El Nino ?

[WXheights]

Ok I see this is Political science not atmospheric. There's entirely too much politics here there everywhere.

 

To be sure what Will and his groupy's need to know from ME - there shall be standards of course. But standards designed to encompass little things like power outages as an example. Disregarding that representation and claiming there only heavy precip events, and heat waves is omission.

 

Like I said before with 0.8C warming and projections of 2 to 5C we are in our infancy in the many things to come. It would be futile to ignore especially by those trained as METS claiming to have absolute answers all of us included.

[WXheights]

I would agree with this part for sure.

 

 

But we don't have that yet...until we can filter out population changes and changes in the surrounding foliage (like a new neighborhood 40 years ago with no trees is now grown in), then saying increased power outages are due to an increase in extreme weather is unsupported scientifically....even if you believe it to be the case.

 

 

I believe climate change change has made New England less likely to be hit by hurricanes compared to the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century....but I cannot prove that scientifically. Even though from a physical standpoint that a more poleward jet makes capturing hurricanes and bringing up the coast less likely might make sense.

Thank you.  I'm interested in your causation unless you are referring to TC geneses shear interaction. I think their is plenty concern of warmer SST's and that new study poleward shift certainly raises issues. But what do you think?

[ORH_wxman]

Thank you.  I'm interested in your causation unless you are referring to TC geneses shear interaction. I think their is plenty concern of warmer SST's and that new study poleward shift certainly raises issues. But what do you think?

 

Warmer SSTs would certainly help maintain TC's a bit further north...however, in order to get TC's hitting New England, we need them to be captured by neg tilted troughs...preferably from the polar jet to expedite their northward progress before recurving.

 

With the polar jet moving poleward (and becoming weaker), it would be more difficult to get deep troughs to capture them.

 

 

This is assuming of course that TC's actually do move poleward in the Atlantic over time...which in the paper linked on the other thread seemed not to be the case as it has been in other ocean basins (for whatever reason).

 

 

 

 

We've seen a decrease in New England hurricanes since the late 19th century-mid 20th century period. But attribution of this decrease is hard to pinpoint. Climate change with the polar jet moving northward is one of my theories...but there's a ton of natural variability in NE hurricanes, so the trend could simply be just that.  

[LakeEffectKing]

Ok I see this is Political science not atmospheric. There's entirely too much politics here there everywhere.

 

To be sure what Will and his groupy's need to know from ME - there shall be standards of course. But standards designed to encompass little things like power outages as an example. Disregarding that representation and claiming there only heavy precip events, and heat waves is omission.

 

Like I said before with 0.8C warming and projections of 2 to 5C we are in our infancy in the many things to come. It would be futile to ignore especially by those trained as METS claiming to have absolute answers all of us included.

 

 

 

 

 

5C by 2100???  (standard end point for warmers)..not buying it...

 

[WXheights]

According to Harold Brooks - maybe a drying out - with variability from year to year, month to month. That latest study indicates interesting uptick of swarms. One thing for sure there's increasing evidence of a northward shift into Canada from the deserts of Texas. I'm interested in data showing what the eastward extent of that northward shift might be and I'm betting its going eastward too though anecdotally.

Tornados are decreasing as of late. Can we attribute a decrease in tornado activity to AGW?

 

 

It doesn't "play well" here, because most of us know better. The whole "crazy weather/Extreme weather" is an alarmist talking point that has no way to miss its mark. Its an all encapsulating set of buzz words to get the general public on board with AGW planning.

[AvantHiatus]

5C by 2100???  (standard end point for warmers)..not buying it...

 

According to that, we warmed 0.6C in the 90's. We could see that rate of warming again, nothing argues against this especially with increasing GHG Forcing and a return of the +PDO, albeit perhaps briefly. We only need to achieve about 1.25C (above baseline) in the next 5 years to be back above model predictions.

[WXheights]

5C by 2100???  (standard end point for warmers)..not buying it...

 

Why would you not buy into it? And for the record before get pummeled here - I really don't know but is it possible? I think maybe.

 

All just for discussion here - Lets say we have 98 Nino and PDO flips positive, we jump some 0.25 in 1-2 years., new baseline El nino declines rinse and repeat a decade or two add clathrates CH4 etc. possible.

[LakeEffectKing]

According to that, we warmed 0.6C in the 90's. We could see that rate of warming again, nothing argues against this especially with increasing GHG Forcing and a return of the +PDO, albeit perhaps briefly. We only need to achieve about 1.25C (above baseline) in the next 5 years to be back above model predictions.

How do you figure?  You're not cherry picking coming out of a La Nina....are you??

[LakeEffectKing]

Why would you not buy into it? And for the record before get pummeled here - I really don't know but is it possible? I think maybe.

 

All just for discussion here - Lets say we have 98 Nino and PDO flips positive, we jump some 0.25 in 1-2 years., new baseline El nino declines rinse and repeat a decade or two add clathrates CH4 etc. possible.

Possible?  Not really.....2 or 3C maybe possible....all the other "favorite" accelerating feedbacks are just more hypothesis (not tested) and is more for scaring people.  The oceans are key here....do they act as a BIG LARGE multi-millenna temp. buffer, or do they quietly hang out and let the atmosphere cook?  I'm betting the former...

[AvantHiatus]

How do you figure?  You're not cherry picking coming out of a La Nina....are you??

Lol, I use that all the time. Was just pointing out that it's somewhat of a mute point to post that. The cherry picking can go both ways I guess. Very short time period to extrapolate from.

[AvantHiatus]

Possible?  Not really.....2 or 3C maybe possible....all the other "favorite" accelerating feedbacks are just more hypothesis (not tested) and is more for scaring people.  The oceans are key here....do they act as a BIG LARGE multi-millenna temp. buffer, or do they quietly hang out and let the atmosphere cook?  I'm betting the former...

Oceans are already reaching the point where they will transition from carbon sinks towards actively releasing carbon. The deep ocean heat content has exploded massively as a result of the string of la ninas and overall time spent at elevated GHG forcings. This may cause an anoxic event eventually, due to O2 depletion at lower depths.

[Jonger]

Why would you not buy into it? And for the record before get pummeled here - I really don't know but is it possible? I think maybe.

 

All just for discussion here - Lets say we have 98 Nino and PDO flips positive, we jump some 0.25 in 1-2 years., new baseline El nino declines rinse and repeat a decade or two add clathrates CH4 etc. possible.

 

The Deus ex mechina of AGW predictions.

[AvantHiatus]

 

 

Permanent El Niño-Like Conditions During the Pliocene Warm Period

1. Michael W. Wara, 
2. Ana Christina Ravelo*, 
3. Margaret L. Delaney
4.  
5.  
6.  

During the warm early Pliocene (∼4.5 to 3.0 million years ago), the most recent interval with a climate warmer than today, the eastern Pacific thermocline was deep and the average west-to-east sea surface temperature difference across the equatorial Pacific was only 1.5 ± 0.9°C, much like it is during a modern El Niño event. Thus, the modern strong sea surface temperature gradient across the equatorial Pacific is not a stable and permanent feature. Sustained El Niño-like conditions, including relatively weak zonal atmospheric (Walker) circulation, could be a consequence of, and play an important role in determining, global warmth.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5735/758.abstract

 

The mid Pliocene warm period is considered a potential analog of future climate. The intensity of the sunlight reaching the earth, the global geography, and carbon dioxide concentrations were similar to present. Furthermore many mid-Pliocene species are extant helping paleotemperature proxiescalibration. Model simulations of mid-Pliocene climate produce warmer conditions at middle and high latitudes, as much as 10–20 °C warmer than today above 70°N. They also indicate little temperature variation in the tropics. Model-based biomes are generally consistent with Pliocene paleobotanical data indicating a northward shift of the Tundra and Taiga and an expansion of Savanna and warm-temperate forest in Africa and Australia.^[1

[LakeEffectKing]

Lol, I use that all the time. Was just pointing out that it's somewhat of a mute point to post that. The cherry picking can go both ways I guess. Very short time period to extrapolate from.

Most in the climate field have pegged a 14-16 year period as significantly long enough to observed and critique the AGW hypothesis....well, the hypothesis before the morphing versions...

[skierinvermont]

Oceans are already reaching the point where they will transition from carbon sinks towards actively releasing carbon. The deep ocean heat content has exploded massively as a result of the string of la ninas and overall time spent at elevated GHG forcings. This may cause an anoxic event eventually, due to O2 depletion at lower depths.

 

This is false. The oceans are currently massive carbon sinks and absorb something like 2/3s of the carbon emitted by humans each year. IIRC they remain net carbon sinks throughout the next 100 years in all AR5 scenarios. This is why ocean pH increases in all scenarios as well - they are continually absorbing more CO2 and becoming more acidic. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

Most in the climate field have pegged a 14-16 year period as significantly long enough to observed and critique the AGW hypothesis....well, the hypothesis before the morphing versions...

That "hiatus" graph is misleading. The climate system is highly non linear, so why should we expect the warming to be linear? If anything we should expect quick jumps, pauses, etc. That's just the way the system behaves..and that will likely never change..

[ORH_wxman]

That "hiatus" graph is misleading. The climate system is highly non linear, so why should we expect the warming to be linear? If anything we should expect quick jumps, pauses, etc. That's just the way the system behaves..and that will likely never change..

 

 

I agree that it is non-linear, but even the most extreme jumps in the observation record (past 120-130 years or so) would not be enough to reconcile a 5C increase in temps by 2100. Those types of numbers are simply becoming more unrealistic the more we learn about transient climate response.

[skierinvermont]

How do you figure?  You're not cherry picking coming out of a La Nina....are you??

 

You mean like you cherry-picked beginning in the strongest El Nino on record?

[nflwxman]

That "hiatus" graph is misleading. The climate system is highly non linear, so why should we expect the warming to be linear? If anything we should expect quick jumps, pauses, etc. That's just the way the system behaves..and that will likely never change..

Thank you.  I wish this was better understood in the skeptic community.  It's maddening explaining this as much as it seems to be needed.  The mid-troposphere is not going to react like the surface either.  

 

It's no wonder many in the scientific community want MEI/ONI to stay positive for few years- to end the "hiatus" charade. 

[nflwxman]

I agree that it is non-linear, but even the most extreme jumps in the observation record (past 120-130 years or so) would not be enough to reconcile a 5C increase in temps by 2100. Those types of numbers are simply becoming more unrealistic the more we learn about transient climate response.

Most median mainstream sources don't really predict about a 5C TCR.  In fact, that's not even in the likely range of possibilities in the IPCC report.  Their have been many that have suggested a 5C long term response though.

[LakeEffectKing]

That "hiatus" graph is misleading. The climate system is highly non linear, so why should we expect the warming to be linear? If anything we should expect quick jumps, pauses, etc. That's just the way the system behaves..and that will likely never change..

The graph is not misleading....it shows what it shows...about 18 years worth of little to no temp increase....far below what was progged by the climatologists at that time....

 

If you'd said in 1996 that global temps would be where they are today....you'd been laughed at and ridiculed...but now it's "misleading", "hiding in the pipeline", "deep ocean hide-a-way", "luck",etc.....

[nflwxman]

The graph is not misleading....it shows what it shows...about 18 years worth of little to no temp increase....far below what was progged by the climatologists at that time....

 

If you'd said in 1996 that global temps would be where they are today....you'd been laughed at and ridiculed...but now it's "misleading", "hiding in the pipeline", "deep ocean hide-a-way", "luck",etc.....

 

The average GISS temperature in 1996 was .32 above the 1950-1980 baseline.  In 2012 it was .56.  That's an increase of 0.24 in 16 years.

[LakeEffectKing]

The average GISS temperature in 1996 was .32 above the 1950-1980 baseline.  In 2012 it was .56.  That's an increase of 0.24 in 16 years.

 

PS. I can't tell if your are trolling...

LOL....trolling.  Even the one's you bow to acknowledge the "pause"....but see what you want to see, and pick points you want to pick, and datasets that fit your bias....not good observation skills.

 

So go back one year when GISS was .42....that's 19 years....am I playing the game right?

[WXheights]

Warmer SSTs would certainly help maintain TC's a bit further north...however, in order to get TC's hitting New England, we need them to be captured by neg tilted troughs...preferably from the polar jet to expedite their northward progress before recurving.

 

With the polar jet moving poleward (and becoming weaker), it would be more difficult to get deep troughs to capture them.

 

 

This is assuming of course that TC's actually do move poleward in the Atlantic over time...which in the paper linked on the other thread seemed not to be the case as it has been in other ocean basins (for whatever reason).

 

 

 

 

We've seen a decrease in New England hurricanes since the late 19th century-mid 20th century period. But attribution of this decrease is hard to pinpoint. Climate change with the polar jet moving northward is one of my theories...but there's a ton of natural variability in NE hurricanes, so the trend could simply be just that.  

I think your logic train on negative tilted troughs is good envisioning in a warmer world, but FV12 slowing meandering jet would overcome this on those occasional alla Sandy - super -NAO/-AO omega blocking. Sandy could be one of those coming attractions if said things line up perfectly. but how often, probably infrequent.

[nflwxman]

LOL....trolling.  Even the one's you bow to acknowledge the "pause"....but see what you want to see, and pick points you want to pick, and datasets that fit your bias....not good observation skills.

 

So go back one year when GISS was .42....that's 19 years....am I playing the game right?

Yep!! Cherry picking is fun.  In all seriousness though, 2012 and 1996 were very similar years for ENSO (which is why I picked them).  Solar was much higher in 1996 though.

[WXheights]

 

So while you may have evidence that this is the case and AGW is causing it (haven't seen that yet), there's a reason it's not a focus of metrics that study extreme weather events.

Yes - but this affects people that notice an increase in extreme weather - broad term connected to CC. I would argue a 7 day long power outage with only 4 inches of wet snow that took out thousands of power lines was extreme. the current metric did not. And these are going up related to a warming shifting climate that certainly affect infrastructure and is NOT covered by the damn metrics presented. 

 

the question becomes are the metrics there to help or to hide?

[CoastalWx]

See you mention extreme in the context of AGW and this what happens. I must have touched a nerve.

 

I don't disagree with your assertion of extreme weather...I disagree with your metric on power companies being a proxy to your conclusion of more extreme events.

 

People have no idea what will happen with the 50s and 60s come roaring back to New England regarding TCs. Then what will be the excuse? I wonder what utiility companies will say then? Afterall, we will eventually get more landfalling TCs in SNE whether climate change effects it or not. 

[AvantHiatus]

I agree that it is non-linear, but even the most extreme jumps in the observation record (past 120-130 years or so) would not be enough to reconcile a 5C increase in temps by 2100. Those types of numbers are simply becoming more unrealistic the more we learn about transient climate response.

I have to reiterate a point I have been pushing for a long time. A 2C rise is enough cause for concern, here is a degree by degree breakdown of the different climate conditions. Not reaching 5C is somewhat irrelevant when discussing mitigation policy.

 

 

 

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/warming_world_final.pdf

[ORH_wxman]

Most median mainstream sources don't really predict about a 5C TCR.  In fact, that's not even in the likely range of possibilities in the IPCC report.  Their have been many that have suggested a 5C long term response though.

 

 

He was responding to a post that said 5C by 2100 was plausible. TCR is likely more in the range of 1.5C....which suggests we might warm another 1-2C by 2100.

 

 

As for a long term response...even the IPCC doesn't put 5C in their wide ECS likely range.

[nflwxman]

He was responding to a post that said 5C by 2100 was plausible.

 

 

As for a long term response...even the IPCC doesn't put 5C in their wide ECS likely range.

Sorry about that. Did not realize that.

 

Regardless a 5 degree TCR seems very very unlikely.  Yes, though the IPCC is pretty conservative on ECS, IMO.  There are a lot of unknowns there (ie. permafrost).