CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

OK.

Here is the global mean pressure map for the Winter season just gone:



I have given my humble explanation about why this pattern was the way it was in an earlier post, so maybe now you could expand on that and tell me how much influence 'climate change' had on this pattern, so I and others can perhaps gain a better understanding of these little nuances.

Thanks in advance.

Patrick. XX

Yours is another 'the river flooded because its water went over its banks' reply. You've found the answer you want to find so you stop asking questions...


Why did the wind blow with such consistency from a certain direction? Why did it blow from the W/SW across Europe and Russia for a whole winter such that Moscow smashed it's warmest winter record by 2.5C? You don't ask such questions...





You think that was entirely due to synoptics? Oh, and some SST anomaly off the east coast of the USA. Have you asked yourself if your answer might be wrong? Or too simple? No, you haven't.



Ok, so at a time when massive amounts of ghg are being put into the atmosphere, at a time when long known atmosphere physics shows the atmosphere should be (and is!) warming in response to that extra ghg, you think an incredibly mild winter is all due to synoptics?


Dig a little deeper!

M.T. Cranium

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

M.T.
I was looking at those new 'reanalysis' maps on Wetterzentalie that you mentioned and they do just look more than a little bit off, especially regarding the Big Wind of 1839. No sign of the well documented warm front that proceeded the storm, and no sign of the storm itself. So one has to ask, what really is the point of these maps (or more specifically, the grib files) if they don't even input well documented data into them?

I know, and this might have been a bit of a problem all along in a much less obvious way, and it may be the reason why models are somewhat overamped nowadays as I mentioned in the storm thread. If the models are given past data and think a 940 mb low was a 950 mb low, then they will quite naturally overestimate wind speeds from a 950 mb low today.

If they think the Big Wind was a force 6 small craft warning, then as you say, what's the point?

Some of the North American maps for this new extension amplify a trend I had noticed in the 1850s, a nearly complete lack of intensity, as if weeks or months went by without a significant wind or air mass change. The patterns may correlate slightly with reality, is about all I could really say for some of the maps. By the 1860s the maps start to look reasonable. My test of it is to take some month that I don't know much about and try to predict the Toronto and Providence weather from the maps (Providence ran to 1860). If the predictions don't line up with the actual weather, then I think the maps might be off. Not that you always have all the information you might want to back-cast, but you should be able to do fairly well from these maps.

I will be making some comments about these maps on American weather forums so perhaps the NOAA people will hear about this concern and address it, probably with an execution order.

Oneiric 3

posidonia wrote: »

Yours is another 'the river flooded because its water went over its banks' reply. You've found the answer you want to find so you stop asking questions...


Why did the wind blow with such consistency from a certain direction? Why did it blow from the W/SW across Europe and Russia for a whole winter such that Moscow smashed it's warmest winter record by 2.5C? You don't ask such questions...





You think that was entirely due to synoptics? Oh, and some SST anomaly off the east coast of the USA. Have you asked yourself if your answer might be wrong? Or too simple? No, you haven't.



Ok, so at a time when massive amounts of ghg are being put into the atmosphere, at a time when long known atmosphere physics shows the atmosphere should be (and is!) warming in response to that extra ghg, you think an incredibly mild winter is all due to synoptics?


Dig a little deeper!

So you respond to my question, which was prompted by a previous post of yours to ask more questions, by saying that we should ask questions.

So basically, I am still none the wiser after reading your response to my question. But while we are here, can you tell us what caused the -6.0c anomaly in Moscow last August, and their coldest summer in general in over 100 years? I didn't see much global media attention about this at the time, but I guess they were too focused in on those couple of warm days in Paris and London last July.

Oneiric 3

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I know, and this might have been a bit of a problem all along in a much less obvious way, and it may be the reason why models are somewhat overamped nowadays as I mentioned in the storm thread. If the models are given past data and think a 940 mb low was a 950 mb low, then they will quite naturally overestimate wind speeds from a 950 mb low today.

If they think the Big Wind was a force 6 small craft warning, then as you say, what's the point?

Some of the North American maps for this new extension amplify a trend I had noticed in the 1850s, a nearly complete lack of intensity, as if weeks or months went by without a significant wind or air mass change. The patterns may correlate slightly with reality, is about all I could really say for some of the maps. By the 1860s the maps start to look reasonable. My test of it is to take some month that I don't know much about and try to predict the Toronto and Providence weather from the maps (Providence ran to 1860). If the predictions don't line up with the actual weather, then I think the maps might be off. Not that you always have all the information you might want to back-cast, but you should be able to do fairly well from these maps.

I will be making some comments about these maps on American weather forums so perhaps the NOAA people will hear about this concern and address it, probably with an execution order.

I am currently in the process of extracting 3 hour data (albeit very slowly) from the 'ERA-20' grib files (1900 to 2010) for each of the 11 grid points used in the 'IMT' series, which include data for wind speed, direction and temperature and MSLP. and it will be interesting to see how it compares with the actual recorded data when this project is complete, but I suspect that recorded extremes in any of these parameters will be, as with the NOAA series talked about already, somehow magically disappeared.

I hope to have this project complete by the end of this coming summer or thereabouts, and will send you on both the grib files this data is extracted from (which are absolutely massive in size, but which I think you may find of use) and the data itself when it is finally complete.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

So you respond to my question, which was prompted by a previous post of yours to ask more questions, by saying that we should ask questions.

So basically, I am still none the wiser after reading your response to my question. But while we are here, can you tell us what caused the -6.0c anomaly in Moscow last August, and their coldest summer in general in over 100 years? I didn't see much global media attention about this at the time, but I guess they were too focused in on those couple of warm days in Paris and London last July.

What a silly last comment - you well know last summer in western Europe was warm as well. I'm also aware Moscow had a very cold August (one of the few places in the world that did...).



Let me repeat my point for you: you've found the answer you like so, you refuse to engage with further evidence.


But, its abundantly clear that the science wrt greenhouse gasses is sound and that humanity is adding vast quantities of said to the atmosphere. And at the same time the atmosphere is warming. It's almost as if there is a connection...



But, no, you wont engage with that. You cling to the view it's all natural variability and synoptics. You really do need to open your mind to other possibilities.


BTW, you should note I don't in any way dismiss the contribution of synoptic to the recent winter warmth, but I am happy to dig a bit deeper and wonder if that alone can by why it was so warm. Try being a bit more enquiring too!

Oneiric 3

posidonia wrote: »

you well know last summer in western Europe was warm as well.

Of that I am sure, but here in our part of western Europe, we barely scraped a +0.1 anomaly for the entire season.

M.T. Cranium

More generally, I think the real question on the table is not the basic science of the greenhouse effect, but the relative strengths of human modification and natural variability, and also, even if one accepted that all observed warming is from human causes alone, then is that because (a) all air masses are warmer or (b) because the heat energy is altering storm tracks and changing the frequency of warmer air masses? (which would then not have to warm much if at all to account for the warming at most locations).

This is what my research is designed to address. I have no doubt that there's a human warming signal embedded in the data. I am not convinced that it is all of the observed warming or (as implied by IPCC and some posters who have commented here or on Net-weather) more than the observed warming of an otherwise cooling atmosphere. I have stated that I think it's one third to one half of that warming. The change in air mass frequency (which is obvious from the Toronto data if not in the CET or other European studies) is probably the natural portion of the combination, and the human signal plays out as a supporting cause of that change plus a warming of the air masses relative to their early 20th century characteristics.

Air mass distinctions are greater in North America where fronts tend to be better defined (or should I say, less often occlusions and more often cold fronts and warm fronts). So getting a handle on air mass frequency is somewhat easier using a North American temperature data base. I am still working through a study on this, but ball-park estimate is that in the 19th century at least to 1890 the frequency was something like 10-40-50 (tropical - "polar" - arctic) and changed to 15-45-40 during the 1890s then oscillated around that since then.

I placed "polar" in quotes because that's a very ancient air mass designation and what it really means in North American practice is Pacific (same initial so could be changed without much fuss). Either Pacific origin, or very stale arctic air that has been modified over the central plains states and prairies to resemble Pacific origin air masses. So when these move east in the always-mixing atmosphere they tend to be near normal in temperature. Arctic air tends to be 5 to 10 deg below normal and tropical air 5 to 10 deg above normal (at least). There are two variants of arctic air recognized in classic air mass analysis, and there are distinctions like cP and mP, cT and mT, but for Toronto, most of the polar air masses are in a similar range, and the tropical air that arrives is either pure mT from the Gulf of Mexico and southern states or modified cT where the dew points are higher than back in the source region (Arizona- southern Utah).

The essential point is, this climate we have now is not just a warmed up version of the pre-1950 climate. It has changed in terms of storm tracks and air mass frequencies. And the 1890-1950 climate (for Toronto at least) is a much different circulation than the 1840-1889 climate (within which I noticed a shift from very moist 1840s to rather dry and cold with heavy winter snow from 1850s to 1880s).

These periodic shifts from decade to decade or half-century to half-century time scales have been going on forever (even the exit from the last glacial was full of wild variations) and they clearly have a natural origin. It may be largely random in nature in which case we won't learn how to predict these trends. Imposed on that is the larger solar variability factor that is clearly evident in the Maunder and probably also the Dalton and late 19th century downturn. Big volcanic dust veil events could overwhelm these variations for a few years at a time.

One could say that Pacific oscillations might be a key, but if they are themselves random in their timing, one does not have an improved chance of making these longer-term predictions because if they are a key, you would need to be predicting their timing. I think these things may be subject to our understanding and therefore prediction at some point down the road, but if the community gets entirely focused on human modification, then research is likely to be thwarted and if successful, ignored.

Mortelaro

Largely agree with you Mt
Your approach though won't justify raising enough new taxes that governments are adept at wasting
Only hysteria will allow that
Go hysteria (not)

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

What a silly last comment - you well know last summer in western Europe was warm as well. I'm also aware Moscow had a very cold August (one of the few places in the world that did...).

Let me repeat my point for you: you've found the answer you like so, you refuse to engage with further evidence.

But, its abundantly clear that the science wrt greenhouse gasses is sound and that humanity is adding vast quantities of said to the atmosphere. And at the same time the atmosphere is warming. It's almost as if there is a connection...

But, no, you wont engage with that. You cling to the view it's all natural variability and synoptics. You really do need to open your mind to other possibilities.

BTW, you should note I don't in any way dismiss the contribution of synoptic to the recent winter warmth, but I am happy to dig a bit deeper and wonder if that alone can by why it was so warm. Try being a bit more enquiring too!

You know, what goes up must come down. Do you know what Rossby waves are?

Below are the three average monthly 850-hPa temperature anomalies for this winter, showing how much colder than average NE North America has been, balancing out the warm anomaly further downwind (over Europe). This is how it works. Warmth is always balanced by cold somewhere else.

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You know, what goes up must come down. Do you know what Rossby waves are?

I do.



To reply to you in a similar tone, do you know what a greenhouse gas is and what the Greenhouse Effect is?

Below are the three average monthly 850-hPa temperature anomalies for this winter, showing how much colder than average NE North America has been, balancing out the warm anomaly further downwind (over Europe). This is how it works. Warmth is always balanced by cold somewhere else.

Is 'what goes up must come down' why the atmosphere is warming, and why February was the second warmest month in the global satellite record? What is the trend?


https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

I do.

To reply to you in a similar tone, do you know what a greenhouse gas is and what the Greenhouse Effect is?

Is 'what goes up must come down' why the atmosphere is warming, and why February was the second warmest month in the global satellite record? What is the trend?

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Yes I do know what it is, but it has nothing to do with my post.

Now do you want to acknowledge your and the mainstream media's ignorance of the equally record cold in the NW Atlantic region shown above?

February 2020 was not the 2nd highest on record, it was the 3rd. But as I keep saying, with the baseline having increased in the past 140 years, much of it natural, and us being in a positive AMO, it's no surprise that current years/months can be some of the warmest.

PS. For the sake of everyone, especially those on phones, could you please stop leaving triple spaces between lines in your post? There's no reason for it at all and it just takes up space. I've corrected your post yet again.

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes I do know what it is, but it has nothing to do with my post.

Now do you want to acknowledge your and the mainstream media's ignorance of the equally record cold in the NW Atlantic region shown above?

It's not equally cold - eg look at January (February is not yet available) here.

February 2020 was not the 2nd highest on record, it was the 3rd. But as I keep saying, with the baseline having increased in the past 140 years, much of it natural, and us being in a positive AMO, it's no surprise that current years/months can be some of the warmest.

PS. For the sake of everyone, especially those on phones, could you please stop leaving triple spaces between lines in your post? There's no reason for it at all and it just takes up space. I've corrected your post yet again.

That's an unnecessary critical and provocative last paragraph. I'm posting with the software this site provides and it is not my doing or intention! I simple add a single space per paragraph.

Fwiw, I think posting links is better than large images. OK?

edit: I've gone back and taken two line spaces out of this post that I did no add. OK?

Could this be a Firefox problem? Or are line spaces best done by using 'return'?

posidonia

posidonia wrote: »

It's not equally cold - eg look at January (February is not yet available) here.





That's an unnecessary critical and provocative last paragraph. I'm posting with the software this site provides and it is not my doing or intention! I simple add a single space per paragraph.

Fwiw, I think posting links is better than large images. OK?

edit: I've gone back and taken two line spaces out of this post that I did no add. OK?

Could this be a Firefox problem? Or are line spaces best done by using 'return'?

I think it's a Firefox issue.
the same happens to me

Oneiric 3

Hot take from MSM journalist:

"Don’t take this the wrong way but if you were a young, hardline environmentalist looking for the ultimate weapon against climate change, you could hardly design anything better than coronavirus.

Unlike most other such diseases, it kills mostly the old who, let’s face it, are more likely to be climate sceptics. It spares the young. Most of all, it stymies the forces that have been generating greenhouse gases for decades. Deadly enough to terrify; containable enough that aggressive quarantine measures can prevent it from spreading. The rational response for any country determined to prevent loss of life is to follow China’s lead and lock down their economy to stem its spread".

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-has-a-silver-lining-cz8wpc6xj

My lamp-posts are getting itchy for action...

M.T. Cranium

Yep, there's somebody who is evidently relishing the decline of western civilization as if he (or she) were outside of it entirely and immune to the consequences of any breakdown of the economy or the social order.

Unless he can prove himself (or herself) useful to the likes of Bloomberg or some other billionaire, he can forget about having a pleasant or peaceful existence if the economy collapses.

At some point, sensible people are going to realize that the first ten feet above sea level are not the worst thing we could lose in the next half century.

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

It's not equally cold - eg look at January (February is not yet available) here.

That's an unnecessary critical and provocative last paragraph. I'm posting with the software this site provides and it is not my doing or intention! I simple add a single space per paragraph.

Fwiw, I think posting links is better than large images. OK?

edit: I've gone back and taken two line spaces out of this post that I did no add. OK?

Could this be a Firefox problem? Or are line spaces best done by using 'return'?

So what for you is the synoptic mechanism that made northern Eurasia warmer than average? Heat is not generated by greenhouse gases, only re-emitted. So any anomalous warmth was caused by warm advection from the south. How is that linked to anthropogenic ghc?

Here's February. Up and down. Up and down.

Gaoth Laidir

Here's how dumb some of the media outlets are. This is the level of fact-checking they carry out before running with a story. It extends beyond the basic maths of campain costs too, just look at the Guardian.

Just listen to the stupid flowing here... He's from NBC, she's from the NYT.

https://twitter.com/BadEconTakes/status/1235810967746793472

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So what for you is the synoptic mechanism that made northern Eurasia warmer than average? Heat is not generated by greenhouse gases, only re-emitted. So any anomalous warmth was caused by warm advection from the south. How is that linked to anthropogenic ghc?

Here's February. Up and down. Up and down.

Firstly, thank you for you acknowledgement that the line space issue you choose to attack me about is, in all likelihood, not my fault. I appreciate that, I really do

I note you still think they (temperature anomalies) all balance out 'up and down, up and down'- but the problem is they don't!

Firstly your graphic says February was .66C above normal. It doesn't say above which normal and even the Spencer and Christy satellite average was .76C so it seems like a low figure to me. Whatever, it didn't all balance out and it hasn't done for decades!

Anyway, onto synoptics. I said 'I don't dismiss the contribution of synoptic' and I don't. But that doesn't mean I said the warmth was all to do with synoptics.

Simply put the world is warming due to the increasing climate 'forcing' due to anthropogenic green house gasses changing how the planet re-radiates energy. That warming is greater in the N polar regions because as ice melts the dark surfaces revealed warm and you get feedback warming. Around the tropics that feedback is far less pronounced.

You can see there was warmer than normal air to our SW. Further, if you check back over the last several months the Arctic was notably warming last September October (via GISS) and even though sea ice has (as if this should be a talking point) nearly reach a normal extent, the winter has seen above average temperatures.

So, the atmosphere is warmer, the Arctic notably so. There is less cold air, there is more warm air. There will be a tendency for that to be reflected by the weather - by synoptics.

That is how I see it.

edit: extra line spaces put in by my browser removed.

Oneiric 3

posidonia wrote: »

Firstly, thank you for you acknowledgement that the line space issue you choose to attack me about is, in all likelihood, not my fault. I appreciate that, I really do

I note you still think they (temperature anomalies) all balance out 'up and down, up and down'- but the problem is they don't!

Firstly your graphic says February was .66C above normal. It doesn't say above which normal and even the Spencer and Christy satellite average was .76C so it seems like a low figure to me. Whatever, it didn't all balance out and it hasn't done for decades!

Anyway, onto synoptics. I said 'I don't dismiss the contribution of synoptic' and I don't. But that doesn't mean I said the warmth was all to do with synoptics.

Simply put the world is warming due to the increasing climate 'forcing' due to anthropogenic green house gasses changing how the planet re-radiates energy. That warming is greater in the N polar regions because as ice melts the dark surfaces revealed warm and you get feedback warming. Around the tropics that feedback is far less pronounced.

You can see there was warmer than normal air to our SW. Further, if you check back over the last several months the Arctic was notably warming last September October (via GISS) and even though sea ice has (as if this should be a talking point) nearly reach a normal extent, the winter has seen above average temperatures.

So, the atmosphere is warmer, the Arctic notably so. There is less cold air, there is more warm air. There will be a tendency for that to be reflected by the weather - by synoptics.

That is how I see it.

edit: extra line spaces put in by my browser removed.

Here's how that map you posted looks when the 1200 km 'smoothed radius' is reduced to 250 km (which is still obscenely huge)



From the disclaimer on the page:
Note: Gray areas signify missing data.
Note: Ocean data are not used over land nor within 100km of a reporting land station.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Here's how that map you posted looks when the 1200 km 'smoothed radius' is reduced to 250 km (which is still obscenely huge)



From the disclaimer on the page:
Note: Gray areas signify missing data.
Note: Ocean data are not used over land nor within 100km of a reporting land station.

I was using the 'Robinson' projection - if you use 'equiretangular', as you have, the poles become very distorted.

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

Firstly, thank you for you acknowledgement that the line space issue you choose to attack me about is, in all likelihood, not my fault. I appreciate that, I really do

I note you still think they (temperature anomalies) all balance out 'up and down, up and down'- but the problem is they don't!

Firstly your graphic says February was .66C above normal. It doesn't say above which normal and even the Spencer and Christy satellite average was .76C so it seems like a low figure to me. Whatever, it didn't all balance out and it hasn't done for decades!

Anyway, onto synoptics. I said 'I don't dismiss the contribution of synoptic' and I don't. But that doesn't mean I said the warmth was all to do with synoptics.

Simply put the world is warming due to the increasing climate 'forcing' due to anthropogenic green house gasses changing how the planet re-radiates energy. That warming is greater in the N polar regions because as ice melts the dark surfaces revealed warm and you get feedback warming. Around the tropics that feedback is far less pronounced.

You can see there was warmer than normal air to our SW. Further, if you check back over the last several months the Arctic was notably warming last September October (via GISS) and even though sea ice has (as if this should be a talking point) nearly reach a normal extent, the winter has seen above average temperatures.

So, the atmosphere is warmer, the Arctic notably so. There is less cold air, there is more warm air. There will be a tendency for that to be reflected by the weather - by synoptics.

That is how I see it.

edit: extra line spaces put in by my browser removed.

Thank you for taking out the spaces. It didn't hurt, did it?

It is clearly stated on the chart I posted that it's using the 1981-2010 climatology. But you're right, another dataset says +0.76. Still the science is settled, apparently. Massive disagreement like this seems to be acceptable and something not to be questioned.

Yes, to our southwest was a warm anomaly. But to our west and northwest was a cold one. What's your point?

Oneiric 3

NCAR/NCEP Feb analysis, also based around the 1981-2010 base:



and based on the mean of global values from the GFS/CSFR daily values, the Feb anomaly comes in at 0.66c, but note that this value is based on the 1979-2000 base

Previous Feb values in this series:
0.86 - 2016
0.68 - 2017
0.50 - 2018
0.48 - 2019
0.66 - 2020

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Thank you for taking out the spaces. It didn't hurt, did it?

Did you not bother to read the explanation that it wasn't my doing? I have now gone to the trouble of removing the spaces and I get a condescending 'that didn't hurt' for my trouble

Perhaps, as a similar gesture, YOU could, in future, stop posting images and replace them with links? OK? No, that will probably not be a quid pro quo...

It is clearly stated on the chart I posted that it's using the 1981-2010 climatology. But you're right, another dataset says +0.76. Still the science is settled, apparently. Massive disagreement like this seems to be acceptable and something not to be questioned.

I noticed that on a bigger screen but it was hard to see using when using a phone - big images clutter up threads.

Yes, to our southwest was a warm anomaly. But to our west and northwest was a cold one. What's your point?

I'll post it again:

"You can see there was warmer than normal air to our SW. Further, if you check back over the last several months the Arctic was notably warming last September October (via GISS) and even though sea ice has (as if this should be a talking point) nearly reach a normal extent, the winter has seen above average temperatures.

So, the atmosphere is warmer, the Arctic notably so. There is less cold air, there is more warm air. There will be a tendency for that to be reflected by the weather - by synoptics."

The atmosphere is warming - hardly any month show a cold global anomaly any more. If it was all ' up and down' there would be cold months globally but it's all up now.

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

Did you not bother to read the explanation that it wasn't my doing? I have now gone to the trouble of removing the spaces and I get a condescending 'that didn't hurt' for my trouble

Did you not the see the "thank you" just before that?

Perhaps, as a similar gesture, YOU could, in future, stop posting images and replace them with links? OK? No, that will probably not be a quid pro quo...

No, posting images is part and parcel of this software and makes things easier to follow. Quoting images, however, is something I try to avoid.

I noticed that on a bigger screen but it was hard to see using when using a phone - big images clutter up threads.

Looks like you might need to review how you're using Boards and also how thoroughly you check data posted.

I'll post it again:

"You can see there was warmer than normal air to our SW. Further, if you check back over the last several months the Arctic was notably warming last September October (via GISS) and even though sea ice has (as if this should be a talking point) nearly reach a normal extent, the winter has seen above average temperatures.

So, the atmosphere is warmer, the Arctic notably so. There is less cold air, there is more warm air. There will be a tendency for that to be reflected by the weather - by synoptics."

The atmosphere is warming - hardly any month show a cold global anomaly any more. If it was all ' up and down' there would be cold months globally but it's all up now.

Maybe I should repeat my comment again that the baseline started rising 140 years ago and continues to this day. A lot of it is natural, some of it is anthro. Yet, much of the planet is still showing no warming and some remarkable cooling. However, different datasets shuffle the actual locations of these warm and cold spots. It's all too easy to say "synoptics" will reflect the trend without actually understanding how.

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Did you not the see the "thank you" just before that?

No, posting images is part and parcel of this software and makes things easier to follow. Quoting images, however, is something I try to avoid.

Large images clutter the place up - they take up dozens of lines. Links would do and they give users the option to view or not.


But, if you're not prepared to do as I request then I might well not bother to correct a software problem with firefox you asked I correct. Sorry, but such gestures need to be reciprocated or they pointless.

Looks like you might need to review how you're using Boards and also how thoroughly you check data posted.

One minute I'm causing you problem because my posts are double spaced and I should sort that out, the next the problems your posting of large images cause me are my problem. You couldn't make it up. :D

Maybe I should repeat my comment again that the baseline started rising 140 years ago and continues to this day. A lot of it is natural, some of it is anthro. Yet, much of the planet is still showing no warming and some remarkable cooling. However, different datasets shuffle the actual locations of these warm and cold spots. It's all too easy to say "synoptics" will reflect the trend without actually understanding how.

You what? How could temperatures start rising 140 years ago but much of the planet still show no warming? The reality is very little of the planet shows no warming over the last few decades, let alone the last 140 years.

Oneiric 3

posidonia wrote: »

You what? How could temperatures start rising 140 years ago but much of the planet still show no warming? The reality is very little of the planet shows no warming over the last few decades, let alone the last 140 years.

Yes, it has been rising.. on and off.. over the last 140 years.

But in what way is the climate now worse than it was 140 years ago. Perhaps you could explain as I would have have thought that longer growing seasons, warmer winters and less hardship due to the cold would be more beneficial to mankind, but then, what do I know...

Nabber

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Yes, it has been rising.. on and off.. over the last 140 years.

But in what way is the climate now worse than it was 140 years ago. Perhaps you could explain as I would have have thought that longer growing seasons, warmer winters and less hardship due to the cold would be more beneficial to mankind, but then, what do I know...

It's the global sea level average. That's where it's at.

Oneiric 3

Reading through the Norwegian Met Office (met.no) summary for February, and it is interesting to see, while Feb 2020 is amongst the warmest, it still falls signifanctly behind that of Feb 1990, +4.0c (2020) vs +6.8c (1990). But what makes both Feb 2020 and 1990 similar is the that both were very zonal months with very positive AO values.

https://www.met.no/nyhetsarkiv/mild-og-vat-februar

Here is the mean MSLP values and 850 hPa temps for Feb 1990: Very westerly, and compared to 2020, a far stormier month here in Ireland that put the 'wet farts' (borrowed that term from another poster who used it recently in another thread) that we saw this year to shame. :rolleyes:



But yes, synoptics do play the bigger part in the global distribution of daily, weekly, monthly and yearly temperatures, and the attempt to suggest otherwise is both misguided and disingenuous.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Yes, it has been rising.. on and off.. over the last 140 years.

Not according to GoathL. it hasn't. You better put GL right.

But in what way is the climate now worse than it was 140 years ago. Perhaps you could explain as I would have have thought that longer growing seasons, warmer winters and less hardship due to the cold would be more beneficial to mankind, but then, what do I know...

The good news is you seem to be accepting the evidence and data. Follow it to its conclusion...


I don't think farmers in the UK will think this winter has been of much benefit... and likewise the summer in Australia.

Oneiric 3

posidonia wrote: »

Not according to GoathL. it hasn't. You better put GL right.

K.
GL, it has been warming, on and off, over the last 140 years...

posidonia wrote: »

The good news is you seem to be accepting the evidence and data. Follow it to its conclusion...

Exactly where have I ever not accepted the 'evidence and data'?

posidonia wrote: »

I don't think farmers in the UK will think this winter has been of much benefit... and likewise the summer in Australia.

I'm sure, but like any part of Europe, but I don't think we have seen many fatalities due to the cold this year. But it has been a grim winter, due in no small part to the near constant cold in the southern regions of the Arctic helping to drive the Atlantic jet during the season. Those wishing for a cooler Arctic & world should be a bit more careful for what they wish for.