• Hello guests. Please take a minute to sign up and join in the conversation. It's free, quick, and easy!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

GaWx

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
5,907
Likes
11,313
Location
SAV, GA
The Arctic warmed back up a lot: it is now a whopping 20 F warmer than normal!

1574304160228.png
 
Last edited:

GaWx

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
5,907
Likes
11,313
Location
SAV, GA
Not unusual, it is now headed back down sharply again. We will see fluctuations like these quite often
Hopefully, you’re right but in the meantime it is still up at 15 warmer than normal vs the 20 warmer the prior day. The Arctic has been averaging strongly warmer than normal for a good number of years outside of late spring and summer. This shouldn’t be downplayed although I’m hoping for a cooler turnaround at some point.
Currently there is a -AO, which should favor warmth. Let’s see what happens when we get the next +AO, which should be in early Dec per GEFS. Related to this, 2 meter temps are forecasted to fall within a week per model consensus from the current strongly warmer than average.
 

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,601
Likes
880
Location
Raleigh, NC
Hopefully, you’re right but in the meantime it is still up at 15 warmer than normal vs the 20 warmer the prior day. The Arctic has been averaging strongly warmer than normal for a good number of years outside of late spring and summer. This shouldn’t be downplayed although I’m hoping for a cooler turnaround at some point.
Currently there is a -AO, which should favor warmth. Let’s see what happens when we get the next +AO, which should be in early Dec per GEFS. Related to this, 2 meter temps are forecasted to fall within a week per model consensus from the current strongly warmer than average.
With the jet stream being highly amplified these days there will be plenty of warm air intrusions into the arctic which should keep the PV in a weakened state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
530
Likes
623
Location
Clemmons, NC
Why keep downplaying everything?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We are currently in a warm AMO, which is the cause of the melting over the past 20 years or so, but once it changes to a cold AMO, the ice will thicken again. Go look for a graph of the corelation between the phases of the AMO and the Arctic ice melt and tell me what you find. A temperature departure of -35 in the winter to -25 (ten degrees above normal which it has not actually happened on a smoothed graph) will have very little effect on ice changing. However warm water coming into the arctic (caused by the warm AMO) eroding the ice from beneath is the real culprit. The summer melt season temperatures have consistently been at, slightly above or slightly below freezing or close to normal and this is when the actual melting occurs. If the temps are the same in the melt season as previously and the ice is decreasing in area and extent, why is that? You want to blame everything on CO2 increasing yet there is very little difference in temperature over the melt seasons. Obviously there are other factors much more such as warmer water, unusual pressure patterns, green algae, strong winds etc.

As for Greenland, the press made a big deal of an 11 billion ton ice melt in just one day in July of 2018 but don't even mention that in November there was a 12 billion ton ice mass increase in just one day. Over the past 40 years, the average per year loss of ice has averaged 103 billion tons per year. Sounds awful doesn't it? So let us assume that continues at a 110 billion per year rate and ask how long would it take to erase HALF (not all) of the ice sheet on Greenland? It would take approximately 12,500 years to do this. Moral of the story is there is little danger Miami, Philly, New York etc... are going to be under water anytime soon.
 
Last edited:

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,601
Likes
880
Location
Raleigh, NC
We are currently in a warm AMO, which is the cause of the melting over the past 20 years or so, but once it changes to a cold AMO, the ice will thicken again. Go look for a graph of the corelation between the phases of the AMO and the Arctic ice melt and tell me what you find. A temperature departure of -35 in the winter to -25 (ten degrees above normal which it has not actually happened on a smoothed graph) will have very little effect on ice changing. However warm water coming into the arctic (caused by the warm AMO) eroding the ice from beneath is the real culprit. The summer melt season temperatures have consistently been at, slightly above or slightly below freezing or close to normal and this is when the actual melting occurs. If the temps are the same in the melt season as previously and the ice is decreasing in area and extent, why is that? You want to blame everything on CO2 increasing yet there is very little difference in temperature over the melt seasons. Obviously there are other factors much more such as warmer water, unusual pressure patterns, green algae, strong winds etc.

As for Greenland, the press made a big deal of an 11 billion ton ice melt in just one day in July of 2018 but don't even mention that in November there was a 12 billion ton ice mass increase in just one day. Over the past 40 years, the average per year loss of ice has averaged 103 billion tons per year. Sounds awful doesn't it? So let us assume that continues at a 110 billion per year rate and ask how long would it take to erase HALF (not all) of the ice sheet on Greenland? It would take approximately 12,500 years to do this. Moral of the story is there is little danger Miami, Philly, New York etc... are going to be under water anytime soon.
I hope your right. I got a feeling that once the summer sea ice is gone the Arctic ocean is going to heat up quick and Greenland will be getting hammered from all sides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
530
Likes
623
Location
Clemmons, NC
I hope your right. I got a feeling that once the summer sea ice is gone the Arctic ocean is going to heat up quick and Greenland will be getting hammered from all sides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well one thing for sure is we will know if I am right in about 10 years or so as the AMO will likely flip in 2022 and there is a 5-7 year lag in ocean temperature change of any significance. As I have said many times on here, I DO think mankind has an effect on temperature increases but mainly due to UHI and land use changes more than increased co2 levels. As Webb says, the base state is unquestionalbly higher than 40-50 years ago and most people acknowledge that, but as they say the devil is always is in the details
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
530
Likes
623
Location
Clemmons, NC
Here is a good overlay of the differing phases of the AMO and arctic ice melt.

1574488981627.png

While corelation does not always equal causation, this is an amazingly close comparison
 

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,601
Likes
880
Location
Raleigh, NC
Here is a good overlay of the differing phases of the AMO and arctic ice melt.

View attachment 26354

While corelation does not always equal causation, this is an amazingly close comparison
Look how much warmer the warm phase of the AMO is now as compared to the past and ditto with the cool phase. AGW fingerprints all over that just like ENSO.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,601
Likes
880
Location
Raleigh, NC
UN climate report that just came out looks bleak. We got our foot slammed on the gas pedal heading toward impending catastrophe. It’s going to be interesting to watch it all unfold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GaWx

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
5,907
Likes
11,313
Location
SAV, GA
UN climate report that just came out looks bleak. We got our foot slammed on the gas pedal heading toward impending catastrophe. It’s going to be interesting to watch it all unfold.

Yes, the globe has warmed considerably and continues to warm. The problem is that I don’t trust the UN at all for objectivity.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
351
Likes
252
Location
Faytteville, GA
UN climate report that just came out looks bleak. We got our foot slammed on the gas pedal heading toward impending catastrophe. It’s going to be interesting to watch it all unfold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who is this "we" that you speak of? China has surpassed EU and is closing in on Japan and is still be far the largest contributor of CO2 emissions. We should start a grass roots movement to change the China representation to be more climate conscious...wait, their population doesn't really have a choice, now do they? Please stop making CO2 reduction a U.S. problem. We need to withdraw from the U.N. and kick them out of our country.
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2016
Messages
8,254
Likes
8,600
Location
Greenville,SC
Fake news! The planet goes through cycles! The ice age, little ice age, it’s all cyclical. 1000 years from now, we could be in another ice age. Nobody can say with any certainty, that the earth is going to get nothing but warmer the next 100-500 years! Climate change is BS!
 

Rain Cold

In the Shop
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
4,755
Likes
10,297
Location
Raleigh, NC
Fake news! The planet goes through cycles! The ice age, little ice age, it’s all cyclical. 1000 years from now, we could be in another ice age. Nobody can say with any certainty, that the earth is going to get nothing but warmer the next 100-500 years! Climate change is BS!
Dude, you literally just described climate change. The extent of it attributable to man can be debated, however.
 

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,601
Likes
880
Location
Raleigh, NC
Who is this "we" that you speak of? China has surpassed EU and is closing in on Japan and is still be far the largest contributor of CO2 emissions. We should start a grass roots movement to change the China representation to be more climate conscious...wait, their population doesn't really have a choice, now do they? Please stop making CO2 reduction a U.S. problem. We need to withdraw from the U.N. and kick them out of our country.
Tarheel just said AGW is BS so we can emit all the CO2 we want yay!!! Maybe we can hit 1000ppm by 2100. Let see how that turns out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
351
Likes
252
Location
Faytteville, GA
Tarheel just said AGW is BS so we can emit all the CO2 we want yay!!! Maybe we can hit 1000ppm by 2100. Let see how that turns out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll be long dead and so will you. Besides, 1000 ppm might be very good for plant growth. We need to get the discussion back on water, air and soil contamination. This is a greater threat in my opinion.
 

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,601
Likes
880
Location
Raleigh, NC
I'll be long dead and so will you. Besides, 1000 ppm might be very good for plant growth. We need to get the discussion back on water, air and soil contamination. This is a greater threat in my opinion.
Actually high CO2 just makes plants grow faster with less nutritional value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GaWx

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
5,907
Likes
11,313
Location
SAV, GA
From your link: "Here we show that rapid warming over the tropical oceans during 1981–2018 has warped the MJO life cycle, with its residence time decreasing over the Indian Ocean by 3–4 days, and increasing over the Indo-Pacific Maritime Continent by 5–6 days."

I decided to count the days in each of phases 2-3 (Indian Ocean) and 4-5 (Maritime Continent) and compare for two ten year periods: 1981-1990 and 2009-2018 to see if the raw data agrees with these findings using this link:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mjo/graphics/rmm.74toRealtime.txt

Here are the annual averages:

Phase...……….Avg # days/yr 1981-1990...…Avg # days/yr 2009-2018...…………Change
2...………………......……..48...…………………………...…………...48...…………………………………..0
3...…………...……………..45...………………………………………..42...…………………………………..-3
4...…………………………..43...………………………………………..46...…………………………………..+3
5...…………………………..38...………………………………………..48...…………………………………..+10

So, 1981-1990 averaged 93 days of phases 2 and 3 vs 90 days for 2009-18.
So, 1981-1990 averaged 81 days of phases 2 and 3 vs 94 days for 2009-18.

So, the average # of the sum of phase 2 & 3 decreased by 3 days per year whereas the sum of 4 & 5 increased by 13 days per year. The largest change of these 4 phases by far was the 10 day increase per year for phase #5.

Conclusion: the raw data, indeed, seems to support the idea from the article that residence time did decrease over the Indian Ocean and increase over the Indo-Pacific Maritime Continent between early and late in 1981-2018.

******Edit: Regarding phase 5, there was not even one year amongst 1981-1990 with 48+ days. But there were 6 years of 48+ days within 2009-2018. So, it wasn't skewed heavily by one or two years.
 
Last edited:

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,601
Likes
880
Location
Raleigh, NC
From your link: "Here we show that rapid warming over the tropical oceans during 1981–2018 has warped the MJO life cycle, with its residence time decreasing over the Indian Ocean by 3–4 days, and increasing over the Indo-Pacific Maritime Continent by 5–6 days."

I decided to count the days in each of phases 2-3 (Indian Ocean) and 4-5 (Maritime Continent) and compare for two ten year periods: 1981-1990 and 2009-2018 to see if the raw data agrees with these findings using this link:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mjo/graphics/rmm.74toRealtime.txt

Here are the annual averages:

Phase...……….Avg # days/yr 1981-1990...…Avg # days/yr 2009-2018...…………Change
2...………………......……..48...…………………………...…………...48...…………………………………..0
3...…………...……………..45...………………………………………..42...…………………………………..-3
4...…………………………..43...………………………………………..46...…………………………………..+3
5...…………………………..38...………………………………………..48...…………………………………..+10

So, 1981-1990 averaged 93 days of phases 2 and 3 vs 90 days for 2009-18.
So, 1981-1990 averaged 81 days of phases 2 and 3 vs 94 days for 2009-18.

So, the average # of the sum of phase 2 & 3 decreased by 3 days per year whereas the sum of 4 & 5 increased by 13 days per year. The largest change of these 4 phases by far was the 10 day increase per year for phase #5.

Conclusion: the raw data, indeed, seems to support the idea from the article that residence time did decrease over the Indian Ocean and increase over the Indo-Pacific Maritime Continent between early and late in 1981-2018.
Nice work. What does being stuck in 4 and 5 longer mean for us?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GaWx

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
5,907
Likes
11,313
Location
SAV, GA
Nice work. What does being stuck in 4 and 5 longer mean for us?
Thanks. It depends on the time of year. Whereas it is hard to say outside of winter because it varies a lot from season to season, the following chart suggests that would tend to skew SE winters somewhat warmer:

DJF by MJO phase.png

**Edit: Therefore, my new homework assignment to myself is to count up only DJF of those 20 years,.
 

GaWx

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
5,907
Likes
11,313
Location
SAV, GA
Thanks. It depends on the time of year. Whereas it is hard to say outside of winter because it varies a lot from season to season, the following chart suggests that would tend to skew SE winters somewhat warmer:

View attachment 26718

**Edit: Therefore, my new homework assignment to myself is to count up only DJF of those 20 years,.
For @BHS1975 and others: here's the averages/year just for DJF:

Phase...……….Avg # days/yr 1981-1990...…Avg # days/yr 2009-2018...…………Change
2...………………......……..11...…………………………...…………...8...…………………………………….-3
3...…………...……………..13...………………………………………..9...…………………………………..-4
4...…………………………..9...………………………………………..11...…………………………………..+2
5...…………………………..7...………………………………………..14...…………………………………..+7

So, the change is clear if you just look at only DJF meaning an implication of warmer SE winters on average 2009-2018 vs 1981-1990 based solely on the changes in the MJO phase breakdown. If we just compare the cold phase 2 with the warm phase 5: phase 5 had 4 fewer days than phase 2 on average per winter during 1981-1990 vs 6 more days than phase 2 on average per winter during 2009-2018.

*Edit: Just looking at warm phase 5, during 1981-1990 the highest # of days for any one year in DJF was only 11. But during 2009-2018, the highest was 21 and 7 of the 10 years had 14+ days! So, it really looks like there is something to this research that may help explain a major reason for the SE US' warmer winters recently. Of course, it is intertwined with GW.

To paraphrase that famous phrase from the Bill Clinton campaign, “it is the MJO, stupid.”

Edit: So, the very warm phases 4-5 increased from 18% of DJF to 28% of DJF. That isn’t a small % increase.

So, perhaps the warming that would occur from GW, alone, may be increasing further by how GW may have increased the residence of the MJO in phases 4 and 5.

Does this mean that GW may be giving a double whammy to SE winters, one whammy by direct means and the other one by indirect means via the MJO?

I hope others comment on this as this would seemingly be worthy of further discussion. Let’s hope that the # of days in phases 4 & 5, especially at higher amplitude/outside circle, is not too large this winter. The good news is that the model consensus suggests that there will be none, especially at higher amplitudes, through the first half of December at least. That would be a good start.
 
Last edited:

Shawn

Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Tech
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
5,927
Likes
5,172
Location
KCAE
Humanity is eventually going to have to face the fact that there are too many of us on this planet. We are reproducing at exponential rates, and at some point, there will be far too many... in fact we're already there.

Nobody wants to think about it or admit it, but we are facing a big decision. How many families are allowed to reproduce? Will it work like deer tags for hunting season?

We can blame fossil fuels and cow farts all we want, but in the end, the amount of people is the problem.
 
Top