January
Cliff
"WEATHER: HOTTEST JANUARY EVER SAY CLIMATE EXPERTS"
[
....
But Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University
in Melbourne, said yesterday: �January, according to satellite data, was the
hottest January we�ve ever seen.
�Last November was the hottest November we�ve ever seen. November-January as a
whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen.� Veteran
�climatologist Professor Nicholls was speaking at an online climate change
briefing, added: �It�s not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite
challenging to find places that haven�t warmed in the past 50 years.�
His extraordinary claims came after the World Meteorological Organisation
revealed 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850.
....
]
Cliff
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/160556
>> "WEATHER:
>
>That's it.
Nope
Entire planet is warming.
That is not weather.
--
Cliff
JohnM
wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:59:30 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
>
> >Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> >> http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/160556
> >> "WEATHER:
>
> >That's it.
>
> Nope
> Entire planet is warming.
> That is not weather.
His head is too deep in the sand to hear you, Cliff
Zymrgy
wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:59:30 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
>
> >Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> >> http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/160556
> >> "WEATHER:
>
> >That's it.
>
> Nope
> Entire planet is warming.
> That is not weather.
> --
> Cliff
So THATS why they had snow in Florida this year...not because of
weather...because it was warm????? I find it odd that in January, the
entire British isle was covered in snow....at one point there was snow
in all 50 states, the Florida citrus crop was severely damaged....yet
it was warmer than normal?
JohnM
> On Mar 2, 3:51 pm, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:59:30 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
>
> > <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> > >Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> > >> http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/160556
> > >> "WEATHER:
>
> > >That's it.
>
> > Nope
> > Entire planet is warming.
> > That is not weather.
>
> So THATS why they had snow in Florida this year...not because of
> weather...because it was warm?????
Changes in the climate don't make the weather more predictable, I'm
afraid.
> I find it odd that in January, the
> entire British isle was covered in snow....at one point there was snow
> in all 50 states, the Florida citrus crop was severely damaged....yet
> it was warmer than normal?
That's the way it goes it would seem. Nobody really knows how a
steadily warming planet will respond on a day-to-day and place-to-
place basis.
Cliff
But 2010 is International Educate a Winger Day !!
--
Cliff
Cliff
The world was warmer than the decade before, yep.
An very clearly Florida has been much colder in the
fairly recent past AS CITRUS TREES ARE NOT NATIVE THERE
(other than, perhaps, the Key Lime, which was restricted to a
few nice warm, even more southern, keys, Central America & etc).
--
Cliff
Cliff
I gather that it's likely to become even more eratic.
--
Cliff
Last Post
wrote:
ø Bullshit!!!
Cliff, when are you going to learn that all of
the global weather data provided by
GISS/NASA, NOAA, HadleyCRU and the
UKMet Office are stirred, filtered and baked
to provide a steadily warming planet. But that
is a sham.
ø For the next 20 or 30 years or so you can
expect more wildly fluctuations weather all over
the world. It ain't global warming.
ø 1- Nobody can control the wind
2- Nobody can control the rain or snow
3- Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
4- Global temps are within natural variations
5- Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation
Get used to it!!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes
tunderbar
Snow in Atlanta in March!!!
Curly Surmudgeon
True. The technicial/scientific term is "chaotic" but the same idea. As
you put more energy into a system it becomes more chaotic. In this case
meaning more highs *and* lows.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans: Party Without a Conscious
Democrats: Party Without a Spine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JohnM
wrote:
A neat study would be to look at the efficacy of weather forcasting,
today compared to twenty years ago.
Ed Huntress
"JohnM" <john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:86bfdd72-6ea2-4789...@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
There are many studies, some general and some targeted to specific regions,
that have measured this. Here's a brief summary of one study that shows a
10% accuracy improvement over 25 years:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/targobs/target/summaryresults.html
Here's a brief, general description of NOAA's Targeted Observations Project,
aimed at improving NWP (Numerical Weather Prediction):
http://wwwt.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/targobs/index.html
It isn't clear what connection you're looking for here, but weather
prediction is about achieving high accuracy in relatively short-term
predictions. It's not related to measuring climate changes.
--
Ed Huntress
JohnM
> "JohnM" <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
Thanks for that. My thinking was that one might see increasing
unpreditability if CC alters the way that, say, an Atlantic depression
evolves nowadays, compared to the historical norm. Changes in
forecasting technique may have evolved faster than the depressions,
however ;-)
Ed Huntress
Aha. That's an interesting thought. But, as you say, forecasting technology
keeps advancing, and that makes it tough, or maybe impossible at this point,
to measure -- at least in a thorough way.
I'll bet there are some variables that can be measured that way, however,
and for which technology hasn't changed the results: something like the
frequency and velocity of barometric changes at given observation points.
That would tell you how many severe lows or highs you have over time at one
location. (It seems likely that they've already analyzed this, however, and
it might even be a basis for the claims of increased weather variability.)
A neighbor of mine is a PhD. meteorologist at NOAA's Mt. Holly, NJ station.
I'll ask him about this when I see him.
--
Ed Huntress
JohnM
I look forward to hearing the answer.
Cliff
wrote:
As the poles seem to warm faster one might suspect that the rate of energy
flow to them increases and try to deduce more/faster mass flows which might
lead to more turbulant flow in some areas.
--
Cliff
Ed Huntress
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:n0v5p5d6ja3ad2nj5...@4ax.com...
'Dunno, Cliff. I tried once to read some of the technical papers on climate,
and I quickly realized that I had no chance. Neither does anyone else I know
or ever have known. The quantum mechanics is something I can absorb by
osmosis but the atmospheric thermodynamics is out of my realm.
I'll leave it to the experts. I don't even read these threads anymore; I
didn't realize that this one was about climate when I took a look, or I
would have skipped it.
My meteorologist neighbor isn't around this weekend. I'll send him e-mail.
--
Ed Huntress
John M.
> "Cliff" <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>
> news:n0v5p5d6ja3ad2nj5...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:48:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net>
I find a similar problem, Ed, but additionally I have realised such
studies rely more on maths than they do on empirical results. I'm not
sure I approve of this in more convoluted sciences like climatology,
even if it works brilliantly in the fields of e.g. particle physics,
chemistry at a molecular level, etc.
> Neither does anyone else I know
> or ever have known. The quantum mechanics is something I can absorb by
> osmosis but the atmospheric thermodynamics is out of my realm.
>
> I'll leave it to the experts. I don't even read these threads anymore; I
> didn't realize that this one was about climate when I took a look, or I
> would have skipped it.
>
> My meteorologist neighbor isn't around this weekend. I'll send him e-mail.
Did you get an answer yet?
Ed Huntress
"John M." <jmorgan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1efc7c48-f5a0-4120...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Well, those were dealing with theorizing about empirical results, IIRC. They
were trying to explain climate patterns, and one was trying to relate
greenhouse gases to feedback loops with water vapor. That one really
interested me. Too bad I couldn't read it. d8-)
> Neither does anyone else I know
> or ever have known. The quantum mechanics is something I can absorb by
> osmosis but the atmospheric thermodynamics is out of my realm.
>
> I'll leave it to the experts. I don't even read these threads anymore; I
> didn't realize that this one was about climate when I took a look, or I
> would have skipped it.
>
> My meteorologist neighbor isn't around this weekend. I'll send him e-mail.
>Did you get an answer yet?
Yes, I talked to him today. Jim says that, first, the explosion of
measurement technology does, in his opinion, add to an impression that we're
having more violent weather. He's not so sure that the weather actually is
more violent. He's looking for some statistical information that he thinks
will show us what he means.
Second, there's no denying that this was a storm-filled, record-breaking
winter season in the Northeast (Jim is the "Winter Weather and Extratropical
Cyclone Focal Point" for the Philadelphia-area NOAA station.). His belief is
that it's multi-cyclical, with cycles of shorter times within longer ones,
and that this was perhaps an in-phase multiple of different cycles of
weather. That's a meteorologist projecting his knowledge to the subject of
long-term climate. <g> Jim has told me this before; he has some kind of
project going on to try to prove it.
Regarding the question of whether you could isolate measurement types, such
as barometric pressure, to get uniform frequency measurements of storms and
such over time, he says yes, you could. But it wouldn't tell you much of
anything, because of those multiple cycles he's talking about, and their
phase relationships. In other words, you'd still have little luck trying to
identify a definite trend, because some of these cycles, he says, last for
hundreds of years.
I think you have to be a statistician to analyze it further.
--
Ed Huntress
Cliff
wrote:
>
I think to warm the polar areas more then the equatorial ones
you have to have a greater mass flow towards the poles to move the
added energy.
Naturally this would result in the displaced mass already near
the poles moving towards the equator faster too.
The blackbody radiation from areas of the planet probably
changes little once you account for the albedo changes caused
by more open water & land where ice & snow vanished from.
Also, as the southern hemisphere has a lot more water surface area than
the northern hemisphere it may change more slowly.
--
Cliff
Ala
>
> Also, as the southern hemisphere has a lot more water surface area than
> the northern hemisphere it may change more slowly.
> --
With those Chile earthquakes, maybe not so slowly
John M.
wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:50:59 -0500, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"John M." <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Thanks to Ed for his efforts.
> I think to warm the polar areas more then the equatorial ones
> you have to have a greater mass flow towards the poles to move the
> added energy.
> Naturally this would result in the displaced mass already near
> the poles moving towards the equator faster too.
Perhaps increasing horizontal displacement of atmosphere is the reason
for the warmth in Labrador and the cold in Europe during this winter.
CC effects are not going to be as easy to predict as the IPCC would
have us believe.
> The blackbody radiation from areas of the planet probably
> changes little once you account for the albedo changes caused
> by more open water & land where ice & snow vanished from.
>
> Also, as the southern hemisphere has a lot more water surface area than
> the northern hemisphere it may change more slowly.
The westerly air flow in the Southern ocean perhaps acts as a barrier,
too, by slowing transport of heat to Antarctica and allowing much to
escape to space.
Cliff
wrote:
Energy flows towards colder areas with energy getting radiated all the way.
Mass flows happen in this transport.
Already cold air gets displaced by the incoming.
The net result is still a warmer planet.
The increased flows are just a result.
--
Cliff