Early discussion Winter 2014/15

[NycStormChaser]

Hey seanick stocks is where I make my money weather is my hobby and passion.

Nice

[PB GFI]

Sure if you start at 1998 (and we still beat that year's heat despite 98 having a Nino from hell.) Are you always this disingenuous or is it only relating to topics where thousands of scientists around the world have devoted decades of work to arrive at a consensus?

Try having an open mind in life when debating there are some very smart people who disagree with the entire assertion  . So much so your side was forced from yelling Global Warming ( and as it paused ) they changed  it to Climate Change ( duh when has it not ) .  

The Science is still being debated and there are peer reviewed papers on both sides that arrive at a different " consensus " .

 

Here are just a few that I assume are  being disingenuous too .

 

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences^[27]
• Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics^[28][29]
• Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg^[30]
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University^[31]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa^[32]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland^[33]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester^[34]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University^[35]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University^[36]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University^[37]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo^[38]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.^[39]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology^[40]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware^[41]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri^[42]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa^[43]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.^[44][45]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.^[46]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University^[48]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University^[49][50]
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo^[51]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia^[52][53][54]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics^[55]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville^[56]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center^[57]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University^[58]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa^[59]

[Cygnus X-1]

Weather models such as the NAM, GFS, ECMWF, CFS etc are tasked with forecasting meteorological events that are dictated by mesoscale anomoalies (shortwaves, etc) that are hard to predict in the long range but have little consequence on the global climate.

 

GCMs on the other hand, are tasked with illustrating how the atmosphere will react to changes in it's composition over a longer period of time. While numerical weather prediction models have little skill beyond 10 days in their forecasting of mesoscale features, GCMs are not attempting to predict at those types of spatial resolutions, making this a true apples to oragnes compairson. A lot of the errors in we see in weather models might impact our predictions of weather, but mean little on how we can predict climate.

 

Once again, this conversation has no place in this forum.

 

LOL, yeah lets not discuss how ridiculous what you're saying  in a weather forum...

All models need DATA...you're suggesting that somehow "global climate models" are empirical  based on WHAT exactly????? But no, we cannot discuss that here, or anywhere...what a joke!

[NycStormChaser]

Weather models such as the NAM, GFS, ECMWF, CFS etc are tasked with forecasting meteorological events that are dictated by mesoscale anomoalies (shortwaves, etc) that are hard to predict in the long range but have little consequence on the global climate.

GCMs on the other hand, are tasked with illustrating how the atmosphere will react to changes in it's composition over a longer period of time. While numerical weather prediction models have little skill beyond 10 days in their forecasting of mesoscale features, GCMs are not attempting to predict at those types of spatial resolutions, making this a true apples to oragnes compairson. A lot of the errors in we see in weather models might impact our predictions of weather, but mean little on how we can predict climate.

Once again, this conversation has no place in this forum.

LOL, yeah lets not discuss how ridiculous what you're saying in a weather forum...

All models need DATA...you're suggesting that somehow "global climate models" are empirical based on WHAT exactly????? But no, we cannot discuss that here, or anywhere...what a joke!

Sigh. We all know climate change is real. Why argue over the little details? Also lets move this to the climate threads.

[easternsnowman]

Hi! My first post, which is not meant to be trollish in any way, but I honestly think those scientists rely on models...they hug them.

 

Not good science, imo.

 

eta: That's one truly "tired Starling"...

My thoughts also and their models have not worked out so far on temperatures.

[Sundog]

PB GFI, when 98 out of 100 doctors tell you you have cancer, do you take the advice of the two who told you you were fine? Do you also paint it as a balanced debate regarding your health? Not a perfect analogy, but a good one.

Having an open mind applies to things that have no basis in science, like accepting interracial or gay marriage. Science is about facts, not opinions.

Anyway I'm not here to argue with you. If we're both here 20 years from now and we haven't broken global temperature records (I think the current record holder is 2010? Something like that) then I'll buy you a full meal at your favorite restaurant

[Sundog]

My thoughts also and their models have not worked out so far on temperatures.

Read Julian's post. The difference between models is great; you might as well compare the GFS to Andianna Lima since they're both models.

[PB GFI]

PB GFI, when 98 out of 100 doctors tell you you have cancer, do you take the advice of the two who told you you were fine? Do you also paint it as a balanced debate regarding your health? Not a perfect analogy, but a good one.

Having an open mind applies to things that have no basis in science, like accepting interracial or gay marriage. Science is about facts, not opinions.

Anyway I'm not here to argue with you. If we're both here 20 years from now and we haven't broken global temperature records (I think the current record holder is 2010? Something like that) then I'll buy you a full meal at your favorite restaurant

Deal only if a little  Petrus is  included .

 

http://www.aabalat.com/stores/item.cfm/storeid/143/lotID/17300121

[Sundog]

Deal only if a little Petrus is included .

http://www.aabalat.com/stores/item.cfm/storeid/143/lotID/17300121

I'm going to have to opt for the table wine

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

Do you guys need a link to the climate change thread?

[Sundog]

Do you guys need a link to the climate change thread?

It's a thread devoted to something that is still 3 months away. I think a little OT discussion can be tolerated.

[NEXtreme]

The so called 97% consensus is 99% sure that they can't reach consensus.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/environment/60331/climate-change-will-scientists-ever-agree-on-global-warming

Global warming theory is easy to understand. If these scientists tell the truth, then $29 billion/year in US climate research funding disappears.

Anyway, Im surprised to learn today that the Arctic is still not ice free, as many predicted for 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014 including politician, Al Gore.

And speaking of winter, Experts now say that global warming makes winters cold. They also say that global cooling makes winters cold. So what makes winters warm?

[Sundog]

The so called 97% consensus is 99% sure that they can't reach consensus.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/environment/60331/climate-change-will-scientists-ever-agree-on-global-warming

Global warming theory is easy to understand. If these scientists tell the truth, then $29 billion/year in US climate research funding disappears.

Anyway, Im surprised to learn today that the Arctic is still not ice free, as many predicted for 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014 including politician, Al Gore.

And speaking of winter, Experts now say that global warming makes winters cold. They also say that global cooling makes winters cold. So what makes winters warm?

I'm pretty sure there's a hell of a lot more money in fossil fuels buddy. All these scientists conspired to get money for research? Lol yea that's a real cash cow let me tell you lol.

You're not an expert as much as you'd like to be. It's amazing how easy it is for people not educated in the field to discount what took decades of research from professionals from all over the world to conclude.

But honestly you can believe what you want. The best part about science is that it doesn't care if you believe in it or not.

Serious question, what would you like to see over the next 10 or 20 years to convince you that global warming is legitimate? Meaning, people are responsible for the vast majority of warming that has and is occurring on Earth?

[NycStormChaser]

Will you be there? http://peoplesclimate.org/march/

[JLPhill]

The so called 97% consensus is 99% sure that they can't reach consensus.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/environment/60331/climate-change-will-scientists-ever-agree-on-global-warming

Global warming theory is easy to understand. If these scientists tell the truth, then $29 billion/year in US climate research funding disappears.

Anyway, Im surprised to learn today that the Arctic is still not ice free, as many predicted for 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014 including politician, Al Gore.

And speaking of winter, Experts now say that global warming makes winters cold. They also say that global cooling makes winters cold. So what makes winters warm?

 

 

I believe research has linked global warming to high latitude blocking, which can result in cold weather across the mid latitudes during the winter months, albeit while the globe overall is warmer than average. This is much different than "global warming making winters cold." Please enlighten me with the studies that support your assertion if it does exist.

[Isotherm]

I don't like when the climate change discussion is painted as having "two sides". You're either pegged as a believer or a denier.

 

The most likely answer in my opinion is that a combination of natural and anthropogenic factors yielded the global temperature rise up until this point. The real debate ongoing in the scientific literature right now is the amount of warming attributed to natural / human causes, potential feedback mechanisms that could counteract warming (e.g., uncertainties with cloud physics and behavior), and the ECS/TCR (how sensitive is the Earth system to Co2 radiative forcing).

 

Many questions will be answered in my mind over the next 10-15 as we begin to see increased forcing from natural cooling factors, thereby helping to reveal approximately how much of this warming is anthropogenic induced and natural.

[Sundog]

I don't like when the climate change discussion is painted as having "two sides". You're either pegged as a believer or a denier.

The most likely answer in my opinion is that a combination of natural and anthropogenic factors yielded the global temperature rise up until this point. The real debate ongoing in the scientific literature right now is the amount of warming attributed to natural / human causes, potential feedback mechanisms that could counteract warming (e.g., uncertainties with cloud physics and behavior), and the ECS/TCR (how sensitive is the Earth system to Co2 radiative forcing).

Many questions will be answered in my mind over the next 10-15 as we begin to see increased forcing from natural cooling factors, thereby helping to reveal approximately how much of this warming is anthropogenic induced.

Isn't it interesting how we've only mustered a "hiatus" even in the face of several climatological forcings being in favor of a cool down? Some of the cooling factors have been in place for a while such as very low solar activity; yet we've broken the global heat record even without a super Nino like we had in 98.

[Isotherm]

Isn't it interesting how we've only mustered a "hiatus" even in the face of several climatological forcings being in favor of a cool down? Some of the cooling factors have been in place for a while such as very low solar activity; yet we've broken the global heat record even without a super Nino like we had in 98.

 

 

 

Well in terms of natural cooling forcings, and this is something discussed in the climate forum, the 1998-2007 period did not feature much of any. The PDO transitioned into its negative phase in late 2007, and solar activity reached a minimum in the 2008-2010 period. There were a few stout MEI spikes as well since 2008, which make this 5 year period different from the last -PDO onset in the mid/late 40s (my most recent post in the climate forum discusses this). I'm of the opinion that we're really just 4-6 years into the transitioning process of natural forcings that would suggest cooling, so it's much too early to say whether they've been muted or not by the anthropogenic forcing.

[Midlo Snow Maker]

Take it to the climate change forum please

[Sundog]

Well in terms of natural cooling forcings, and this is something discussed in the climate forum, the 1998-2007 period did not feature much of any. The PDO transitioned into its negative phase in late 2007, and solar activity reached a minimum in the 2008-2010 period. There were a few stout MEI spikes as well since 2008, which make this 5 year period different from the last -PDO onset in the mid/late 40s (my most recent post in the climate forum discusses this). I'm of the opinion that we're really just 4-6 years into the transitioning process of natural forcings that would suggest cooling, so it's much too early to say whether they've been muted or not by the anthropogenic forcing.

So you would agree that if we don't start to see actual cooling over the next few years that anthropological warming is the majority driver of global warming? Would you agree that at that point even a hiatus is evidence of AGW since temps should be cooling? I consider you a reasonable person regarding this topic even if you're not gung ho on AGW.

[Sundog]

Take it to the climate change forum please

Lets not kill a decent conversation because it's a bit OT for a thread designed for what will happen a quarter of a revolution around the sun from now. It's not like we're preventing legitimate discussion.

[NYC Weather Lover]

Take it to the climate change forum please

agreed, this conversation is not a little off topic, it's turned into a huge conversation, and you guys can easily continue your discussion in that thread. I'm not a moderator, so do what you want, but this is starting to go too far off topic.

[Juliancolton]

agreed, this conversation is not a little off topic, it's turned into a huge conversation, and you guys can easily continue your discussion in that thread. I'm not a moderator, so do what you want, but this is starting to go too far off topic.

You're right; this formidable topic deserves our undivided attention. I'll start.

 

Winter is coming in a few months.

 

Discuss.

[Tekken_Guy]

I just have one thing I want to ask right now. Will our winter be the '13-'14 nightmare again?

[NEG NAO]

I just have one thing I want to ask right now. Will our winter be the '13-'14 nightmare again?

one thing for certain - its going to be difficult to beat last year snowfall totals as many locations in the metro were over 200% of normal - snowfall is very unpredictable around the metro - just look at the wild variations from year to year since records have been kept at NYC

 

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/okx/climate/records/monthseasonsnowfall.html

[Sundog]

one thing for certain - its going to be difficult to beat last year snowfall totals as many locations in the metro were over 200% of normal - snowfall is very unpredictable around the metro - just look at the wild variations from year to year since records have been kept at NYC

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/okx/climate/records/monthseasonsnowfall.html

And anyone making bold calls from September based on the current conditions is doubly foolish, especially SSTs. These are not permanent features. Water can warm up and cool down fairly quickly between now and December in the key areas.

If we still have a ton of warm water south of Alaska at the end of November then I'll feel better about making any kind of probability based forecast in favor or cooler than normal conditions.

But snowfall? That's almost always a crapshoot. Who's to say we can't be cold and dry? That's a dreaded combination that is very possible.

So basically I agree with you. A lot these videos and posts circulating the web/facebook are at best premature and at worst irresponsible/sensationalist nonsense.

[forkyfork]

climate change is off topic? on a weather board?

[NEG NAO]

And anyone making bold calls from September based on the current conditions is doubly foolish, especially SSTs. These are not permanent features. Water can warm up and cool down fairly quickly between now and December in the key areas.

If we still have a ton of warm water south of Alaska at the end of November then I'll feel better about making any kind of probability based forecast in favor or cooler than normal conditions.

But snowfall? That's almost always a crapshoot. Who's to say we can't be cold and dry? That's a dreaded combination that is very possible.

So basically I agree with you. A lot these videos and posts circulating the web/facebook are at best premature and at worst irresponsible/sensationalist nonsense.

 

Also we have to watch the NAO - all of a sudden it has risen to levels not seen in quite some time after being mainly negative since the spring - is this a beginning of the new trend or will we  return to the trend experienced since spring ? This will have an impact on east coast storms this winter - blocking or lack of..?...........

 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao_index.html

[SnoSki14]

I think there's a general rule if I'm not mistaken that either October or November have to be below normal for us to have a colder winter. Didn't 1995-1996 have a really warm October and a very cold November which produced the cold and snowy winter. If both October and November are both above normal then our winter is probably sunk. 

[Juliancolton]

I think there's a general rule if I'm not mistaken that either October or November have to be below normal for us to have a colder winter. Didn't 1995-1996 have a really warm October and a very cold November which produced the cold and snowy winter. If both October and November are both above normal then our winter is probably sunk. 

My understanding is that's baseless superstition with multiple exceptions in the very recent past. Will in the SNE forums has discussed the October–winter rule at lenght I believe, if you're up for some digging.