Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

Geeez give it a rest.......AGW destabilizes the Arctic weather patterns....it does not "cause" cold winters over continents.

It's been explained ad nauseum that some are too blinkered to understand it, is their problem.

Warm Arctic, Cold Continents
Changes in the Arctic Are Hitting Closer to Home

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/images/arctic_atmosphere_december_300.png
The low Arctic pressure field is shown by purple colors in the figure for December 1968–1996. Strong Polar Vortex winds circle this pressure field, trapping cold air in the Arctic regions. In December 2009, this pattern broke down, Polar Vortex winds weakened (green colors) and cold Arctic air (which parallels the color contours) flowed southward.
Download here. (Credit: NOAA)
It’s a puzzle: How could warmth in the Arctic produce frigid conditions elsewhere?

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/warmarctic.html

anyone care to count how many times this has been posted in this thread...?

 

[lomiller]

Read the. Results and discussion section carefully. Then read it again, Then read the last part again.

As previously explained to you, this paper is suggesting a mechanism by which global warming can cause an increase in extreme cold weather events.

It's basic premiss is that the world is warming. so it clearly does not support you contention that there is cooling.

It's very existence disproves your contention climate science can't explain the types of events it discusses.

Again, you were already informed of this, why do you keep wasting our time referencing it and misrepresenting it's contents?

 

[lomiller]

Interesting, that some sections of the Canadian and Eurasian boreal forest regions are experiencing episodically cool periods over the last couple of decades due to warmer, wetter air masses dropping large amounts of snow. Yes, that is an interesting phenomena. I see nothing that refutes or claims to refute any major aspect of modern climate change understandings:



These researchers acknowledge the key aspect which GHG warming predicts, namely: "annual-mean NH temperatures have increased," They find the regional and sporadic seasonal cooling to be curious, and seek an explanation for that phenomenon.



They identify which regions seem most impacted and when the impacts seem to occur, While noting that these cooling trends are completely offset by warming in the other NH regions during these episodes.



Here they identify a mechanism that may explain this anomaly and the shortcoming in the coupled models that do not account for this increased regional snow cover or the impacts it has on surface temperature in those regions.

And their concluding statement which is pretty much a summation that restates that which I've stated above:



Good for them! The more the models can be tweaked to make them better reflect the reality they model the more accurate and refined our understanding of climate variables and factors.

Good analysis.

Worth noting is that they used the HadCRU data-set, but this doesn't cover the polar regions and therefor doesn't paint a complete picture of what these events look like

 

[macdoc]

r-j

I think I will listen to NASA and NOAA and those sort of sources, not you.

That is clearly not the case since the NOAA analysis of Warm Oceans Cold Continents has been posted innumerable times and you still babble on about cold winters ignoring their easily understood explanation for cold weather events in favor of some nonsense of your own devising.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Geeez give it a rest.......AGW destabilizes the Arctic weather patterns....it does not "cause" cold winters over continents.

Oops, I should have said "produce" instead of "cause"

ETA: At least I am in good company! From your repeatedly posted NOAA link:

How could warmth in the Arctic produce frigid conditions elsewhere?

Extremely cold winds have swept down through the Northern Hemisphere recently, reaching as far south as the state of Florida and causing record low temperatures in January.

Excuse me for thinking they were interchangeable.

 

[a_unique_person]

But the predictions issue arose because I brought up the issue of the cooling NH winters, which seemed appropriate last winter, since it was in the middle of a very unusually cold and snowy winter.

This one is looking a lot worse, for some areas. Yes, Australia is cooking, but that doesn't change the NH winter trend. Which is not what the models (which are based on the theory) predicted. Not at all.

And that change in climate, is something important and dangerous. Not in 50 years, but now. If we are actually causing the winters to become worse, this is important to know.

The denial over the winters is eroding, because the data shows it clearly

"The prediction"? You made up predictions. Read the AR4 and at least try to understand it.

The climate models do not, cannot, and have never been said to predict year to year weather for particular countries.

The fact is, over 'climate' time, high temperature records outnumber low temperature records. "Climate time" is thirty years. One year does not make any sort of a trend.

http://www.weather.com/news/science...ds-beat-warm-records-first-time-1993-20131203

Last year was unusual because it was so long since cold weather records outnumbered hot weather records. That's a sign to me that the long term, it's getting hotter.

 

[Trakar]

Good analysis.

Reading for comprehension really isn't that difficult, with enough practice.

Worth noting is that they used the HadCRU data-set, but this doesn't cover the polar regions and therefor doesn't paint a complete picture of what these events look like

I noticed the CRUTEMP3 designation but to be honest, I did not connect it when I saw it with the HADCRU datasets and their coverage issues. If they were actually missing much of the arctic temperature data over areas we know are much warmer than the 20th century average, it should call into question the "neutrality" of the overall NH these researchers noted, it may well be that these cooler regions were actually more than offset by warmer than 20th century norm conditions in the rest of the NH regions.

 

[macdoc]

Last year was unusual because it was so long since cold weather records outnumbered hot weather records. That's a sign to me that the long term, it's getting hotter.

and more extreme. Night time temperature trends are the ones to watch tho - rather than absolute records.

more than offset by warmer than 20th century norm conditions in the rest of the NH regions.

Like Sweden this year with daffodils in December at latitude 61 north.

Nowhere is thought to have witnessed faster change than Nikkaluokta, a small Lapland village above the Arctic circle in northern Sweden. On 3 December, it was enjoying an unseasonally warm 4.7C. Within a few days, the temperature had dropped to a bone-chilling -40.8C (-41.4F) but on 10 December it rose again in just a few hours to a balmy 7.7C. The 48.5C rise in under 48 hours is one of the greatest ever recorded and is comparable to the world's fastest-temperature rise: 27C in just two minutes in Spearfish, South Dakota back in 1943.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/18/2013-extreme-weather-events

 

[a_unique_person]

Reading for comprehension really isn't that difficult, with enough practice.



I noticed the CRUTEMP3 designation but to be honest, I did not connect it when I saw it with the HADCRU datasets and their coverage issues. If they were actually missing much of the arctic temperature data over areas we know are much warmer than the 20th century average, it should call into question the "neutrality" of the overall NH these researchers noted, it may well be that these cooler regions were actually more than offset by warmer than 20th century norm conditions in the rest of the NH regions.

CRUTEMP 4 is supposed to address that missing data to an extent.

 

[Trakar]

CRUTEMP 4 is supposed to address that missing data to an extent.

Oh, I don't fault HADCRU datasets for omitting the polar data, it isn't a well covered area as far as surface stations go, but it is nice to know that they are always striving to improve and enhance their data collection and analysis.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh, I don't fault HADCRU datasets for omitting the polar data, it isn't a well covered area as far as surface stations go, but it is nice to know that they are always striving to improve and enhance their data collection and analysis.

That's what scientists, do, isn't it? For a while there when the satellite temperature record was reading low, it was the temperature record of choice for deniers. Bob Carter, for example, referred to it as being 'pristine' and unsullied like the surface temperature records.

 

[a_unique_person]

There is also this parallel research to fill in the gaps.

A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared.
Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve.
But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.
The “Arctic hole” is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all.
A new gap filler
Now Kevin Cowtan (University of York) and Robert Way (University of Ottawa) have developed a new method to fill the data gaps using satellite data.
- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-by-half/comment-page-2/#sthash.aF6zR91k.dpuf

 

[Corsair 115]

There is also this parallel research to fill in the gaps ...

Pffft! Just more socialist propaganda to do something... well, bad, to the United States. I mean, look at those sources. British and Canadian?!? Socialist countries, both of 'em! They have *shudder* universal health care!

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=385

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/31/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-three/

Now there is an interesting point, and it ties in with why this entire side conversation about what "AGW theory" means is important. If you talk about "global warming theory", but are only talking about the physics of CO2, and the other trace gases that act as greenhouse gases, ozone and methane and CfCs, you are leaving out key parts of the theory of global warming, which involve feedbacks, and an increased hydrological cycle, as well as albedo changes and land use changes, it's not this simplistic "CO2 makes it hotter and it's a fact" nonsense some people want you to believe.

And of course, the really big issue, clouds. Because when water vapor increases, it can mean changes in cloudiness, and there is no doubt at all that cloudiness effects the climate. Or lack of clouds, that really can effect the climate.

You completely missed what you quoted. The theory of greenhouse gases, fits the defintion of a theory, it is well understood and predictable. It is not the "theory" of AGW, for several reasons, some of which I have already explained. We haven't done AGW before, for example, we don't have spare planets in the lab to run repeatable tests on. The issue of water vapour and clouds are discussed in the AR4. Have you read it yet? I provided a link.

 

[Haig]

No pause there, in reality an uptick as more is pulled into the ocean depths. WHile the "pause" may be natural in the sense of the ocean interchange, the heat it's pulling down primarily a result of burning of fossil fuels.

Sure there is Nature says there is a pause and it's Nature causing it in the form of ocean cycles. Maybe you think the journal Nature is a denier

It's plain wrong to blame the deep oceans for taking the supposed missing heat, you may as well blame the weakening Sun

Bob Tisdale take a bow. The journal Nature says Nature might have something to do with the pause, they must have been following your work.
You just need to ‘discover’ why the heat is ‘being hid’ in the Ocean depths, where apparently the water gets colder as you dive deeper – except for the cagw ‘models’
Trenberth’s main paper on oceans
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full
in its main figure, Figure 1,shows EXACTLY the same ocean warming slope for 1983-1991, when the atmospheric temps were going up, as for 2000-2008, when the atmospheric temps were NOT going up.

After 2008, the ocean warming SLOWS DOWN. So the idea that oceans compensate for lack of atmospheric warming is total nonsense.

Look at their PDO chart and see that the ocean controls the global temperature. What is so hard about that? From 1975-1998 we had warming with positive PDO, and it’s been neutral since with no warming. Prior to 1975 we had cooler temperatures with a negative PDO.

Natural Variation IS the simplest explanation. The AGWs are attempting to say there is NO natural variation.

No mention that the sun is 10 years into performing the perfect natural experiment for distinguishing solar-driven from CO2-driven warming, and that the “hiatus” is strong evidence for the solar theory Natural variability is a 2-edged sword. If it can stop warming, it can also cause warming

Welcome to the natural variability world. The simplest explanation for the 1980-1998 warming is natural variability

If you accept a PDO influence, then 1912-1976 becomes indistinguishable from 1976-now. Where is there room for a significant CO2 influence?

 

[Haig]

Other than an exercise in pretty formatting and a display of ignorance (that climate models do not just include CO2, that the GW from those modes does not just include CO2)

I get it!! It all makes sense now. When there is cooling or a ‘pause’ it’s completely natural, but when its warming, its man made CO2 ..

But wait ...

Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth's Climate

Climate scientist and fellow Hungarian, Dr. Miklos Zagoni in his paper “CO2 Cannot Cause any more “Global Warming”” dated December 2009 describes this discovery and its meaning. Dr. Zagoni beautifully sums it up all up:


“Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.”

Miskolczi's Law and Constant yet to be disproven
Dr. Miskolczi first published his work in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Services in 2004, Volume 108, No 4. He published further statistical proof in the same Journal in 2007, Volume 111, No. 1. In the 5 years since he first published his results, not one peer review has come back disproving his theory, or his Constant. To date, not one scientist has come forward to disprove Miskolczi’s theory that the Earth’s climate is at equilibrium, and that Carbon Dioxide cannot be released in amounts great enough to upset that equilibrium.

The Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory of Ferenc Miskolczi

 

[Pixel42]

Sure there is Nature says there is a pause and it's Nature causing it in the form of ocean cycles. Maybe you think the journal Nature is a denier

That Nature article says exactly what macdoc said.

 

[Pixel42]

Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth's Climate

The Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory of Ferenc Miskolczi

That may be the stupidest thing you've posted yet, Haig. There's a limit to the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold, then it condenses and precipitates out. This idiot seems to be unaware of the existence of rain and snow. No wonder no-one's bothered to rebut his nonsense.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sure there is Nature says there is a pause and it's Nature causing it in the form of ocean cycles. Maybe you think the journal Nature is a denier

It's plain wrong to blame the deep oceans for taking the supposed missing heat, you may as well blame the weakening Sun

Tisdale is the climate equivalent of a stock market chartist or someone seeing Jesus in a piece of toast. No wonder WUWT likes him. The reason they say there is heat going into the ocean is that they have been measuring it, and the rising sea levels due to thermal expansion confirm it.

 

[a_unique_person]

That may be the stupidest thing you've posted yet, Haig. There's a limit to the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold, then it condenses and precipitates out. This idiot seems to be unaware of the existence of rain and snow. No wonder no-one's bothered to rebut his nonsense.

They wondered how stupid someone could be when it was first published, then they promptly forgot about him. Except on denialist web sites.