BethesdaWX Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I very much agree with your argument, Bethesda, that the NY Times article is once again "resetting the goalposts" about the influence of AGW on winter patterns and society. However, I think you do have to be careful not to make absolute statements such as "The Siberian snow cover can't affect the AO/NAO" without investigating the meteorology behind such a phenomenon, as you don't want to oversimplify matters given how complex the atmosphere's interactions are. Here is a good paper: http://journals.amet...EMSO%3E2.0.CO;2 (Gong, Entekahbi, Cohen 2001) Cohen was involved in this paper and it's a good read for sure, although using its conclusions as a basis for making colder/snowier winters compatible with the theory of accelerating AGW is questionable science at best. We were just told several years ago that AGW's principal effect would be on the winter, making it shorter and less severe, so this definitely represents a reversal of the concept without suitable acknowledgment. Also, not discussing fully the most powerful solar minimum in 200 years, given the evidence of what winters were like in N. America and Europe during the Dalton/Maunder, is just inexcusable. They should know better. Of course. I've always accepted the fact that the excess snowcover enhances the -NAO to an extent, and certainly effects temperatures up in that region as well. I'm sure we all agree that the Global pattern currently being effected by the -NAO is not driven by the snowcover... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I very much agree with your argument, Bethesda, that the NY Times article is once again "resetting the goalposts" about the influence of AGW on winter patterns and society. However, I think you do have to be careful not to make absolute statements such as "The Siberian snow cover can't affect the AO/NAO" without investigating the meteorology behind such a phenomenon, as you don't want to oversimplify matters given how complex the atmosphere's interactions are. Here is a good paper: http://journals.amet...EMSO%3E2.0.CO;2 (Gong, Entekahbi, Cohen 2001) Cohen was involved in this paper and it's a good read for sure, although using its conclusions as a basis for making colder/snowier winters compatible with the theory of accelerating AGW is questionable science at best. We were just told several years ago that AGW's principal effect would be on the winter, making it shorter and less severe, so this definitely represents a reversal of the concept without suitable acknowledgment. Also, not discussing fully the most powerful solar minimum in 200 years, given the evidence of what winters were like in N. America and Europe during the Dalton/Maunder, is just inexcusable. They should know better. How can you discuss the current record solar minimum in a paper written in 2001? Time machine? (I assume you are referring to the quoted paper not the NYT since you said 'they' and the NYT article only has one author). Also I know of no evidence that the current solar minimum is what is causing the -NAO. Given the +QBO it should be having the opposite effect. I know that supposedly during the Dalton it was more negative, but that was a much much longer period than what we have experienced. It's not comparable yet.. the recognized effect of a +QBO/solar min should still apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 How can you discuss the current record solar minimum in a paper written in 2001? Time machine? (I assume you are referring to the quoted paper not the NYT since you said 'they' and the NYT article only has one author). Also I know of no evidence that the current solar minimum is what is causing the -NAO. Given the +QBO it should be having the opposite effect. I know that supposedly during the Dalton it was more negative, but that was a much much longer period than what we have experienced. It's not comparable yet.. the recognized effect of a +QBO/solar min should still apply. Are you serious? Solar isn't Causing/contributing to the -NAO.... Even the warmest of the warmists agree solar has an effect under most circumstances. Uhh no skier. The Westerly +QBO would definitely favor the +NAO, and higher snowcover cannot override a westerly QBO. Siberia has winter snowcover every year, & whats going on in the stratosphere is a signal of outside forcings. Are you saying a solar Min Interaction with a +QBO would make the NAO more positive??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 In the 1970s... "Bundle up, it's Global Cooling." Now... "Bundle up, it's Global Warming." How can cold be proof of both Global Cooling and Warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 How can you discuss the current record solar minimum in a paper written in 2001? Time machine? (I assume you are referring to the quoted paper not the NYT since you said 'they' and the NYT article only has one author). Also I know of no evidence that the current solar minimum is what is causing the -NAO. Given the +QBO it should be having the opposite effect. I know that supposedly during the Dalton it was more negative, but that was a much much longer period than what we have experienced. It's not comparable yet.. the recognized effect of a +QBO/solar min should still apply. I was talking about the New York Times article not mentioning the solar minimum seriously....I used "they" meaning the author and its editors who allowed such baloney to be printed, another sign that real journalism is long gone. That was what I meant about using the conclusions of the paper in an erroneous/misleading fashion. I think most forecasters believe the current solar minimum is causing the extreme -NAO...just look at what HM has posted recently about the solar effects, or Isotherm's winter forecast for another good explanation. There's plenty of evidence that a protracted solar minimum causes the Earth's jet stream to get stuck in certain phases; obviously we're not at the length of the Maunder or Dalton yet, but I believe we're starting to see this effect with the NAO basically being stuck in the negative state since Summer 2008. Basically everyone on the board agrees with this, and you'd figure that out quickly if you read some of the pinned threads on the AO etc. If you believe in the HT relationships and the derived idea of +QBO/low solar=+NAO/+AO, how do you explain the record-setting NAO block this winter? We've got a strong Niña and the +QBO/low solar combination, neither of which should support a -NAO. We've got a dead MJO and little tropical forcing in Region 7/8 which helped contribute to last year's big high-latitude blocking. And yet we still have the most extreme NAO block we've ever seen, with England having its coldest December in 100 years of records. So where is this pattern coming from? I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee brotha'. Are you serious? Solar isn't Causing/contributing to the -NAO.... Even the warmest of the warmists agree solar has an effect under most circumstances. Uhh no skier. The Westerly +QBO would definitely favor the +NAO, and higher snowcover cannot override a westerly QBO. Siberia has winter snowcover every year, & whats going on in the stratosphere is a signal of outside forcings. Are you saying a solar Min Interaction with a +QBO would make the NAO more positive??? He is in denial. If solar is proven to have a bigger impact on climate than currently hypothesized, his love for AGW theory may be threatened. Uh oh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandy Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 He is in denial. If solar is proven to have a bigger impact on climate than currently hypothesized, his love for AGW theory may be threatened. Uh oh. I don't see how a strong solar influence refudiates the effect of GHGs. Increased carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere will trap more radiation regardless of how much radiation is coming in. Even if solar is the dominant effect, it doesn't discount the good research of people in the atmospheric chemistry field. It's fair to say that it could invalidate current IPCC predictions, but the science behind GHG forcing is sound. Most folks who are falling in love with the solar influence right now are just as bad as those ten years ago who were saying GHGs are the only forcing. Nothing should be discounted in such an interconnected system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I don't see how a strong solar influence refudiates the effect of GHGs. Increased carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere will trap more radiation regardless of how much radiation is coming in. Even if solar is the dominant effect, it doesn't discount the good research of people in the atmospheric chemistry field. It's fair to say that it could invalidate current IPCC predictions, but the science behind GHG forcing is sound. Most folks who are falling in love with the solar influence right now are just as bad as those ten years ago who were saying GHGs are the only forcing. Nothing should be discounted in such an interconnected system. I'm not saying it repudiates the effects of carbon dioxide on warming the atmosphere; of course, carbon dioxide emissions from humans will remain an important element of our climate for the foreseeable future. I'm just stating that the drastic decrease in solar activity may mean that a grand minimum is approaching, which may invalidate IPCC warming projections as well as the general idea that GHGs are the only significant contributor to world climate which seems to drive people like Al Gore and James Hansen. I think we're on the same page here...the CO2 greenhouse gas hypothesis is solid, but this hypothesis is a small part of a complex climate system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 ...the CO2 greenhouse gas hypothesis is solid, but this hypothesis is a small part of a complex climate system. A more correct way to say this is that the hypothesis of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is well founded, but the actual effect of CO2 on our climate is not. I've noted more than once the non answer when water vapor is brought into discussions. It's like the third rail on a subway line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I was talking about the New York Times article not mentioning the solar minimum seriously....I used "they" meaning the author and its editors who allowed such baloney to be printed, another sign that real journalism is long gone. That was what I meant about using the conclusions of the paper in an erroneous/misleading fashion. I think most forecasters believe the current solar minimum is causing the extreme -NAO...just look at what HM has posted recently about the solar effects, or Isotherm's winter forecast for another good explanation. There's plenty of evidence that a protracted solar minimum causes the Earth's jet stream to get stuck in certain phases; obviously we're not at the length of the Maunder or Dalton yet, but I believe we're starting to see this effect with the NAO basically being stuck in the negative state since Summer 2008. Basically everyone on the board agrees with this, and you'd figure that out quickly if you read some of the pinned threads on the AO etc. If you believe in the HT relationships and the derived idea of +QBO/low solar=+NAO/+AO, how do you explain the record-setting NAO block this winter? We've got a strong Niña and the +QBO/low solar combination, neither of which should support a -NAO. We've got a dead MJO and little tropical forcing in Region 7/8 which helped contribute to last year's big high-latitude blocking. And yet we still have the most extreme NAO block we've ever seen, with England having its coldest December in 100 years of records. So where is this pattern coming from? I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee brotha'. He is in denial. If solar is proven to have a bigger impact on climate than currently hypothesized, his love for AGW theory may be threatened. Uh oh. Yes because one year of data out of 100+ is a good way to formulate conclusions. Again, I would like to see some evidence that the solar minimum is what is causing the -NAO this winter. Previous minimums have not caused -NAOs. From what I understand, the proposed mechanism whereby the Dalton and Maunder caused a -NAO is by weakening the stratospheric vortex. Given that the stratospheric vortex is strong this year, that is obviously not the causal mechanism in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Yes because one year of data out of 100+ is a good way to formulate conclusions. Again, I would like to see some evidence that the solar minimum is what is causing the -NAO this winter. From what I understand, the proposed mechanism whereby the Dalton and Maunder caused a -NAO is by weakening the stratospheric vortex. Given that the stratospheric vortex is strong this year, that is obviously not the causal mechanism in this case. haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandy Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 A more correct way to say this is that the hypothesis of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is well founded, but the actual effect of CO2 on our climate is not. I've noted more than once the non answer when water vapor is brought into discussions. It's like the third rail on a subway line. Water vapor's ultimate full impact (be it positive or negative) is not fully understood, but it is a well known feedback variable in many ways. I don't think it's surprising that CO2 has been focused on more in the past. There's a simple reason for that, humans directly emit CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels. We do not on a large scale directly change the amount of vapor in the atmosphere. Indirectly, sure, but that's harder to pinpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 In the 1970s... "Bundle up, it's Global Cooling." Now... "Bundle up, it's Global Warming." How can cold be proof of both Global Cooling and Warming? I'd like to focus less on media presentations and more on what the scientists are actually saying and thinking. How about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 But why is this NOW only being explained to us??? Maybe, just maybe because it is WHAT is happening?? Did the Inconvienient Truth mention harsher winters? Nope. Only a chance that snowy winters were to end. This on the fly "rule making" by the hypothesis creators/believers is making their hole into a crater, which, at it's base lies quicksand. They can't even admit that their first "thoughts" about how "it" was going to all transpire (shorter, warmer winters) were wrong!! Nope....just readjust their prognostications on a wing and a prayer....throw in some technical wizardry in and hope they can hold their followers, and convince some fence sitters that everything is going according to script.....Pathetic! The reason is simple. This is not about "Global Warming". This is about the environmental movement and political power for the left. This is about undermining corporate America and gaining control of the means of production. This is a continuation of the antibusiness, pro socialist views of the proponents. The Obama Administration is the most anti-business administration in history and this is one of their tools for the redistribution of wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 The reason is simple. This is not about "Global Warming". This is about the environmental movement and political power for the left. This is about undermining corporate America and gaining control of the means of production. This is a continuation of the antibusiness, pro socialist views of the proponents. The Obama Administration is the most anti-business administration in history and this is one of their tools for the redistribution of wealth. Obama wants to control your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I'd like to focus less on media presentations and more on what the scientists are actually saying and thinking. How about you? That depends on who is paying the scientists. In general I place as much 'faith" in their claims as I do those of a Ouija Board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Obama wants to control your mind. Did you ever answer my questions in the other thread? How are you vested in this? How old are you? What do you do for a living? Who pays for your living? And yes, the left wants to determine what I do, how I do it and they especially want to make sure that they have access to what I make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbutts Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 The reason is simple. This is not about "Global Warming". This is about the environmental movement and political power for the left. This is about undermining corporate America and gaining control of the means of production. This is a continuation of the antibusiness, pro socialist views of the proponents. The Obama Administration is the most anti-business administration in history and this is one of their tools for the redistribution of wealth. Belongs in AP.. Obama's/Government agenda has little/nothing to do with this particular disucssion. I think all of us are aware that governments have and will continue to use questionable conclusions about climate change to advance their ends. Note that this thread has posters from both left/right and in-between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 A more correct way to say this is that the hypothesis of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is well founded, but the actual effect of CO2 on our climate is not. I've noted more than once the non answer when water vapor is brought into discussions. It's like the third rail on a subway line. It's simple to understand that to a first order relative humidity is constant. If temperature rises then absolute humidity (water vapor) rises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I'd like to focus less on media presentations and more on what the scientists are actually saying and thinking. How about you? This whole thread is based off of the media. The original article is from the New York Times which is the media, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 It's simple to understand that to a first order relative humidity is constant. If temperature rises then absolute humidity (water vapor) rises. Yes, but why have we seen a drop in cloud cover, and relative humidity? 0.038% of the atmosphere has no WP power over what makes up the majority of our atmosphere (WV), and that control over CO2 levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandy Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 0.038% of the atmosphere has no WP power over what makes up the majority of our atmosphere (WV), and that control over CO2 levels. You've stated this many times, but it is unlikely to be true IMO. Nitrogen is the dominant species in the atmosphere, but N2 is inert, it does little. Similarly, it doesn't matter if WV is by far the main greenhouse gas if it is not forcing the system! It matters for feedbacks, such as the WV-Cloud feedback you mention, but that would be a response to another forcing, be it increasing CO2 and CH4 or solar or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Yes, but why have we seen a drop in cloud cover, and relative humidity? 0.038% of the atmosphere has no WP power over what makes up the majority of our atmosphere (WV), and that control over CO2 levels. Maybe absolute humidity is up? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051109091359.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 This whole thread is based off of the media. The original article is from the New York Times which is the media, is it not? And this is where I am stuck on the fence. I can totally buy into AGW argument until I start seeing scientist waffle. I was just reading a paper from the early 2000's where a scientist said proof of global warming would be when the European continent no longer experienced harsh winters, the growing season would be expanded...etc. And just yesterday I saw the same guy saying the recent cold and snow in Europe is proof of AGW... I mean please stop it. Just say it's natural variability and it will go back to moderate winters in the near future. I can't remember the guys name but I'm sure I could find it with a serious Google session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandy Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 And this is where I am stuck on the fence. I can totally buy into AGW argument until I start seeing scientist waffle. I was just reading a paper from the early 2000's where a scientist said proof of global warming would be when the European continent no longer experienced harsh winters, the growing season would be expanded...etc. And just yesterday I saw the same guy saying the recent cold and snow in Europe is proof of AGW... I mean please stop it. Just say it's natural variability and it will go back to moderate winters in the near future. I can't remember the guys name but I'm sure I could find it with a serious Google session. A warming climate could have unintended side effects like more amplification of weather patterns leading to stronger cold spells (at least before warming overwhelms the signal), so it isn't implausible. But I agree with you that statements such as those are not a good way to build public confidence. I think a lot of the problem stems from the mingling of the scientific community with the public at large. In the atmospheric research community, theories are expected to evolve and those developments are typically welcomed. But the public, understandably, expects consistency in the message if they are to make policy and lifestyle changes. Honestly, if we do indeed continue warming, I have a feeling that by the time the body of evidence becomes irrefutable by even the most ardent skepticists, that we will probably be running low on most fossil fuels anyway (besides perhaps the worst of em, coal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 A warming climate could have unintended side effects like more amplification of weather patterns leading to stronger cold spells (at least before warming overwhelms the signal), so it isn't implausible. But I agree with you that statements such as those are not a good way to build public confidence. I think a lot of the problem stems from the mingling of the scientific community with the public at large. In the atmospheric research community, theories are expected to evolve and those developments are typically welcomed. But the public, understandably, expects consistency in the message if they are to make policy and lifestyle changes. Honestly, if we do indeed continue warming, I have a feeling that by the time the body of evidence becomes irrefutable by even the most ardent skepticists, that we will probably be running low on most fossil fuels anyway (besides perhaps the worst of em, coal). http://www.independe...ast-724017.html However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. I believe that this is the scientist you are refering to. It's amazing how the AGW lovers like this CRU scientist can twist the facts, and abandon old lies for new ones in order to get their grant funding. It's pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandy Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 It's amazing how the AGW lovers like this CRU scientist can twist the facts, and abandon old lies for new ones in order to get their grant funding. It's pathetic. As is cherry-picking and generalizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 You've stated this many times, but it is unlikely to be true IMO. Nitrogen is the dominant species in the atmosphere, but N2 is inert, it does little. Similarly, it doesn't matter if WV is by far the main greenhouse gas if it is not forcing the system! It matters for feedbacks, such as the WV-Cloud feedback you mention, but that would be a response to another forcing, be it increasing CO2 and CH4 or solar or both. Oh....VW does not have an impact on how much CO2 there is? WV can dictate how much CO2 can be present in the atmosphere.....and the changes we've seen have nothing to do with Co2. 0.038% to A vast Majority............the 3% decrease in GCC (whether it be solar, or not) has nothing to do with CO2, l and could easily create 0.7C of warming when occuring at our timescale. More CO2 would argue for higher WV & more GCC, yet we have not seen this............yet the decrease in GCC could be the underlying cause, or at least a major contributer. So, we Have Solar IR, Oceanic Cycles, WV/GCC changes that have nothing to do with CO2, and a Potential, but still unconfirmed GCR relationship with GCC & WV. We know CO2 hasn't caused these decreases, and GCC being a major contributer, the 3% decrease in GCC will outweigh changes in WV that we've seen, because the 3% 3 Value, Forcing wise, is HUGE for what is to be expected. It may not seem large, but it is. Thats the thing, we are not yet sure which way the forcing goes.....but if I had to pick, go with what has more power.... WV is alot more powerful than CO2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Maybe absolute humidity is up? http://www.scienceda...51109091359.htm try posting something legit.....and not 4 paragraph news media story with no raw data or code. Also disagrees with alot of other data. Warming Europe FTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 try posting something legit.....and not 4 paragraph news media story with no raw data or code. Also disagrees with alot of other data. Warming Europe FTW OMG WHERE IS THE CODE?!?! IT"S ALL LIES I TELL YOU!!! LIES!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Oh....VW does not have an impact on how much CO2 there is? WV can dictate how much CO2 can be present in the atmosphere.....and the changes we've seen have nothing to do with Co2. 0.038% to A vast Majority............the 3% decrease in GCC (whether it be solar, or not) has nothing to do with CO2, l and could easily create 0.7C of warming when occuring at our timescale. More CO2 would argue for higher WV & more GCC, yet we have not seen this............yet the decrease in GCC could be the underlying cause, or at least a major contributer. So, we Have Solar IR, Oceanic Cycles, WV/GCC changes that have nothing to do with CO2, and a Potential, but still unconfirmed GCR relationship with GCC & WV. We know CO2 hasn't caused these decreases, and GCC being a major contributer, the 3% decrease in GCC will outweigh changes in WV that we've seen, because the 3% 3 Value, Forcing wise, is HUGE for what is to be expected. It may not seem large, but it is. Thats the thing, we are not yet sure which way the forcing goes.....but if I had to pick, go with what has more power.... WV is alot more powerful than CO2. this post is essentially gobbledygook. learn to write and think coherently if you want to communicate with other human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.