Home/Blog…although this, too, shall pass, when La Nina goes away.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2010 1 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 2 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
2010 3 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721
2010 4 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633
2010 5 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706
2010 6 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485
2010 7 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370
2010 8 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321
2010 9 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237
2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106
2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117
2010 12 0.181 0.217 0.145 -0.222
2011 1 -0.009 -0.055 0.038 -0.369
LA NINA FINALLY BEING FELT IN TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES
January 2011 experienced a precipitous drop in lower tropospheric temperatures over the tropics, Northern Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere. This was not unexpected, since global average sea surface temperatures have been falling for many months, with a head start as is usually the case with La Nina.
This is shown in the following plot (note the shorter period of record, and different zero-baseline):
SO WHY ALL THE SNOWSTORMS?
While we would like to think our own personal experience of the snowiest winter ever in our entire, Methuselah-ian lifespan has some sort of cosmic — or even just global — significance, I would like to offer this plot of global oceanic precipitation variations from the same instrument that measured the above sea surface temperatures (AMSR-E on NASA’s Aqua satellite):
Note that precipitation amounts over the global-average oceans vary by only a few percent. What this means is that when one area gets unusually large amounts of precipitation, another area must get less.
Precipitation is always associated with rising air, and so a large vigorous precipitation system in one location means surrounding regions must have enhanced sinking air (with no precipitation).
In the winter, of course, the relatively warmer oceans next to cold continental air masses leads to snowstorm development in coastal areas. If the cold air mass over the midwest and eastern U.S. is not dislodged by warmer Pacific air flowing in from the west, then the warm oceanic air from the Gulf of Mexico and western Atlantic keeps flowing up and over the cold dome of air, producing more snow and rain. The “storm track” and jet stream location follows that boundary between the cold and warm air masses.
 |
I’ve been following the climate debate for a few years, enjoy your post and data. All the data seems to be in terms of a delta temperature to a base average. In general terms what are the actual average temperatures say in the tropics, the NH and the SH as well as the polar regions both on the ground as well as the troposphere?
Ed,
The satellites use in the UAH dataset aren’t calibrated to surface temperatures.
Can I ask what is probably a stupid question?
If processing has been suspended on CH4 near surface layer data, due to problems since mid December, how can the UAH anomalies be calculated?
No doubt this info is available somewhere, but to save time, can anyone answer this question here?
Apologies if you’ve addressed this before, but the final monthly anomaly figures always seem to run 0.1C-0.2C higher than your daily anomaly numbers.
I am sure that there is a perfectly sound scientific explanation for this (a different baseline, for example), but I would be grateful if you could confirm exactly what it is.
TIA.
Nice.
It would be to see the actual precipitation levels, just to ease my paranoid mind.
Also, is there a strong relationship between precipitation levels and cyclonic activity? If lower cyclonic activity is a ‘hallmark’ of GW, perhaps a plot of it would be revealing?
After a good night’s sleep. [relative sarc/]
I’m happy.
Zero
La Nina was immediately felt in the tropics as early as June 2010 with huge drop in air temp there, but air temp continued to remain high, if not rising, in both NH and SH until September, and started to fall only by October 2010. Does this mean that when temps would plateau or start rising in the tropics, there will also be a delayed rise in both the NH and SH by about 4 months?
The correlation of rainfall with ocean surface temperature, while noisy, seems real enough. maybe the Clausius–Clapeyron equation is not a bad way to estimate rainfall amounts in a hypothetically warmer world.
I wonder: does not more rainfall suggest more convective clouds and a net cooling effect via increased reflection of solar energy? It seems to me that is a reasonable expectation.
The same question, sort of, came to mind;
Is the amount of clouds directly proportional to the amount of percipitation?
So, if precipitation amounts over the global-average oceans vary by only a few percent, is that also true for cloudcover?
Sheik
Ray –
“If processing has been suspended on CH4 near surface layer data, due to problems since mid December, how can the UAH anomalies be calculated?”
The daily monitoring on the Discover website uses the AMSU aboard the NOAA-15 satellite. The actual UAH anomalies are calculated (I believe) using the more reliable AMSU aboard NASA’s AQUA satellite.
Nonoy Oplas,
Two or three months seems to be the recognised delay between ENSO and global temperature but that doesn’t seem to be fixed.
As somebody said ENSO indices turned toward La Nina conditions in June/July 2010 but it appears global temperature didn’t start responding until Nov/Dec 2010. That gives us ~6 month delay. This is not unprecedented. The strong El Nino/La Nina transition in 1998/1999 seems to have been associated with a 5/6 month lag in the response of global temperatures. We could still have 3 or more month’s of temperature drops before this La Nina finally works it’s self out in terms of it’s effect on global temperature.
Hi,
Could you please tell me where I could find more historical data as shown above to download?
Thanks,
Norm
Hi Dr. Spencer,
I wondered why the global anomaly is only -0.01 when two of the other factors shown are significantly more negative than that. The NH is -0.05 and the tropics -0.37, with the SH 0.03. This doesn’t look like it adds up, but maybe that is my intuitive sense. How do these three make up the global figure?
Dr. Spencer,
I’ve posted this several times without getting a response. I’ll try again.
Could you explain the history of the UAH satellite temperature readings from a decade or so ago that others discovered were being misinterpreted? Why were the erroneously low temperature readings not recognized sooner?
Also, why did the temperature anomaly of 0.72 degrees C in January 2010 disappear from every subsequent monthly chart in your data set? Was it a mistake? Was it changed when you recalibrated your system earlier this year?
Thanks for any insight.
Dr. Spencer,
You support both climate skeptic tin foil hat denialism and intelligent design. How does it feel knowing that you will go down in scientific history as a failure, fraud, and imbecile? People this stupid should not get PhD’s.
Mr. Spencer, thanks a lot for all the information, it makes my day, everytime I visit your site. Keep it up!!
@ Tom : How does it feel to behave like a 5 year old in a scientific blog??
Best regards from the cold Swiss mountains, Freddie
Well, Dr. Spencer’s belief in ID is sad, but after all it is not his specialization, therefore it is not something to blame him about. I am sure he’d reconsider is he was a biologist of some kind.
His work as a climate scientists however seems to be scientifically rigorous and very much correct.
Agree with other comments; What Tom is uttering here has no place on a scientific blog. The Earth warms and cools down again, and has experienced a net warming for the past 250 years.
Tom; do us a favor and check images of the Jacobshavn Glazier in Greenland, and you will have to agree that half of the glazier (in simple terms) disappeared between 1850 and 1931 and the other half since 1931. The current global climate simply does not sustain the level of glaziation that we had a few centuries ago (unless winter precipation has increased as had happened in some cases), and these century-long changes will have consequences both globally as well as for micro-climate in many places.
Come join the discussion.
Scott,
Warmer oceans lead to greater evaporation and therefore moisture content of the atmosphere, and therfore increased precipitation. The question is the extent to which the warmer oceans are due to AGW.
The extra warmth provides more energy to the cyclone system increasing its ferocity. I am writing from Melbourne Australia, and we are getting the tail end of the cclone up in Queensland, a couple of thousand miles north. Its a monster in size and wind speed.
The same link means that warmer water in the Gulf of Mexico results in bigger dumps of snow when the north moving moisture bearing air mass hits the cold air masses (as Dr Spencer notes:
In the winter, of course, the relatively warmer oceans next to cold continental air masses leads to snowstorm development in coastal areas. If the cold air mass over the midwest and eastern U.S. is not dislodged by warmer Pacific air flowing in from the west, then the warm oceanic air from the Gulf of Mexico and western Atlantic keeps flowing up and over the cold dome of air, producing more snow and rain. The “storm track” and jet stream location follows that boundary between the cold and warm air masses.
Hi Brian S,
In your response to Scott, you are making some assumptions around evaporation and precipitation, which are too simplified:
– The current US snow storms and water temperature: Both along the US east coast and in the Mexican Gulf the water temperature is actually lower than normal (See: http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/index.uk.php) Therefore, evaporation is lower than usual, but combine any degree of warm air with the locked in jet stream and cold air that right now reaches down to the Mexican Gulf, and you will have very wintry weather and precipitation (strength of precipitation is always caused by the level of water vapor in the warm air mass combined with the temperature difference in a clash of warm and cold air either when hot/humid air is rising vertically, or when a warm front meets a cold front).
– Yasi in Australia: The strength of this cyclone is directly linked to the usually strong La Nina. The La Nina is causing water temperature to go down in the central and eastern part of the equatorial Pacific, while a smaller area of warmer than usual water is being pushed even closer to the east coast of Australia. The strength of this La Nina is making these characteristics even more pronounced and thereby causing stronger than usual storms for you.
Troy_CA says:
“The daily monitoring on the Discover website uses the AMSU aboard the NOAA-15 satellite. The actual UAH anomalies are calculated (I believe) using the more reliable AMSU aboard NASA’s AQUA satellite.”
Thanks for the reply Troy,
However, on the Discover website, the 14000 feet/600mb data
is labelled as (AQUA ch5 v2), but the near surface layer is labelled (ch4). I had assumed that it was also AQUA, but clearly I was wrong. To avoid confusion, why isn’t the nsl labelled (NOAA-15)? If there is nsl data from AQUA, why isn’t it listed on the Discover website?
My apologies for putting these questions on you, when no doubt this is all explained on the site somewhere. I suppose I should stop being lazy and check for myself.
David Falkner says:
February 2, 2011 at 11:03 PM
“I wondered why the global anomaly is only -0.01 when two of the other factors shown are significantly more negative than that. The NH is -0.05 and the tropics -0.37, with the SH 0.03. This doesn’t look like it adds up, but maybe that is my intuitive sense. How do these three make up the global figure?”
In case Dr. S doesn’t reply, I will say what I will think is the case.
I believe that the global figure is made up from the NH and the SH figures. Since the tropics are also included in the NH AND SH figures, they can’t be added in again.
Presumably the NH and SH figures outside the tropics are very positive.
Tom…..I realise that many kids like yourself dont understand the science problems associated with this hypothesis and many AGW believers are getting frustrated due their religion getting a hammering as each “prediction” fails..as each computer model is falsified..as each scary headline..turns out to be bogus..
Now repeat after me…everything and anything can be caused by excess CO2… 🙂
Dr. Spencer, may I ask you an off topic question?
Assuming you are not a _young-earth_ creationist, I wonder what is your opinion about them “equable climates” of the past, presumably found during “thermo eras”?
There seem to have been some findings lately that negate the ‘cool tropics paradox’, stating that during Eocene and mesozoic tropics were significantly hotter than they are now, various authors putting it anywhere between +30 and +35, sometimes even +40. Those findings come in very handy to the current CAGW hysteria, which makes one think about the coincidence =)
So, what is your opinion about equable climates? Did they really take place, were they really so equable as it was thought 20 years ago, or just proportionally warmer than what we have now? And if they were real, what do you think is the most plausible mechanism for their formation and sustainability?
(( PERSONALLY, I as a total layman (which i am), after browsing internets a lot, come to a conclusion that equable climates, if they really took place, had to do with equatorial superrotation circulation regime being dominant during those eras… it would explain a lot. But that’s just a an opinion =). Btw, what is your opinion about superrotation? ))
Why are there small differences comparing here to web data particularly in Jan and Feb 2010 figures?
Here it has
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2010 1 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 2 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
has
2010 1 0.55 0.67 0.42 0.62
2010 2 0.52 0.56 0.47 0.78
Other months also have occasional small differences but are mainly correctly rounded to 2 decimal places.
Thank you Dr. Spencer. Your opening comment is interesting “…although this, too, shall pass, when La Nina goes away.”
I am of a different opinion. There is a transition phase going on that is solar based. It may not be long until we see neutral ESNO conditions with the world temps around the 30 yr average. The jet stream factors are yet to play their hand over longer time scales.
Is it time that the 2010 El Nino event was labelled as such?
When discussing climate change with some of my AGW friends I often direct them to the UAH Global Temperature Update. I then find myself having to explain that the recent temperature spike is due to the El Nino event of 2010. I’m sure they think I’m making it up.
(Although this shall to pass when La Nina goes away.)
That is the quote of the day, and it wil prove to be wrong.
Temperaturwes will rbound somewhat when La Nina ends, but La Nina is not the only factor ,not by a long shot, causing the current weather conditions, we are having.
Low solar activity and high latitude volcanic activity has been most likely more responsible for this pattern of weather due to the atmospheric circulation pattern(mainly -AO) then any other item and hence are cold conditions.
If one remembers last year we had a easterly QBO,and El Nino,in contrast to westerly QBO and La Nina, this year, but nevertheless blocking has still been the main atmospheric pattern.(-AO)
So something else is at play here, and that something else is the low solar activity and high latitude volcanic activity, and anyone (Dr. Spencer) that does not acknowledge that, is not evaluating the climatic system properly.
to disregard those items is ridiculous, especially when one goes back in past history and looks at the Maunder Minimum, and Dalton Minimum of low solar activity and studies the atmospheric circulation /volcanic activity ,soi oscillation during those times. One can see a similar situation is in the making now, compared to then with this current solar minimum.
He is right if we go back to E
CONTINUED, SOMEHOW IT WENT OUT BY ACCIDENT
He is right, if we go back to El Nino, temperatures will warm some but not go as high ,as the last El Nino ,further the likelyhood of El Nino, versus La Nina will be diminished in the future ,due to the cold PDO, which is another factor that can’t be ignored as to why the global temperatures have been coming down.
I am sorry ,but these other items just can’t be ignored, when evaluating earth’s climatic system.
If all the factors that control the climate continue to phase into an ever increasing colder mode, temperatures in general wil be going down this decade. How far down will depend on the degree of magnitude ,and the length of time ,the factors that control the climate phase into.
THOSE FACTORS
ATMOPSHERIC CIRCULATION BEING -AO
LOW SOLAR ACTIVITY
HIGH VOLCANIC ACTIVITY ESPECIALLY IN THE HIGH LATITUDES
COLD PDO /AMO TO FOLLOW BY 2015
SOI OSCILLATION BEING MOSTLY POSITIVE/ LA NINA
If the meridional circulation can accomplish more often then not,then an increase in clouds/snow cover, might take place ,over the mid latitudes to relatively high latitudes(40 to 70 n ),resulting in a further positve feedback, for cooling for the N.H. that might take place ,due to an overall increase, in earth’s albedo.
One last thing, you have to use a period of more then a few years to see if precipitation changes are for real or not. You can’t go back only 5 or 10 years. Try going back to the Maunder or Dalton periods.
I think I have stated the earth’s current climatic system quite well and time will tell who is right and who is wrong.
Sorry if this has been answered before or if the question is Climatology 101… Why are the global temperature anomaly numbers highest in June/July and lowest in Dec/Jan? I would think that if it truly is a number representative of the entire globe that the numbers would peak in Dec/Jan when the earth was closest to the sun. The June/July peak seems to indicate a Northern Hemisphere bias to the sample.
Hi John D,
Due to planetary movement in our solar system, in periods the NH has increased input of solar energy input, while the SH has slightly less solar energy input.
This will cause summers to warm a bit extra in the NH, while the sea ice in the SH has actually been growing since satellite monitoring began.
Secondly, land mass surface warms faster than sea surface, so this phenomenon is more visible during NH summers.
JohnD says:
February 3, 2011 at 2:15 PM
“Sorry if this has been answered before or if the question is Climatology 101… Why are the global temperature anomaly numbers highest in June/July and lowest in Dec/Jan?”
There is more ocean in the Southern Hemisphere.
The state of climatology is a mess. Here we have Dr. Roy Spencer, one level above the global warmers in my opinion.
To have total disregard for solar effects,volcanic activity,the pdo/amo,the atmospheric circulation,past solar minimum history, and how it altered the climate, past temperature changes over the last 100,000 years (just to use a time period),some drastic such as, the Younga Dryas, to put that all aside,( and he does) ,with the ridiculous statement,
Although this to shall pass, when La Nina goes away or whatever it was.
I just can’t believe it!!!! How could anyone make a statement like that!Of course the SOI has a role ,butit is just one of the many roles, in earth’s climatic system.
This is equal to the global man made warming theory HOAX!
As I said I will challenge anyone on my theories for what makes earth’s climatic system function the way it does, and listen, it is not just internal,it is external forces as well.
My company, also has on email way back almost 2 years ago, when we predicted low solar activity and high latitude volcanic activity would more then likely result in the atmospheric circulation evolving more often then not, into a blocking pattern or a -AO, and this pattern results in global cooling for the N.H, and it also explains why the same forces at work effect the N.H. more ,then the S.H. We accomplished this by looking at past solar minimums among other things.
To be very quick on the S.H., geography comes into play, which does not allow for as an extreme neg AAO, and which does not give rise to a significant increase in albedo, because most of the surface is covered with water, as is not the case for the N.H.
Also there is a correlation between prolong solar minimum activity and earthquake/volcanic activity. For example just plot all major earthquakes/vocanic eruptions ,take a period of time 1600 to now ,and one will see 85% of the major activity is associated with prolong solar minimums. Why, because when the sun is quiet, and then suddenly gets active for a brief time ,and then goes quiet again ,it gives the earth a big jolt ,when it goes from the quiet state to the active state,whereas in contrast, when the sun is always active or relatively active, the change is not dramatic in degree of magnitude and therefore the jolts to earth are much less. It is like being in a car going 1m.p.h quiet sun, then suddenly going to 30 m. p. h, a big jolt, as oppossed to a car going 100 m.p.h (active sun), and increasing to 110 m.p.h ,a small jolt in comparisone.
I am happy to say I am not alone in this thinking ,some notables are Piers Corbyn,Joe d’Aleo ,David Archibald,as far as I can tell,just to name a few.
So it is low solar activity and high volcanic activity combined ,that are two of my seven cornerstones, when it comes to earth’s climatic system.
My most important cornerstone is ,items that will warm the Arctic, in contrast to the lower latitudes will be the KEY to N.H. global cooling. We want a warm Arctic, and cold mid latitudes, relative to one another.
Again time will tell who is right and who is wrong,but so far I have been proven right, for what I said 2 years ago,about earth’s atmospheric circulation.
Hi Salvatore,
I agree that much too often we see that factors are left out o the equation, probably to help provide simple communication or further some cause..
There is a significant correlation between the Standardized Seasonal Mean of the NAO index (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/JFM_season_nao_index.shtml) and the global average surface temperature, and I speculate that the negative NAO acts as a heat sink by having warm Atlantic air moving directly to the Arctic area, while the Arctic air in turn reduces land and sea surface temperatures at lower altitudes.
Interesting whether the negative NAO trend will continue for a longer period as we have seen in the 40’s and again in the 60′ and 70′, and how this will impact global temperatures..
Ray says:
February 3, 2011 at 2:46 AM
Assuming that the tropics here follow the standard definition, then the tropics take up about 40% of the Earth. Thus, I estimate that “non-tropical” NH = +0.154 C and SH = +0.309 C. Don’t know if we can estimate better than that, someone please do so if it’s possible with the provided data :-).
-Scott
coturnix19:
Well, your belief that Dr. Spencer’s work as a climate scientist is very much correct is sad, but after all it is not your specialization, therefore it is not something to blame you about.
I am sure you would reconsider if you were a climate scientist of some kind.
CJ
we’ll all die soon enough, global warming will kill us, and as we stand before the lord, i am sure all the evolutionists will fell his wrath.
salvatore del prete:
Would you like to bet 5000 Euros that the temperature average for 2012-2015 is higher than 2007-2010? You claim that you are sure that you can predict the falling of the global temperature. Then this should be an easy bet for you.
CJ
Excellent level of argumentation from a climate scientist.. 😉
Does anyone have the latest status of the Landscheidt Grand Minimum generating this horrific La Nina weather? Can we expect next winter’s severe weather anomalies to be as bad or even worse? How might it affect spring’s planting and summer’s crop production? The answers to these questions will go a long way toward helping us know where food prices are headed later this year. They’re already not looking good.
Thanks Harry. I did not realize that the oceans moderated the climate in the Southern Hemisphere so much that the clmate is actually more moderate there than in the Northern Hemisphere. Australia and South America need better marketing campaigns.
John D.
I live in Australia and we have had record high temperatures and a prolonged drought broken by the la nina event, and recently extreme flooding and cyclone events here attributable to warmed seas.
Where there is land in southern hemisphere we get the full effects, but the oceans cover a higher proportion of the whole hemisphere, so the hemisphere as a whole appears less affected.
Also whereas the arctic is ocean surrounded by land, antarctica is a continent surrounded by ocean. This explains why the arctic is experiencing larger than average warming, while the antarctic with the exception of the antarctic penninsula is not.
Hi Brian D,
The Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing, which does not go well with contradicts what you are stating about warmed oceans – or are you questioning the validity of this data?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
What happens at the Antarctic Peninsula is a local phenomenon that has to due with the sea currents, and as you see from the data the overall increase of sea ice outweighs the loss around the Peninsula.
Please comment..
Catrun J says:
“Would you like to bet 5000 Euros that the temperature average for 2012-2015 is higher than 2007-2010? You claim that you are sure that you can predict the falling of the global temperature. Then this should be an easy bet for you.”
There certainly do seem to be some cyclical patterns in the data, such as HadCRUT3, which suggest that we are about to enter a period of decline in temperatures over the next 30-35 years, although the overall trend is still upwards. This is based on a purely statistical analysis of the data and therefore does not include any assumptions on what causes the cycles. I use HadCRUT3 since data sets such as UAH do not yet go far enough back to identify these long term cyclical patterns.
From my own calculations, I estimate the average HadCRUT3 figure for 2007-2010 was +0.41c and based on a projection of the trend into the future, I estimate that the average anomaly for 2012-2015 will be +0.34c. Personally I wouldn’t take the bet, since the timing of the cycles is uncertain and in any case, given the “evidence” in favour of future warming, the odds should be better than evens. What I would say is that in general, there will be a downward trend in temperatures for the next 30-35 years, followed by an increasing trend after thatm for a similar period.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say that “global warming” is a “hoax”, but my feeling is that those favouring warming have been over-influenced by the coincidence that we have just been through a 30-35 year period of warming above the long term trend.
I said if solar activity remains low ,and if volcanic activity is high, especially in the higher latitudes ,global temperatures are going down.
How far down, will be determined by the length of time/degree of magnitude, these two particular items phase into. I think it will be impressive, but let’s, let it play out.
Catrun J. has to resort to making a bet, why don’t you instead explain to us, why you think global temperatures will be higher from 2012-2015, then 2007-2010? In case you don’t, I will explain what your thinking is ,because it is so simplistic.
Your simplistic explanation will be as follows,the temperatures in the future will rise, because of man putting more co2 into the atm., this in turn will create positive feedbacks,namely with water vapor.
Let’s talk about one of the phony positive feedbacks, and that is the famous troposheric hot spot, due to the phony positive feedback, between increase co2/water vapor. A big miscalulation, that is still, to this day, missing in action.
Let’s take it further, the pathetic global warming models predicted a one way evolution of the earth’s atmospheric circulation, and that was for it to evolve into an ever increasing positive +AO circulation, and the opposite has been happening, which I, and others predicted 2 years ago.
The reasoning for a more +AO, and this is a joke, was that co2 increases due to man, would cool the stratosphere ,and cool it ,more in the higher latitudes, in contrast to the lower latitudes ,giving an ever increasing +AO. Well that has been proven wrong also.
ON THE OTHER HAND, our reasoning for the atm. was it to evolve into an ever increasing -AO ,which would be a consequence of low solar activity ,and high latitude volcanic activity ,which is exactly was has been taking place.
The global warmers are in denial and they will go down kicking and screaming, but they are going down. They are now left with only one resort, which is endless BS spinning,and making wild bets. The weak solar activity has come to haunt them, something they never expected ,going back prior to year 2005, which is when this prolong solar minimum ,started to really take a hold. One more thing global warmers ,is lag times are involved. You don’t get instant cooling, once solar activity goes quiet ,it takes at least 4 to 8 years ,if not even longer, so we have just begun.
IF ONE CAN’T FORECAST THE ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION CORRECTLY ,ONE CANNOT FORECAST THE CLIMATE CORRECTLY.
As I showed above, the models they use ,have made two major blunders.
The reason why temperatures went up last century, and I have to say it is one of the smallest changes in temp. in a period of 100 years ,either up or down, was because most of the items ,most of the time, that govern earth’s climatic system ,were in a warm phase. Despite this, temperatures only went up .6c, and you have the wonderful co2 increase to add to this, and still only a .6c rise in temperature. With co2 having so much help from other items that control the climate last century,that makes for a very weak case for co2, and how sensitive ,the earth’s climatic system is to it. Very, very,weak.
Last century we had, very high solar activity ,SOI oscillation was often times negative, rather then positive, low volcanic activity,a positive NAO/AO much of the time,and a PDO in the warm phase, more often then not, especially from 1978-2000.
In closing, I say to the global warmers and their defunct theory which is proven wrong by the fact they got the atmospheric circulation ass backwords, spin away ,spin away and watch the global temperatures throughout this decade decline overall.
Scott,
“Don’t know if we can estimate better than that, someone please do so if it’s possible with the provided data”
The full breakdown of the data is here,
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
It usually updates a few days after Dr Spencers post.
With a quiet Sun, how do we know that the La Nina will stop??
As the heat leaves the oceans, and the La Nina area absorbs more heat, maybe the cooling will accelerate!
North Pacific, South Pacific, North Atlantic, South Atlantic, the anomalies are decreasing in temperature as per:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
For example the North Pacific anom was at 5.6C now it is down to 3.33C.
How cold will it get??
One interesting comparsion between cloud cover and global temperature http://climate4you.com/ However, I´m not sure whether more clouds cause cooling or cooling cause less clouds. And can deforestation affect low level cloud cover? Does anyone have time to reply? Thanx
Hi Martin,
There is a clear link between forest cover and low level cloud cover; the forest retains water much better with increased shading and therefore causing lower ground surface temperature on sunny days, as well as better retaining any received precipitation due to protection from wind as well as the sun. In a deforested area, the sun will warm up the earth and release moisture, but since there is no/little protection from the wind, the moisture will be swept away faster, and the low clouds will be less likely to form, and there will be less locally-induced precipitation.
Deforestation to some degree is therefore also causing general warming of the earth, but since this has happened over centuries and millenia it is a subtle change at the global level.
For CO2 concerned people it is also curious how little focus there is on the fact that re-foresting would help “lock in” much more CO2.
Example: In Denmark the current forest coverage is about 12%. Before farming began 3,000 years ago it was probably 75-85%. It has been calculated by the Danish Forest & Nature Department (sorry, only a link in Danish: http://www.sns.dk/udgivelser/2003/nyeskove/html/kap08.htm) that increasing the forest cover from 12% to 22% will “lock in” an amount of CO2 equal to 6 years of man-made CO2 for this country. The plan is to increase the Danish forest coverage by these 10% over the next 150 years, but still not bringing them anywhere near pre-farming levels..
I think a problem is that with the global warming emphasis, a lot of people went into climatology who weren’t really interested in the science of weather. They were more interested in a political agenda than a scientific agenda. And that has created a problem in that climate research is clearly being done with a bias at a lot of institutions. You even have a crazy proposition put forward that Genghis Khan caused global cooling and this nonsense actually gets published.
I have been looking at the daily AQUA CH5 data on the discover website and I have noticed that there is a figure of 252.7K in the file for February 29th, 2010, which of course wasn’t a leap year. Normally there is a default figure of -999.000 in for Feb. 29th during non leap years.
Can anyone suggest a reason for this?
Does this have any implications for the other data in the file?
I am glad, I have had another opportunity to expose the global man made warming hoax ,and try to get the true story on what causes earth’s climate to change.
What is nice about having your own company, is one is free to do honest research, without having to answer to anyone.
Our company has just started to make our views public, and will continue to do so.
Unlike the global warmers,we will lay everything out, and if it is wrong ,it is wrong . There will be none of the BS spin ,to try to satisfy every climatic happening as a result of global man made warming,like they do on a constant basis. I dare say, if we had an Iceage ,they would spin it, as a result of global man made warming.
Our company has just begun to expose all of this,and we stand by what we say, and do not spin.
FOR EXAMPLE
If the atmospheric circulation were to evolve back into a non blocking pattern(+ao) ,despite low solar activity and high latitude volanic activity, we would admit to being wrong. We will not spin.
Further, if we were to have this -AO pattern for the most part continue ,and the N.H. did not cool, again we would admit to being wrong, and not spin. Of course the cooling wil have it’s ups and downs, but overall, it will be a cooling trend, and extremes in weather will be continuing.
So we our saying three things will happen, if solar activity stays low, they are , a blocking pattern to continue for the most part, and as a consequence of this, a cooling of the N.H. ,how much we don’t know, and continued extreme weather events. Hot and cold, wet and dry.
We will see who is right and who is wrong.
The other side cannot, and will never make such a statement ,because they are always right nomatter what takes place in earth’s climatic system.
One should read what they had to say as recently as year 2000 or so ,about what they expected, one will see it was the EXACT opposite.
Martin says:
February 4, 2011 at 10:50 AM
“One interesting comparsion between cloud cover and global temperature http://climate4you.com/ However, I´m not sure whether more clouds cause cooling or cooling cause less clouds. And can deforestation affect low level cloud cover? Does anyone have time to reply? Thanx”
Martin,
My opinion does not constitute settled science, but here it is anyway. A pot of water on a stove will heat until it reaches the boiling point, then some remarkable phenomena take place and the temperature stops rising, because the system wants to reject heat to the surroundings in the most efficient way possible.
So it is with the atmosphere, but instead of boiling, we see weather systems forming and dissipating, trying to optimize rejection of heat from the earth to space, to overcome the barrier of the water vapor greenhouse effect. Hence a partly cloudy sky represents a balance point. More clouds would scatter more shortwave to space but would block surface radiation from escaping. Fewer clouds would allow more longwave to escape, but often there is too much water vapor in the water column for this to do any good.
So the atmosphere turns over. There are humid regions with cloud cover and thunderstorms where heat is removed by convection or scattered from cloud tops, and there are dry regions with dry descending air that can transmit radiation directly from the surface. The partly cloudy earth is at a balance point where either more or fewer clouds will cause warming. External factors might cause that balance point to change, but the clear/cloudy equilibrium represents a negative feedback that will attenuate these external influences.
Roy said
“While we would like to think our own personal experience of the snowiest winter ever in our entire, Methuselah-ian lifespan has some sort of cosmic — or even just global — significance,”
I would like to invoke the wisdom of the great James Hansen here who has on numerous occasions beginning back at his 1988 congressional testimony used the perception of the “average person” as evidence to support existence of an unusual climate phenomena.
I was at a talk by Hansen in March 2008 in which again put forward this idea that we know that events are real once they begin to become noticeable by the general public and this is how we know we have to act now.
Reader,
It is not the general public that needs to take notice of increasingly turbulent weather patterns – it is the computer modellers. No so called ‘climate’ model predicted the wild partitioning in the weather systems that occured at the end of last year, largely because of the entrenched belief that ‘climate’ and ‘weather’ are totally unrelated! No one aware of modern dynamical systems theory would hold to such an outdated concept – simple Lapalacian steady state plus forcings models will always diverge very rapidly from reality. The reality of such divergence stems from Poincare’s great theorem of 1899. The levels of forcings in our planet’s climate are very large, with large transportation lags over the total surface, as is well understood by Dr Roy. Therefore, no linear mathematical model is capable of temporal and spatial integrity – non-linear models have behaviours not predicted by linear systems theory, and can switch very rapidly between different phase space conditions. We may consider that we can use simple formula, and simple forcing coefficients to make a model, but the detail in that model can never accurately reflect physical reality, nor can we rely on its predicted outcome. Weather is not just noise to be added via a coefficient – it is an integral part of the system response. It is assumed that the ‘noise’ associated from a parameter such as temperature, can be added as a simple time series – this can be done for a linear system, but in a non-linear system, such noise may be a residual between interacting variables and its magnitude may have only a transient relationship. Beware the word, ‘average’, it generally means ignorant of causes!
I am waiting for Dr. Roy Spencer’s climate prediction for this decade and the reasons for it. So far a no show.
I find it hard to believe he does not have a prediction,even if the prediction is for no change. I would like to hear it and why.
I put mine out and my reasons.
The NOAA NCEP SST data showed the SST (sea surface temp anomaly) reaching its last minimum around November 24, 2010. The global surface temp anomaly seems to follow the SST by about 7 months. The global surface temperature anomaly could easily reach -0.4°C by the end of June.
correction: The NOAA NCEP data reached its last minimum around November 10, 2010.
Dear everyone,
I am wondering why past temperatures are so hotly contested. Recently, Dr. Easterbrook did a post on WUWT with several graphs, discussing temperatures of the past 10,500 years. He found that 86.6% of the past 10,500 years have been warmer than 2010. His article came under heavy scrutiny, with someone righting a rebuttal piece and claiming they confirmed the facts of their paper with Dr. Richard Alley. Roy, do you have any contact whatsoever with Gavin Schmidt? I am wondering if he believes the medieval warm period was warmer than 1979-present or if he believes 1979-present is warmer. I am asking you because every time I try to post this question on real climate, it gets blocked. I would also say that the MWP is by far the most hotly contested issue in climate science. Please, somebody here give me their own take on the issue. I thought it was pretty well settled that Michael Mann’s graph was bogus but apparently quite a few of his colleagues believe his graph is a more accurate representation of the MWP.
@Jay
Past temperatures are hotly contested because nobody knows with absolute certainty how much of the recent warming was due to natural cycles that humanity can’t do anything about but adapt and how much may have been do to activities humanity can control. The range of ‘informed’ estimates is between 0% and 100%.
Looking to past cycles of warming and cooling can give us clues about the current cycle.
harrywr2, jayCadbury,
One aspect of this that has made me very suspicious, is the concerted campaign by the AGWwallahs to rubbish all historical data which conflicts with their models. Here in Lincoln UK, a cathedral city dating back to Roman times, there was a vinyard attached to the Bishop’s Palace in the 11th century which produce high quality white wines. Monastic houses as far north as Tyneside also produced good quality wines. An attempt was made a couple of years ago to grow vines again, but it failed. There are now operational vinyards in Kent and Sussex – the ‘noble mould’ has returned, allowing good grapes to be cultivated – but not this far north! So it was certainly warmer and dryer here during the Medieval optimum. The only evidence from tree ring analysis that fits the historical facts is the work of Craig Loehle, whose graph fits the historical data exactly, both for the Medieval warm period, and the mini ice age. The North East passage was open across Northen Russia to the Pacific at this warm epoch – documented historical fact. No local event this, it covered 2/3rds of the northen hemisphere! I would take anything Richard Alley said with a pinch of salt – he represents the glib Blairite persona that accepts everthing he is told by his modellers, and is incapable of checking the results himself. I take my hat off to Drs. Spencer, Braswell and Loehle, who are striving with real scientific integrity to assign real causes, rather than accepting the dull-witted prognostications of computer modellers coding physical concepts of which they do not have the least understanding!
Thank you Mervhob. Dr. Spencer, I would very much appreciate your position on this issue.
I asked this question on Tamino’s site:
If I asked Spencer, Lindzen and Happer if the MWP was warmer than the 1979-present range, I think they would say the MWP was warmer.
However, if I asked Schmidt, Alley and Santer, they would probably say 1979-present has been warmer.
Also, here is the response from realclimate:
41.I have a suspicious feeling this comment will not be posted. I am wondering if Gavin and the other moderators will comment on the MWP. Was the MWP warmer than 1979-present? Or do you believe that 1979-present has been warmer?
I am asking this question because there seems to be a lot of disagreement between scientists.
[Response: Why wouldn’t we post this (other than we’ve heard (and answered) the questions hundreds of times)? The literature says it is very unlikely that the MWP was *globally* as warms as recent decades, but it certainly may have been warmer is some places.–eric]
[p.s. we’re not fooled by old trolls a.k.a. “Dr. Shooshmon, phd.” sock-puppetting as new trolls]
Tamino would not even address the question, he edited it out. I think it is very apparent that the MWP is a much more controversial issue than climate sensitivity. Roy, please let me know your thoughts.
@ Mervhob and anyone who is able to answer
According to Loehle´s study, global temperatures were only 1,2°C higher in the warmest period of MWP than in the coldest period of little ice age. That does only cca 200 altitude meters difference, or 150 km south to north shift. It cannot explain this little wine growing mystery, not even Greenlandian corp growing 🙂 Are there any proxy studies that account local differences?
@Martin
Hi Martin,
Are you familiar with Easterbrook’s recent article about the past 10,500 years? I emailed a link to that article and also a link to an article called “Easterbrook wrong again”
I asked Dr. Happer to look at both and he said that Easterbrook’s article was “basically right”. Here is a direct quote from our email exchange.
“There are many places in Northen Europe (I am personally familiar with sites in Norway and Scotland) where the evidences for a much warmer climate in the Neolithic (mid-Holocene) is overwhelming. The cult is doing its best to cope with this fact, and the rebuttal piece is pretty typical. Google on Holocene climate optimum or Holocene thermal maximum and form your own judgment.”
Jay, Martin,
‘Local’ conditions do not have significant persistence, although as any meteorologist will tell you, there is good correlation to the variance differences, between ‘continental’ and oceanic/islandic situations. In the case of wine growing in Lincoln, agriculture in Greenland, and variations in botanic diversity, there is a massive amount of data, all of which indicates that for significant periods in prehistory, climate was both warmer and cooler than today. What is at question is the causality of that variance – Craig Loehle’s 1.2degC is at best an average – given such a figure, can we quantify the variance? Due to the highly non-linear nature of the problem, we cannot, and this appears to me, to be the direction that Drs. Spencer and Braswell are moving. But Dr. Loehle’s graph is the best reference point that I have found – as it fits two sets of data – not perfectly, but a better correlation than that presented by the AGWwallahs.
Let me make clear at this point that I consider that global warming is indeed occuring, but I firmly dispute our ability to predict the outcome, or first causes, with any degree of certainty. Dr. Richard Alley boasted in the aforementioned British TV programme that it was not conceivable that a group of human beings could spend billions of dollars, and not come up with a rational solution. As a corollary, we might consider a certain company in Seattle, that after some thirty years of endeavour, and untold billions of dollars, has failed to produce a perfect operating system, and in the meantime has inflicted untold misery on the human race! I do not hold that Dr. Alley and his chums in the IPCC are any more competent than those denizens of Seattle, and they seem to be subject to the same delusions. One of my favourite American analysts, Prof. Y.H. Ku, wrote in the 1950s, ‘Nature is non-linear, even the Pendulum of Galileo is controlled by a second order, nonlinear differential equation.’
Quite, so if Galileo was so deluded, what chance do we have?
Jay Cadbury February 8, 2011 at 9:04 AM said:
If they keep treating it like it’s legitimate then eventually people will forget that it was bogus.
@Mervhob
Excellent post. I agree you cannot infer local temperatures are globally persisting. My wish is that that scientists could come to an agreement about past temperatures. Have you seen Dr. Easterbrook’s recent post about temperatures over the last 10,500 years? There was a rebuttal post as well titled “Easterbrook wrong again”. I have read both and in “Easterbrook Wrong Again” the author claims to have consulted Richard Alley to confirm his results. So I linked the 2 posts in an email to Dr. Will Happer and he said that Easterbrook’s post was generally correct. He said the rebuttal piece was typical.
I guess Roy is busy but I don’t think he has any idea about how hotly contested temperatures from the MWP to the present are being debated. Also, he never seems to mention Gavin Schmidt and you would think he must know Gavin on some personal level. It would be interesting to hear what their differences are.
Jay,
I have now looked at Dr. Easterbook’s presentations, and there is no doubt about the linkage to the PDO revealed by the Greenland cores. Thanks for pointing me in their direction. It appears that the mass of geologists, meteorologists, paleo-botanists, glaceologists, historians, etc, are ranged against a few ‘climate modellers’ with very dubious qualifications for the task they have undertaken. As is well understood by most of the people on this blog, climate and weather are highly non-linear, with all the complexity of interaction to be expected from such a system. We can approximate a dynamical system using linear mathematics, but only a very poor mathematician would expect the linear solution to remain valid for more than a few cycles of calculation. Perhaps the IPCC only has poor mathematicians – it certainty would explain the more violent aspects of their tub-thumping – as my grandfather used to say, ‘None so blind as them that won’t see.’ The basis for reasoned experimental science dates back to the 17th century, as has been pointed out by Christopher Game. In fact, it was Robert Hooke, in one of his lectures that, comparing the patterns of nature to a Great Labyrinth, advised, ‘Whereas, he that would march secure, must first find some open and visible Entry, and there enter with his Clew and Instruments, and take notice of what Turnings and Passages he finds, and how far he can proceed in this way and that way… then setting down and protracting all the ways he has there gone, and what he has there met withal…by comparing all which together, he will at last be able to give you the true Ground Plat of the whole Labyrinth, and thereby to tell you which is the right and which the wrong way to find the middle.’
Very sound advice, and the complete antithesis to the methodology of the IPCC, who seem to wish to emulate Sir Isaac Newton, who refused to abandon his corpuscular theory of light, even when Hooke demonstrated diffraction around a knife edge!
I think that there is now sufficient evidence of a potential secure march to the centre of this current labyrinth of climate change, and with it, a timely defusing of a very overheated debate. I am sorry to see such clever and intense contributors as Christopher and RW trading insults over algebraic nit-picking amongst the results from short time series of dubious relevance. Leave that to the AGW crowd – put on Robert Hooke’s Seven League Boots, re-enter the labyrinth, and give those charlatans a good kicking!
@Mervhob
That is a great quote from Robert Hooke, I have not read it before. I also agree with you that there is far too much nitpicking over small and nuanced data.
I encourage everyone here to politely ask Roy to address this issue of past temperatures and if he could specifically comment on Dr. Easterbrook’s recent article. I understand that it is not peer reviewed but I do not think it would have been saved the savaging rebuttal it received either way. My contention is that if 86.6% of past temperatures have been warmer than 2010, doesn’t this invalidate global warming quite well? It invalidates global warming because there must be an expectation that the temperatures of 1979-present would be warmer than the past temperatures with the added effect of global warming.
Another way I have thought of approaching the conclusions of this article is as follows:
Because it has been warmer 86.6% of the time over the past 10,500 years, this leaves only 13.40% of that time with cooler temperatures. In other words, of the past 10,500 years, 1,407 years have been cooler. Therefore, one could predict that temperatures will undoubtedly rise because the vast majority of the past 10,500 years have been warmer.
10500 years : that´s quite long time. We should be slowly heading towards another ice age, so current warming isn´t comparable with the past warm periods, not at all with holocene maximum. Changes in Earth´s orbit and changes caused by solar irradiance fluctuations, oceanic oscillations, albedo (land use) changes, cloudiness and concentrations of various greenhouse gasses and aerosols changes must not be compared in any way. Therefore it´s hard to predict or even guess future changes. I think that global temperature will stagnate or slightly fall in the next few decades because of low sun activity and others on one side and increased concentrations of CO2 and CH4 on the other side- those shoudn´t be omitted as well as overvalued. I´m not an alarmist (therefore I don´t think that global temperature will rise by 6°C/century just because of CO2), but I do think they have their effect. Actually, there is found a believable logarythmic dependence.
CO2 should be omitted ,because it is a non player in global temperatures, what does it take to prove this scam to the public.
Al one has to do is go back in history for a start and one wil see co2 follows the temperature, and that temperature changes much larger in magnitude both up and down have taken place many times on earth prior to when man made co2 became an issue. This last 100 years of a .6c temperature rise is very mild compared to past temperature changes, and if one goes back say 10,000 years one wil find many periods when the temp. was warmer then the recent warm period we had which ended around 2002.
This will be the decade of global cooling due to solar,volcanic ,pdo,amo,ao/nao ,soi oscillation,to name some all phasing toward a colder mode. To what degree of magnitude and length of time ,these items phase into a cold mode will determine how cold it will be this decade.
Jay,
I have been working through Dr. Easterbrook’s papers, and from the historical viewpoint, they carry a persuasive ring of truth. We have been living, for the past 10,000 years in an exceptionally warm period, interspersed with cold snaps synchronised with the PDO. In the 1880, the start of a cold period, the weather was crazy – a fact picked up by Victorian cartoonists who pilloried the meteorologists inability to produce correct forecasts! We are now on the downward trend again, with increasingly turbulent, mixed up weather, which has occured many times in the past at the boundaries between warm and cold cycles, as Easterbrook rightly points out.
One thing neglected by the AGWwallahs is an explanation for the very rapid removal of gigatons of ice at the end of the Younger Dryas. The melting of ice 1 kilometre thick takes a huge energy flux – the evidence for the violence of that melting can be seen all over the Northern British Isles and Scotland. The previous cold conditions had persisted for thousands of years, with brief periods of very rapid warming, such as the one 15,000 years ago, again with catastrophic flooding. The conventional explanation of orbital changes and oscillations in the earths axis are too slow to explain these violent events. So we are missing a trick! And no correlation to atmospheric CO2 available!
Hello, you used to write great, but the last several posts have been kinda boring… I miss your tremendous writings. Past several posts are just a little out of track! come on! – Elegant London Escorts, 65-67 Brewer Street, Floor: 2, London W1F 9UP. Phone: 020 3011 2941
@ salvatore del prete
I´m aware of the 800 years lag between temperature rise and CO2 concentration rise, but it is a greenhouse gas, therefore it contributes to global energy balance. I don´t think it is the biggest forcing factor, but its IR spectrum is well known.
Mervhob ,has it 100% correct. You are so right!
Something in the past and it is not CO2 ,or the earth orbital paramater changes ,has caused the earth to undergo drastic temperature changes, from time to time.
My phase in theory does address this. Is it right ?
What I say in breif summary, is the SUN sets the tables for other items to phase in , either a warm mode, or cold mode.
Those items being in addition to Solar Activity, are Volcanic Activity,AO/NAO Oscillation Phase,SOI Oscillation Phase,PDO/AMO Phase,along with Feedbacks from those main items, such as Albedo Changes due to Snow Cover changes,Clouds,WATER VAPOR changes, etc. etc.
What I further think, is the sun, let’s take a prolong solar minimum, then sets the stage for cooling, by allowing the other items that control the climate, to phase into a cold mode, in this case.
What then happens to temperatures, is then depended upon to what degree of MAGNITUDE and LENGTH of time, the items that control the climate ,(sun included)phase into (in this case) a cold mode.
Most of the time, it is not to a degree of magnitude STRONG ENOUGH, or length of time LONG ENOUGH to cause thresholds to be met, so the result is relatively minor trends in temperatures, but every so often the degree of magnitude is STRONG ENOUGH and LONG ENOUGH, in that these items that control the climate, can cause a threshold to be met, causing a drastic quick change in the climate, which puts the climate into another regime, until some time in the future this happens again ,but in the opposite direction.
So I don’t think it is at all one item, but rather many items ,that come together in a random ,chaotic fashion ,that sometimes ,if solar activity is EXTREME enough either way, can flip the climate, into a different regime.
That is my best theory, and it is CERTAINLY better then the global ,man made warming CO2 ,theory. That is one thing, I am sure of.
Yes Salvatore, Sun is indeed the biggest factor in our climatic system. When our star turns to it´s red giant phase some 4 billions ahead, we will be heading the greatest global warming. So is the theory. But our star was on relatively warmer phase last century and this phase is at the end, according to NASA. Only when this period of lower solar activity will be in full swing, we would be able to see the full extent of decrease in global temperature. This decrease will clearly show the exact effect of our added forcings, when compared to coolings and warmings in recorded history, with regard to exact situation of known factors. But I see a flaw in your theory of Sun-derived changes in PDO,AMO,NAO,AO,SOI phase. Those atmospheric and oceanic oscillations are not even correlated to one another. Moreover, AO and NAO seems to be driven by seasonal differences in temperature of ocean and land.
http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/rsch_highlight/images/200404/time_series.jpg
You can see that PDO and AMO cold and warm phases are not correlated. However, if both PDO and AMO are in warm phase, global temperatures rise and reverse, as Dr Spencer correctly noticed.In my oppinion, oceanic oscillations may be driven by thermohaline circulation.
Salvatore, Martin,
I am beginning to see a way forward – there has to be a linkage, as Salvatore suggests. I followed the link that RW gave to the George White site, and his very suggestive plots of solar forcing. As Christopher pointed out, this is very close to sinusoidal, but more importantly, the albdedo response is very definitely a Van der Pol (VDP) function!
Now this is amazing, as some 10 years ago, my late colleague Dr. A.E. Brain and myself, were convinced there was an oscillatory linkage, and that ocean currents were involved, but could not make a satisfactory connection.
Let me explain that Van der Pol’s second order non-linear differential equation is the simplest (canonical) equation describing an oscillatory system with two reactive elements, being driven equally on each half cycle. Energy flows into the system followed by energy flow out, either into losses or, stored in the driving reactance. Fundamentally, the energy exchanges are at twice the fundamental frequency, the oscillator breaths twice per half cycle – Le Corbeiller classed these as ‘four stroke oscillators’. In the case of the GW plots, the second harmonic component is clearly visible, and suggests very strongly the transfer of energy to a reactive component or out of the system. The 2nd harmonic component of albedo is initially in phase with the solar forcing, but falls away in the next 1/4 cycle as cloud reflectivity falls, and ice cover falls. I think the big mistake the climate modellers have made is treating energy flow in and out of the system as a simple sum of linear terms. Now these graphs suggest it is non-linear, and opens up a mechanism for rapid change, as Ted Brain suggested. If I shift the phase of the 2nd harmonic in a VDP oscillator by 90deg, I rapidly change the rate of change of energy, and the frequency – the oscillating system can jump to a new phase state – no laws of physics have been broken, total energy before and after the jump is the same – it is merely a book-keeping operation. The picture shown by the graphs is not perfectly VDP – the phasing of the 2nd harmonic is not perfect, and there is evidence of higher order components – hardly surprising looking at the complexity of the beast. So we can substitute for energy balance, harmonic balance, the method devised by Janus Groskowski. Looking at the imbalance between Northern and Southern hemispheres, it is obvious that the ocean currents must be external energy store required by a VDP model, and they are very likely to be the source of rapid change in phase of the 2nd harmonic component, probably by increasing and decreasing cloud cover. All speculation, but those graphs, however George derived them are very suggestive! Anybody who wants info on VDP, and its behaviour, please contact me – it is all in David Harrison’s PhD thesis! And Salavatore, you must be right!
There is a definite linkage between low solar activity and the Arctic Oscillation, and between low solar activity and volcanic activity.
If one goes back in history one will find during the Dalton and Maunder Minimums both a -AO, and high volcanic activity, associated ,with each of those minimums.
As I have mentioned before, back some years ago we predicted a -AO would evolve for the atmosphere as a whole, if prolong solar activity persisted and high latitude volcanic activity was present. That indeed has and is occurring ,and the response of the atmosphere is it has evolved more or less into a -AO pattern.
Low solar activity effects the amount of UV light which effects the ozone concentrations in such a way, that it allows the polar startosphere and upper troposphere to warm ,relative to the stratosphere and upper trop. in lower latitudes ,causing a much less pressure gradient and a -AO. Same can be said for high latitude volcanic activity, and it’s effects on the polar upper atm. versus lower latitudes.
SUN /VOLCANO LINKAGE.
If one is in a car going 100 mph (active sun) AND it accelerates to 110 mph one will feel a small jolt, where as if one is in a car going 1 m.p.h (inactive sun) and it increases to 30 mph still inactive sun, but the degree of magnitude of the increase is great, and one feels a big jolt. Same with the earth/sun relationship, versus geological activity.
Also there is a connection between the PDO phase and solar activity due to the geological activity, which seems to cause the ocean bottom to undergo a change,that enables the Pacific to switch from one phase to another ,if the solar activity is extreme enough, and long enough in duration. You need a very prolong solar minimum, to accomplish all the linkages I have talked about. Not the normal 11 year sunspot cycle.
I THINK THE PHASE IN THEORY WITH THE SUN SETTING THE TABLES FOR THIS TO TAKE PLACE ,IS VERY VALID, AND IS THE BEST EXPLANATION I HAVE EVER BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH.
Not that I am the only one with this explanation, but I refined it much from what others have had to say.
Sometimes it is best to sleep on an idea (and wake up screaming!) The GW graphs do not show a 4-stroke non-linear oscillatory response – it is two stroke, as the maximum change occurs on one half cycle only – the half cycle of maximum solar forcing. This also corresponds to the greatest change in albedo, due to the changing tilt of the earth’s axis, and the increase in both ice and cloud reflectivity.
In the case of the pure, 4-stroke VDP, the two half cycles are mirror images, and the the 2nd harmonic assymmetry is canceled out, leaving only odd order terms. This does not occur with a 2-stroke oscillator, and the limits of stability are much worse, as is pointed out by Le Corbeiller. Two-stroke oscillators were used in an attempt to analyse the lunatic behaviour of markets, simply because of the rapid changes stability that they demonstrated! If we accept that the Sun is the major forcing mechanism, and that changes in solar activity must be reflected in marked changes in stability, which I believe is Salvatore’s contention, then much of the previous history of climate variability makes sense. Anyone who doubts the sagacity of this can visit Climate4you, where the documentary correlation is laid out in great, and thorough detail.
The winter of 1683-4 was particularily harsh, and John Evelyn records in his diary, ‘Men and cattle perishing in divers places, and the very seas so locked up with ice that no vessels could stir out or come in. The fowls, fish and birds, and all our exotic plants and greens universally perishing.’ Obviously, history was Dr Mann’s worst subject at school!
I agree with Salvatore that the relative derivatives (rate of change) of effects has a dramatic impact – in particular on a non-linear system, with dubious limits of stability. One of the primary tenets of the AGWwallahs is that night time temperatures have been increasing – what was interesting during the recent NH cold snap was that I could find no evidence of this – once the water vapour had frozen out of the troposphere, temperatures plummeted rapidly to levels I have not seen in these latitudes. Not much benefit from CO2 here!
Salvatore. Volcanic activity have been rising for at least 100 years (the fastest rate from 1950). The biggest volcanic eruption of 20.th century was in 1912 and the second biggest in 1991. In the second case was solar activity high and stable. (I am of course not meaning the 11 years sunspot cycle) You are merely abandoning the most basic principes of volcanic activity. But good point with low solar acitvity/ozone concentraion/-AO, in ADDITION to sea/land temperature difference.
Do you know that Dr. Mann,(the Dr. Mann) when he was honest did a paper called Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum.
He echos the connection between the AO and solar activity in this paper! Also the connection between solar activity and temperature changes for the N.H.! lol
What happened to him? I know ,the political game.
If one goes to the website http://www.sciencemag.org ,and then types in the title ,I think you can get it. I had got the info. from the Layman sunspot site a few days ago. I don’t see it there ,as of now.
It is hard to believe given his stance now, that he was involved in this article ,not that long ago.
No, volcanic activity has been very low since 1900.
If you would plot all volcanos, that have erupted since 1600 with an explosive index of 5 or higher ,you will find that 85% of them have been associated with prolong solar minimum activity. That is a fact.
Also, since 2008 or so volcanic activity has increased much more in comparisome to the entire 20th century, which has had by far less volcanic activity, then any of the previous century’s before it.
If you go to google and type in solar activity versus geological activity, you will find articles that support this relationship.
I predict and I will stand by it, if the prolong solar minimum contiunes ,more volcanic activity will continue to take place ,as it has for the past two or three years.
You need spurts of active solar activity, within minimum solar activity,to achieve this ,to the greatest degree.
Piers Corbyn, has much to say on the solar/volcanic connection.
Also if you google -Articles on correlation betwen solar activity and volcanic activity, you will come across some interestng articles.
One is by Jaroslav Strestik, titled Possible correlation between solar activity ,and volcanic activity in a long term scale. Very interesting. Also the space and science center out of Orlando, had much to say on this subject.about a year ago.
Martin ,there are always exceptions, not all volcanic activity is going to occur during solar minimums ,just more of it.
As far as the items that control the climate being directly correlated with one another or not ,that is not my point. My point is, the sun sets the stage ,and if the sun sets the stage for a long enough period of time ,just through randomness ,the items that control climate, would sooner or later all phase toward a colder mode,(by chance if nothing else) and when that happens, with a weak sun, temperature changes will occur.
Nevertheless, one can say their is a link between prolong low solar activity ,and the AO. One can say their seems to be a link between prolong low solar activity, and volcanic activity. One can say there is a link between, high latitude volcanic activity and the AO. One can say there is a link between a meridioanl circulation and more extremes in weather ,including more snow cover,more clouds ,and therefore ,a higher earth albedo.
One can say low latitude volcanic activity, promotes El Ninos, while high latitude volcanic activity does not.
One can say a cold PDO ,promotes more and stronger La Ninas, and La Ninas seem to be tied to the solar cycle to some degree,not to mention the QBO ,which is tied to the solar cycle, which can give rise to stratospheric warming events,when in a easterly mode, which leads to a -AO.
AMO ,will be in cold mode by 2015, so after 2015 the PDO ,and AMO, will both be in a cold mode ,for many years.
Again, there seems to be some evidience that the oceam bottom may be tied to solar activity, which could make it give rise to a warmer/colder PDO, depending on how the thermohaline circulation and the meridional overturning circulation may be influenced.
One can make a case that all the above have some sort of correlation ,even if not 100% correlated. The prolong solar minimum HOWEVER ,sets the tables to give those items a better chance to phase into a cold mode.
I believe this is what has happened in the past ,that has caused dramatic temperature swings to occur from time to time ,due to thresholds being met ,at times of extreme phase in periods.
@Salvatore
Hi Salvatore,
Do you know how much energy of the sun the earth intakes? I am curious to know so that we can better gauge how powerful the sun’s rays are.
One thing I stil do not fully understand is how jump from low to higher activity of Sun can cause geological activity increase. I´ve searched throughout the internet without any convincing explanation. To Jay: http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Recent%20solar%20irradiance
Ad.
The explanations i´ve found are of type “planets are in position” bullshit.
Piers Corbyn has a good explanation. It came out on the climate realist site about 3 weeks ago. I used the fast car ,slow car anaology.
Martin ,if you plot from 1600 to present ,you will see the correlation. I think it is to high to be a fluke.
My question to everyone on the board, if not this phase in theory ,when the sun is in a prolong minimum ,that might create thresholds ,if items that control the climate phase in a proper way, to result in sometimes drastic temperature changes,what then is it?????
If not this, what is an alternative explanation? I am open to anything,that would try to account for this. As for example the sudden cooling and warming that took place around the Younga Dryas event, but you see ,it is not just this event, but many times this has happened. So, again my question is what ,if not the phase in theory, has caused all these sudden temperature events to happen from time to time in earth’s past?
Up to now the phase in ,with thresholds being crosed is the best I can come up with. Anyone, have anything else??
Dr. Spencer what do you say?
Again, I am talking prolong solar minimums, not the normal 11 year sunspot cycle, to possibly account for my thinking.
I´m just skeptical to this theory, I can´t help myself. gravity influence of Moon and Sun is plausible explanation of higher/lower volcanic activity, but how can Sun activity cause physical changes in Earth´s core? We´re protected by our own magnetic field. It´s logical that those 2 fields interact, but I don´t see any link between volcanoes and long term solar activity changes, just because of the time required to acuumulate big enough pressure in magma chamber.
I´m either stupid or missing something.
And I´ve also read one oppininon, that planetary constellation can influence solar activity. Sorry, but
1, Sun represtents 99 % of weight in solar system
2, distance. when you double the distance, gravity interraction decreases by 4.
THERE IS A INCREASE IN VOLCANIC/GEOLOGIC ACTIVITY WITH PROLONG SOLAR MINIMUMS ACCORDING TO PAST HISTORY.
QUESTION IS WHY- one explanation is the jolt earth receives when the sun is in a very low active state, with SUDDEN short burst of activity, creating a jolt to the earth. That make sense to me, to some degree.
Another one is when the sun varies in a quiet state to active, for brief times, it not only effects earth’s rotation rate , but it effects the rotational rates of the different core levels of earth. Another words the mantle’s roational rate will change,but not exactly the same as earth’s inner core, which is enough, however slight this may be(and it is a difference of micro seconds,) to produce the initial unstable conditions which could lead to more gelogical activity.
I am not saying these are correct, but if I had to choose a reason ,if there is a reason, these two would be high on my list.
MARTIN — What do you think has caused the occasional sudden drastic temperature changes on earth from time to time, if not this phase in theory during a prolong state of solar activity? Do you have a theory?? Thanks.
Your theory is good, but it requires very long time. One such example is the Maunder minimum. It does make sense that low solar activity of certain duration shifts internal variable factors to cool phase. But let´s look at mentioned Maunder minimum. It´s peak occured in 17 th century, but coolest perion of LIA occured at the beginning of the 17 th. century, alas, it´s not very certain. However, temperatures were actually slightly rising in the 17 th century, while Sun activity was still very low . This must not be the only factor, although I do think you are right.
As for sudden temperature changes, they could have been caused by various things, such as series of explosive volcanic eruptions, cosmic dust variation (unfortunately unverifiable), combination of smaller causes etc. Altogether, I don´t know. What I´m quite sure of is that forecasted cool phase of AMO and current cool phase of PDO compliance is not caused by decreasing solar activity. Current solar activity pause began only recently.
We shall see. This solar activity decrease combined with cool phase of AMO and PDO will be great for observations. For me, the key questions are these. Are there any net warming effect of human activity? If there are, global temperature is going to be slightly higher than expected, when compared to past events such as this. Will sudden solar activity recovery cause increase in worldwide tectonic activity? If yes, you are right and if not… well that would require more attention later. And the third, perhaps most important in this issue: will AMO and PDO change its currently existing seqence? I´m really looking forward to ongoing events. Not only because I like snow.
We have to keep in touch, this has been good. I like exploring causesand ideas , and only time wil tell who is right and who is long.
This is why I view this current solar minimum that started in late 2005 ,and is continuing as we speak, as a great opportunity to get answers. The only trick is the solar activity must stay low for the coming years,so we can see, how this all plays out. One thing I forgot to mention, is lag times are always involved.
SOLAR ACTIVITY
Martin, I did not mean solar recovery, I meant brief burst of solar activity ,in an otherwise prolong minimum state. Just brief burst in an otherwise quiet solar enviroment.
,
SOLAR CONNECTIONS- IT DOES MAKE SENSE.
Think about it, the sun is very powerful ,and is what drives our basic climate. Does it not follow, that changes from this all important source, from it’s norm ,should have some kind of effects on our climate? I am again talking about prolong solar minimums.I would think it has to,since it drives earth’s climatic system ,in the first place.
Past history shows(talking about MAUNDER MINIMUM AND DALTON MINIMUM) that during these times of low solar activity, atmospheric circulation was mainly -AO, volcanic activity was high , there were more in the way of La Ninas, and oceans were in mostly a cold phase.
I think past history data ,is very important ,even if one can’t pin down the exact cause and effect. Past data suggest a connection.
As far as what part of the MAUNDER WAS COLDEST, that would depend on during what points of time during the MAUNDER, the items I think control the climate had their greatest degree of magnitude of change, in a phase direction, that would create the coldest temperatures. I am sure,( although these items phased into a colder mode) it was more extreme at certain times, then it was at other times, which would make for a variance in the teemperature, throughout the MAUNDER MINIMUM.
Also during the MAUNDER MINIMUM ,it looks like no thresholds were meant or crossed , by the phase in of the items that control the climate, to make for a drastic change in temperature, as was the case, for the YOUNGA DRYAS period of time, in contrast to the MAUNDER MINIMUM ,period of time.
MAUNDER ,I guess we could say, was maybe 1/2 of the way to a threshold being meant, but things reversed before that could take place, apparently.
I meant right or wrong. lol. I am tired. take care
The good thing is we can expect quite long solar minimum, as well as cool phase of main atmospheric/oceanic oscillations. The bad thing is we probably won´t live long enough to see the consequences in full extent 🙠As for our further communication, I will be checking this web for another interresting article.
NASA has now released its data for January 2011 :
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
They are showing a global average temperature of 0.46 C above the 30-year average. But the data here is showing – 0.01 C, and I think they are using the same baseline. This is HUGE difference ! Can anyone explain it to me ?
Gents–I am a 68 years old geologist who takes a long term perspective on climate variation. However, that is not the point of this entry. The arguing back and forth on this site is actually minimal compared to the criticism I have received for observing likely ancient (1.5 Million years before present) glaciation as low as 1,000 meters in the southwestern US. I may be wrong, but it would sure be better if we all compared available data, rather than arguing about opinions. I spent twenty field seasons in Alaska, but didn’t start thinking about glaciation in southwestern Utah until I took a cruise to Glacier Bay in 2009. Let’s all keep learning.
Avaiable data tells us three things for sure, CO2 has nothing to do with climate change, and at times in the past earth has undergone sudden abrupt temperature changes, both up and down, and that these changes are to short in duration, and to often in occurance,, to be a result of the Milankovich orbital cycle,or thermohaline circulation changes.
I say, as I have said, I think it is due to items that control the climate ,phasing into either a cold mode or warm mode, to a degree of magnitude and duration where thresholds are met, and then goes the temp. change up or down.
I say if not this, what? I would love to hear other explanations for the abrupt past temperature changes earth has had in the past, from time to time. Not the major glacial and interglacials ,but the abrupt temp. changes.
Salvatore. I think that sudden climate changes can be driven by various events. Ve´ve discused volcanic eruptions, for example. Some of them may be almost indetectable. Perhaps the best example is ozone layer. There´s very little of ozone and yet would be life as we know imposible without it and climate would surely be quite different. We wouldn´t even know anything about ozone without our technical devices. Last year in central Europe, where I´m living, was wettest in history of measurements. It was caused mainly by meridional exchanges of air masses (which are uncommon here in magnitude like that, as we have a persisting west winds). Warm Mediterranian sea provided good conditions for emergence of low air pressure conditions, whereas Arctic air masses accelerated the condensation. As a result, local air temperatures have decreased below diameter of last decade by 1,5 to 2°C (unfortunately, winter is a disappointment fom me, winter 2009/2010 was by far better ). I wouldn´t be surprised if similar circulation pattern persists for this year. Just because of warm Mediterranean and cool Russia and Scandinavia. Gore got a small piece of truth in his statement about snow storms in the USA: warming of particular place can cause cooling on another place. It just isn´t the case he was making statements on.
That was a good exchange, you two! I am an AGW denier, mainly because of my knowledge of ice cores and Recent stratigraphy. The most wonderful concept in geology is the idea of Multiple Working Hypotheses. However, it is difficult for long time residents of the deserts of Utah and Nevada to imagine low altitude glaciation, just as it is hard for me to accept long term climate predictions from 30 years of satellite measurements. I remember the sixties and seventies when we are all doomed to freeze to death in the dark. While living in Alaska I experienced a December that average 25 degrees F. below zero, followed by a rainy January that averaged above freezing for about three weeks. Ice can form on frozen ground under those conditions. Winters in Cedar City, Utah, have varied from sub-arctic to Mediterranean in the 21 years I have enjoyed here. I do not know the mechanisms, but I do respect the reality of rapid weather changes. No one can forecast long term trends from a few years of data.
About North American weather. Local conditions in the USA are mainly formed by meridional disposition of mountains. Thus local conditions can vary very wildly in short time. We in Europe cannot imagine 3 inches of new snow in lowlands in one day, freezing rains like in Quebec, tornadoes (although there were some in the recent years, but they were otherwise unheard of)
About AG warming/cooling. I´ve heard about experiments with greenhouses. One of them was of standard glass and the other of IR capturing material (I think it was NaCl). Temperature in that of IR capturing material was 1°C higher. One sciencist of early 20 th century claimed that it´s impossible to heat atmosphere by adding CO2, because if pure IR capturing material added only 1°C, it´s implausible that some additional molecules of CO2 can cause temperature rise. But troposphere (i won´t take higher parts of atmosphere) is in average 10 km thick. It´s highly probable that actual IR radiation in the concerned wavelength will be trapped by GHG molecule and then one half of it´s energy radiated back into atmosphere. In addition,heat capacity of greenhouse environment is substantialy lower than that of Earth. I don´t think that climate sensitivity is as high as IPCC calculates with, but… we shall see in this ongoing solar minimum, I´d better wait.My estimate of antrophogenic part of 20th century warming is 0,3°C (not only CO2, land use changes too) out of 0,8°C and we have data to be compared with past similar events. About cooling effect of antrophogenic aerosols. Big mistake was made, aerosols in the troposphere are “washed” down by precipitation, it isn´t probable that our aerosols will be passed up into the stratosphere, where they can cause climate changes.
Good post from you guys.
If you are interested. If you go to the website iceagenow.com, Robert Felix, gives his thoughts on ice ages and why? It is a one hour video, and I found it to be very interesting.
I think you are correct,land use changes, have probably been the biggest impact, if any, man has had on the climate.
Gents
Anyone interested in following up solar minimums should type “solar inertial motion fairbridge” in their search engines.
As far as increased geological activity during solar minimums goes, just total up the number of large (>7.5 magnitude) earthquakes since the 1950’s. A little off topic, but educational when trying to interpret what may be happening to our planet right now.
The graph of global precipitation varies by about +/- 3.0% could represent a global cloud variation of that amount. What, I wonder, is the net amount? If it is one or two percent, that represents the insolation loss or gain that Trenberth is trying to find. Angels on the heads of pins?
I have looked into this repeat Dalton minimum vs. Maunder minimum Solar Cycle (SC). The latter, the Maunder minimum, is not likely to occur unless the current SC24 continues for about 13 yrs. This would be the 2nd such lengthened SC. Two such lengthy SCs in a row usually precedes a Maunder like minimum. So, given the falling Gauss, we might be in for quite a show by 2015-if it falls below 1500 and the sunspots do wink out. Cooling for the next 65 years or so? The present SC24 is the Landscheidt minimum. This should step us down to temperatures similar to the early 1800s.
Earth has about 160,000 glaciers. Only about 1 in 10,000 have been surveyed. There are many reasons for disappearing glaciers. Not all really “melted”. Some were ablated away as the air above these glaciers remained below freezing. Lack of winter snow pack, proximity to cities, increased winter or spring rains, increased deposition of atmospheric particles – soot, shifting jet streams, ocean currents /tectonic plates and volcanic activity are but a few.
230 glaciers in the western Himalayas, including Mount Everest, K2 and Nanga Parbat, are actually growing.
The Nisqually Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. The Emmons Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. Glaciers on Glacier Peak in northern Washington are growing. And Crater Glacier on Mt. Saint Helens is now larger than it was before the 1980 eruption. All seven glaciers on California’s Mount Shasta are growing. Three of Mount Shasta’s glaciers have doubled in size since 1950. Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier was advancing at the rate of seven feet (two meters) per day – more than half-a-mile per year. And in Icy Bay, at least three glaciers advanced a third of a mile (one-half kilometer) in one year. The Juneau Icefield, with its “positive values,” covers 1,505 square miles (3,900 sq km) and is the fifth-largest ice field in the Western Hemisphere. The fifth-largest ice field in the Western Hemisphere is growing.Perito Moreno Glacier, the largest glacier in Argentina, is growing.
Pio XI Glacier, the largest glacier in Chile, is growing.
Glaciers are growing on Mt. Logan, in Canada.
Glaciers are growing on Mt. Blanc, in France.
Glaciers are growing in Norway.
All the glaciers in New Zealand are growing.
Data from this site:http://www.iceagenow.com/Our_glaciers_are_growing_not_melting.htm dated March 2010.
Disappearing glaciers may or may not be due to an unnaturally warming climate. I feel that the big picture is just not yet complete in terms of glacier meltdowns.
Wrangler Wayne keep the post coming. Very interesting.
SST graph and UAH Temp graph:
Where SST drops (2008)0.30K, UAH drops 0.45K. Pattern consistent through time. Oceans 0.71 cover Earth. So 0.71(0.30) + 0.29(x) = 0.45.
Land temp 2008 drop is then 0.82K.
If world was 100% “ocean”, temp would have fallen 0.42K.
If world was 100% “land”, temp would have fallen 2.83K
Thermal inertia of water 6.73X that of land?
UHIE of land areas – showing up in rapidity of temperature drop?
If the rise and fall in land vs water temp is truly like this, then, again, what is the global temperature saying?
Okay, so I am out to lunch here. Still, if SST satellite data is so different from whole earth satellite data, what is each measuring? And if we take the satellite data vs HadCruT and GISTemp, the differences (0.22K in the actual temp) what is the different thing being measured?
To say they measure different things, as Hansen says, if fine. The question that should be answered is what those things are.
Rain and snow in NE USA
You mentioned moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic.
You should mention the Appalachian Mountains in with the air masses. As the air streams move to the northeast across the mountain ranges moisture is stripped and dry air reaches the Atlantic coast dropping light rain or snow. As the dry air mass slides out to sea the dreaded Nor’Easter comes back with inches of rain and feet of snow for Washington, DC, Philadelphia, New York City and Boston. The turbulence may come from the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico but the moisture for the Atlantic coast comes from the Atlantic Ocean.
The area south of the Low gets nothing and the area north of the Low gets gales and blizzard.
Absolutely Great! The contexts were very informational and educational. maldives videos I’ve learned a lot of ideas through this stuff. Thank you!
“Two totally independent techniques…”
Please kindly consider:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110308.html
As Isabella Velicogna – one of the authors – said:
“These are two totally independent techniques, so it is a major achievement that the results agree so well…”
No further comments.