ORH_wxman
-
Posts
89,103 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by ORH_wxman
-
It depends on the context..."the science is settled" is a fairly valid response to someone who thinks we haven't warmed at all in the past 150 years. The science is indeed settled on that...we have warmed. Its usually not worth going any further into conversation with someone who believes that. On the flip side, "the science is settled" used as a general description of climate change is obviously deceptive and a frequent false talking point of extreme alarmists to divert attention away from the numerous uncertain aspects of climate change.
-
That's because skier has shown a higher intolerance for the #4/#5/#6 ratings versus #1/#2...personal preference. We all have them. But I agree, it makes the list more subjective rather than simply stating what each group focuses on....not painting a broadbrush of some anecdotel attitude perception on the entire group would come across more objective.
-
Even taking that into account, its still a pretty obvious difference. Siberia is enormous anyway just from a longitude standpoint... and it has same latitude as northern Europe/Canada, so while the area will look a little larger on a flat map like that, its not like its up near the pole where the stuff really gets distorted.
-
I guess I just don't see anything noteworthy in SE Asia in context to the rest of the globe....Siberia sticks out for landmasses and perhaps Alaska. If we narrow it to the last 10 years, SE Asia cools more, but the domination still continues from Siberia/Alaska and of course the ENSO influence in pretty much the entire east Pacific: The Cohen study is good because it tells us where the overall trends are coming from. A steep 25-30 year cooling trend across pretty much all of Siberia/Europe in winter definitely is the opposite of what we would expect. That is long enough to be perplexed. The shorter spacial/seasonal trends of 10-20 years are interesting, but still obviously involve a lot of noise.
-
I agree those areas had a lot of warming from like 1975-2000...what I was emphasizing was that the nations now being industrialized are not the ones holding steady or cooling as we might deduce from the aerosol theory of 1950-1970. Those recently industrialized areas from 1990-present are still warming while the cooling or flat lining is back in the northern hemisphere extra-tropical latitudes...and not only that, its in winter which is even more against conventional theory. None of this is to reject a hypothesis about aerosols outright, but it does paint a fuzzier picture on what exactly is causing these regional swings in temperature. There's likely some large additional components.
-
I was responding to your claim that areas that were not previously industrialized but are now going through it are seeing the pause in warming...that hasn't been the case recently. Most of the pause is due to cooling in winter in extratropical northern hemisphere regions (i.e. the nations that have been industrialized for a long time now)
-
Actually the largest regions that lack warming are the already-industrialized regions...and the lack of warming is almost exclusively coming from a cooling trend in winter in these regions. http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL2012.pdf Essentially the opposite of what you'd expect.
-
This doesn't make any sense...if the aerosols are anthropogenic
-
The first portion of this paper gives a look at heat waves and cold waves in the U.S. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00066.1
-
Heat waves and droughts are not the same thing. Heat waves are one of the few attributable events with climate change that have high confidence due to the shifting "right" of the temperature curves. I recommend reading this: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00055.1 Which I posted a few posts above.
-
The idea is: "You like snow and cold, so you must be denying that the earth is getting warmer!11!!1!" Its irrelevant to any useful discussion of climate change.
-
Yes in the future...but not currently. Or at least there has been no current trend frequency or intensity of central U.S. drought over the past century. If anything, there has been a slight decrease. Another paper this summer on the 2012 drought: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00055.1 Basically concluding that natural variability in SSTs combined with shorter term variability in weather was responsible for the central U.S. drought. Little if any evidence was found that increased GHGs were a significant factor in the drought. Which supports my original assessment of media blaming the 2012 drought on climate change is ignorant and/or misleading. At the very least, the media who mention climate change and the 2012 drought should inform of how likely small an impact it had on it (if it did at all in any significant manner) and how uncertain the attribution studies are. Most point toward southwest U.S. drought increasing with only modest increases in the central US, and most are future projections and do not reflect current longterm trends.
-
The increasing precip trend could easily be responsible for the drought not lasting longer than it did it either end of it...perhaps we'd be seeing a stronger/longer drought ala the early/mid 1950s...we don't know, do we? The bottom line is that the attribution is so flimsy that making a headline that blames climate change on that drought is misleading and really doesn't do the science any favors. Which was the original point. Even if we were confident (which we aren't) that the drought was definelty made worse by climate change....the magnitude would be so small as to really be indistinguishable from natural variability. Thus "blaming" climate change for the drought is still misleading.
-
What does this have remotely to do with the science being discussed? There's plenty of levels of alarmist/skeptic all of which can be supported to some extent by the science except for perhaps the two extreme ends.
-
Droughts have actually been decreasing in our period of record in the U.S. since the late 1800s/early 1900s, including the central U.S. The only region that has seen an increase is the far SW U.S. There is actually very little scientific evidence that droughts are currently more common than previously or that they will even become more common in the U.S. anytime soon. There are some studies based purely on climate models that suggest particularly southwest U.S. droughts could intensify in the 2nd half of the 21st century and that other random droughts could become worse based on increased evaporation of soil moisture with warmer temps. The recent AMS report on the 2012 drought: Another recent study by the AMS on U.S. droughts (and other extremes): http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00066.1 There is attempt at attribution with some qualifiers in a warmer world, however, the scientific evidence remains very flimsy for attributing the 2012 central U.S. drought to climate change. There might be a slightly less flimsy case if you only focused on the southwest U.S., but even there, the natural variability noise is overwhelming...they see larger swings in periods of drought than other parts of the U.S., so a more positive trend there is hypothetically less significant than some other part of the U.S.
-
Those that are constantly promoting the idea that most extreme weather events are caused by climate change, the higher end of IPCC projection (or higher) on TCR and ECS, and the higher end of SLR by the end of the 21st century (or higher). Also typically focusing on the negative potential impacts of climate change rather than the net outcome (i.e. avoiding talking about any benefits). At least that is how I would define "alarmist". There really isn't a great word because saying "pro-AGW" doesn't really define anything. Just about all skeptics believe in some form of AGW/climate change.
-
The skeptic community here isn't large. Only when in comparison to blogs like skepticalscience which by their very nature will be skewed toward alarmist global warming hype. On the flip side, the skeptic community here is paltry compared to a blog like WUWT. Both types of blogs have their legit science on them, but you have to filter through a lot of crap and the general bias of the site to post about papers which support their thinking on climate change.
-
Yes, this part...and also, it should not matter regardless. The topic should be weighted by scientific evidence, not politics or a derivative of politics.
-
There's been some attribution to heavy rainfall events in the U.S. due to climate change. Though most studies on them are not long enough for high confidence. We don't have nearly as strong of a precipitation record as we do a temperature record since the late 1800s. The media will do their typical hack jobs, but the science will speak for itself for those who actually want to read the papers.
-
Well at least they won't be talking about the drought...but not surprisingly, that wasn't blamed on climate change once the actual scientific evidence was reviewed. (though I'm sure plenty of media will still ignorantly blame the 2012 drought on climate change)
-
Alaska/Western Canada obs and discussion
ORH_wxman replied to patrick7032's topic in Central/Western States
The Nenana Ice Classic is aiming for the latest melt out on record (97 years worth). I doubt it can last to beat the 1964 date of May 20th, but 2nd place is attainable if the tripod stands another 24 hours: http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/ Been an amazing spring (or lack of) up there. -
This one definitely had a lot of similarities to Feb '83...I remember thinking that too when the progs were about 72h out. Up here, it under performed compared to '83 due to more advection of dry air from the north...but definitely not down in that region.
-
1. NAO blocking...where will it set up? Ensembles have been pushing the blocking further west, especially starting with yesterday's runs. But its been generally on the all of the ensembles (both Euro/GEFS) for about a week now. The only difference is it was more pronounced yesterday and it seems to finally be getting closer...at least the big east based block is now inside of 10 days. There is still plenty of reason to be skeptical of the west based blocking idea. HM has brought up the stratospheric state in the North Atlantic going forward in the near-term which would try to inhibit blocking from retrograding westward into the Davis straight region. 2. Aleutian ridge reconfiguration...temporary GOA ridge retrogrades west. This is something that is also becoming a bit more clear with guidance. The temporary GOA ridge (which originally was going to be more of a +PNA, but never got far enough east) that builds for the lakes cutter next week looks to retrograde back and then feed into the Aleutian ridge building poleward again...it temporarily has been beaten down a bit which is contributing to our recent torching in the CONUS. A more poleward Aleutian ridge is going to be key for sustaining arctic intrusion into the CONUS beyond the initial shot behind the Lakes cutter. As the GOA ridge is undergoing this rebuilding, we seem to have another window for a torch in the Dec 13-15 range. 3. Snow. A poleward Aleutian ridge and a -NAO (even if east based) has historically been a very snowy pattern for New England in December. Its not a guarantee but it increases the odds quite a bit. There is a chance we don't cash in because it is impossible to predict the nuances of any given shortwave or synoptic feature, but I think you can at least count on some legit chances as we move into the week of Dec 17-24. The pattern will look a lot different 10 days from now...of course whether we actually get snow events from it or not will decide whether weenies scream boom or bust. Here's a look at the GEFS prog for Dec 17-18...the EC ensembles are not quite as enthusiastic about the NAO, but definitely still have it and the overall longwave pattern is similar. -
Well its not like you missed it in NJ.
-
Those are pretty impressive pictures from PDII, you must have had at least 24" where you were looking at the reference points and where drifts might be.