when there is some rebound in volume because the arctic sees a naturally colder pattern for a few years.

[AvantHiatus]

Tiestche et al 2011 actually assumed an ice free arctic in mid-21st century...so even WARMER conditions than now.

 

 

Arctic amplification is irrelevant to tipping points in the arctic sea ice unless you can show that all of the sudden the arctic itself becomes massively warmer in one year due to an ice free arctic. The Tiestche paper showed this wasnt the case because much of the heat accumulated in the open water in the summer is then lost back to space when the sun sets.

 

 

Without some mechanism to keep the heat in, the volume loss will decrease methodically with temperature increase (with variations in between of course)...it doesn't just dive off a cliff in tippuing point fashion like many tried to claim back a few years ago.

 

 

Additionally, it was argued by some that the 2005-2012 period had accelerated because of natural variation enhancing the warmth in the arctic, not because of a tipping point or some monster arctic amplifcation that we couldn't explain. The last few years has strengthened that argument that it was aided by natural variabilibilty. Therefore, it is not a shock when there is some rebound in volume because the arctic sees a naturally colder pattern for a few years.

Is all the summer accumulated OHC really lost to space? What about the thermal energy that becomes trapped underneath the ice? Additionally, doesn't less albedo act as a positive feedback in warming the Arctic, albeit it may be as influential as the overall pattern drivers, at least during this decade.

 

We need to keep in mind how effective water is at storing heat for long periods. Having the ice start from a poorer state than 2012 is a negative influence in many ways. We need to place this into context. For example, what if we had a 2010 summer after 2012? I think the effects of arctic tipping points would of been more obvious. Agreed? We would have ended with a September volume much less than 2010 and 2012.

 

2013 was so anomalous in context that it overcame the tipping point signal. It's really that simple. We have Paleo backing this up strongly as well. You need multiple 2012's to really set the tipping points into motion for sure.

[ORH_wxman]

Is all the summer accumulated OHC really lost to space? What about the thermal energy that becomes trapped underneath the ice? Additionally, doesn't less albedo act as a positive feedback in warming the Arctic, albeit it may be as influential as the overall pattern drivers, at least during this decade.

 

We need to keep in mind how effective water is at storing heat for long periods. Having the ice start from a poorer state than 2012 is a negative influence in many ways. We need to place this into context. For example, what if we had a 2010 summer after 2012? I think the effects of arctic tipping points would of been more obvious. Agreed? We would have ended with a September volume much less than 2010 and 2012.

 

2013 was so anomalous in context that it overcame the tipping point signal. It's really that simple. We have Paleo backing this up strongly as well. You need multiple 2012's to really set the tipping points into motion for sure.

 

 

 

Well you need the water to shed the excess heat before ice freezes in the autumn...at least a monster majority of it. Open water sheds heat much faster than ice covered water...so the ice free arctic is actually more efficient at releasing the heat back into space.

 

We really need to warm to the point where thermodynamic thickening in winter is severely hindered....we haven't reached that point. Probably not for several decades. That doesn't mean we can't get an ice-free minimum before that...we can....but conditions would have to be perfect. Like another string of severe dipole summers with maybe an unusually warm winter or two in there as well. Otherwise, we get another 2012 situation where an ice free arctic (or nearly ice free) "recovers" back to a base state that is higher as thermodynamic thickening in the winter rebuilds much of the lost volume.

[AvantHiatus]

The Arctic is also a cloudy place, which aids in the heat retention mechanism. Albeit these same signals can boost snowfall growth untill we enter into a Pliocene-like Arctic state.

 

 

^Agreed.

[chrisf97212]

I don't take lectures from an incompetent moderator.

 

That's out of line.