Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

Casualsingby wrote: »

As I said earlier in thread I'm on the fence. Are there any genuine sensible answers without attitude to my question. Thank you.

Can you please explain what was "nonsensical" about the answer offered?

Did you read the links?

NASA said there was a possibility of cooling in Europe and the US being caused by global warming, and the GS basically said (in its PDF) that we should be cooling but for the fact that we are warming.

Casualsingby

dense wrote: »

Can you please explain what was "nonsensical" about the answer offered?

Did you read the links?

NASA said there was a possibility of cooling in Europe and the US being caused by global warming, and the GS basically said (in its PDF) that we should be cooling but for the fact that we are warming.

Well you since edited your post. Originally your answer was about G.W not being true when that's not what I had asked, it was a hypothetical question about what could happen to the North Atlantic drift. As I said I'm on the fence and that's not what I had asked about . Anyway no harm done, I'll have a read now. Thank you

Casualsingby wrote: »

Well you since edited your post. Originally your answer was about G.W not being true when that's not what I had asked, it was a hypothetical question about what could happen to the North Atlantic drift. As I said I'm on the fence and that's not what I had asked about . Anyway no harm done, I'll have a read now. Thank you

I did edit the post, to add the title for NASA's page that I had linked to.

I had not said anything to you about "G.W not being true" nor anything about whether you are, should be or should not be "on the fence".

The answer certainly does indicate my own opinion which is that "climate scientists" do seem to constantly want to have their cake and eat it, that is, that they are saying that global warming (causing the Arctic to melt) could trigger cooling (the same as was said in the "secret Pentagon report" as mentioned by the Guardian), cooling that should actually be happening naturally anyway, but is being "masked" by catastrophic man made global warming.

It's all slightly bonkers IMO and not to be taken seriously, but each to their own.

It demonstrates that they know so little about "climate science" that they're hedging their bets because this infant science obviously isn't nearly as settled as we're being told it is.

Casualsingby

No you edited more than that. Once again my question was only about the impacts it could have on the north Atlantic drift if current predictions came through, that's all I wanted to know. Not is GW true or not, not agenda based answers from pro believer or non believer. It was a hypothetical question. Not anything else, I've read all the pro and non believer posts on GW 50 times reading this thread already, that's not what I asked and you blather on again about it. Is there a mute facility on boards?

Nabber

I’m against all forms of closed discussions.
Skeptics and deniers: that language alone sets the debate off on “I’m right your wrong” introduction.

Historically it’s this sort of mind set that ultimately loses the general public. We are slowly seeing a movement away from AGW to a less aggressive ‘weather change’

Many of the predictions have not come true, the current predictions find their way generally into Tabloid front page. They hit with a punchy doom and gloom predicted not by global scientific consensus, but rather from a developed country or some influential world leader in Meteorology who in the back ground likely have a heavy green tax.

We even see people on the fence are treated as “deniers”, their perceived ignorance is worse than the ‘skeptic’. They need to be taken out fast.

All that said, when I see the graphs, the statistics, I eventually call BS on the lot. When measurements of .5c are used, for any year 2018 or 1880, and the margin for error.

Does the debate still linger on CO2 being a cause or effect of warming?
What happened to the hole in the Ozone, why was the hole over predominately white countries?
Why are 92% of alien abuctions on white Americans?
Why are ‘adjusted’ measurements accepted?
Why are more people turning away from the theory of AGW?
After all the taxes, the move to green, the recycling the more taxes, how come it’s more doom and gloom?
Can someone work out how many snails in Indonesia I saved by using to dim for purpose 60w bulbs?

As a final rant: when Hollywood celebs promote it, I usually stop caring about it!

It's important to emphasise that a prediction should not be solely evaluated over whether it comes true or not. Rather, they should be evaluated on the principles upon which they built. Forecasts are not the same as blind guesses. There's a method to their construction but they are ultimately just a refined series of approximations. All of science really is a series of hopefully progressive approximations from incorrect ones to less incorrect ones.

If you're going to evaluate a weather or climate prediction you have to first understand the constraints of the prediction itself. This is why reading stories about the weather in popular press is largely a waste of time. All too often predictions are reported as definite future occurrences which is not one bit reflective of the spirit upon which the initial prediction was built. Predictions themselves are usually defined within heavily strict frames of reference and a boat load of footnotes and asterisks comments.Regulars here can illustrate this point way better than I can.

Climate, largely being a statistical analysis of the weather, is even more complicated. You can never state that any single weather event is associated with AGW all you can do is state the probabilistic frequency upon which you are expecting events like this to occur and how arrived at your estimate for that frequency.

Probability itself can be misleading. If the roulette wheel lands on black on 23 times in a row. Is the next landing spot going to be red? Less than a 1% chance of an event occurring doesn't mean that event won't happen. People do win the lotto (though they really shouldn't play it). Freak weather events do occur, the reason why, may or may not be casually related to something else.

You're not going to be able to make these assessments by absorbing nice convenient tidbits of information. Newspapers or celebs isn't really going to cut it. To the person looking to understand the concept just read the reports. Numerous scientific bodies have published a multitude of reports that start from the most basic of first principles and can have a depth of knowledge as esoteric as you're willing to dive into. You will not get an decent understanding of something as complex as our freaking planet from cherry picking convenient digests.

P.s The wheel landed on black 3 more times before finally landing on red.

Casualsingby wrote: »

No you edited more than that.

Show it please then.

I take it that you took a screenshot of the original where you can show the part that's allegedly causing the trouble?

The "edit history" feature, a facility on the Full Site mode shows me that I added the NASA page title and nothing was in the original like what you're insinuating.

Thanks

Nabber wrote: »

I’m against all forms of closed discussions.
Skeptics and deniers: that language alone sets the debate off on “I’m right your wrong” introduction.

Historically it’s this sort of mind set that ultimately loses the general public. We are slowly seeing a movement away from AGW to a less aggressive ‘weather change’

Many of the predictions have not come true, the current predictions find their way generally into Tabloid front page. They hit with a punchy doom and gloom predicted not by global scientific consensus, but rather from a developed country or some influential world leader in Meteorology who in the back ground likely have a heavy green tax.

We even see people on the fence are treated as “deniers”, their perceived ignorance is worse than the ‘skeptic’. They need to be taken out fast.

All that said, when I see the graphs, the statistics, I eventually call BS on the lot. When measurements of .5c are used, for any year 2018 or 1880, and the margin for error.

Does the debate still linger on CO2 being a cause or effect of warming?
What happened to the hole in the Ozone, why was the hole over predominately white countries?
Why are 92% of alien abuctions on white Americans?
Why are ‘adjusted’ measurements accepted?
Why are more people turning away from the theory of AGW?
After all the taxes, the move to green, the recycling the more taxes, how come it’s more doom and gloom?
Can someone work out how many snails in Indonesia I saved by using to dim for purpose 60w bulbs?

As a final rant: when Hollywood celebs promote it, I usually stop caring about it!

But Nabber, don't you see?

We need "climate justice" for all, regardless of whether AGW is real or not or whether Co2 exhaled in human breath is causing problems in the Arctic :pac::pac:

Towards climate justice: (product)

http://www.communityworkireland.ie/product/towards-climate-justice/

Casualsingby

dense wrote: »

Show it please then.

Thanks.

I don't take SS of your posts obviously, I should have quoted your original post with my comment, before you edited it because you're on your last warning on this thread . Anyway,have a nice day.

DOCARCH

Just re-posting this again....as a reminder....

This is a contentious subject and this thread has already been closed once due to personal attacks on contributors and the hostile atmosphere it has created.

Remember

1. Please refrain from direct personal attacks on any person whether they are members of boards.ie or not.

2. Everyone is entitled to post and has equal rights whether they are weather experts or complete newbies.

3. If you wish to challenge someone's views on the topic of climate change then please debate civilly, do not just attack poster.

Thanks

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The NAO is not a climate driver, it's merely an indicator. In any case, positive means a zonal pattern with a stronger westerly jet, not a weakened jet with a more meridional flow. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

There is no marked signal in the NAO flipping negative after the record low Arctic ice years of 2007, 2012, etc. Of course this is not a statistical test and a larger sample size is needed, but you would think thay we should be seeing some sort of indication by now. In fact, the trend is going the other way.

I know the NAO isn't actually a driver, the conditions that the NAO indicate drive the weather in the northern hemisphere so I could have been more precise, but my underlying point still stands.

Over the last 3 decades, the phase of the NAO has been shifting from mostly negative to mostly positive index values. Much remains to be learned about the mechanisms that produce such low frequency changes in the North Atlantic climate, but it seems increasingly likely that human activities are playing a significant role.
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/23/12876

I got my information from a paper published in 2001 in PNAS which showed a multi decadal shift from mostly negative NAO to mostly Positive NAO indicators

In more recent years there might have been a more negative shift, but climate is measured in decades not years. One interesting change in recent NAO activity is the record breaking peaks in the indicators during wintertime (when there ought to be the biggest temperature gradient between the arctic and tropics)

"Of course, weather is naturally chaotic, and extremes are a normal part of our highly variable UK climate, but globally there has recently been an increase in the incidence of high temperature and heavy precipitation extremes. The cold UK winter episodes we noted are not so intuitively linked to global climate change but reflect part of a long-term trend towards more variable North Atlantic atmospheric circulation from year to year during winter months, especially early winter.

"This trend has culminated in the last decade having several record negative and positive December values of the North Atlantic Oscillation, with lots of resulting disruption from extreme weather over the UK. On the other hand there has been no really notably dry, hot, sunny summer in the UK since 2006; summers overall have either been around average or exceptionally wet, and this appears to be linked with strong warming and more frequent high pressure over Greenland in the last decade."

The study has been published in Weather, the magazine of the Royal Meteorological Society.

http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/news/2018/01/1427.asp

I actually did answer your question by saying that I'm not sure what would happen. That's a valid answer and not an evasion. Again, you say the "rapid" decline in gradients is destabilising the climate. But yet you also say the NAO is gone more positive, which would indicate the opposite. Which is it?

You don't know what would happen but you're still confident enough to defend your position that this is all being exaggerated and that global warming isn't a serious problem for this region, or the world in general.

Positive NAO leads to more stable weather, ie weather systems that can last weeks without changing but climate can still be destabilised if it means that the previous established wind sun and precipitation patters are being changed to something different. More 'stable' weather can lead to prolonged cold snaps in winter, prolonged heat or drought conditions in summer and all of these can impact our health, our economy and our ability to produce food.

And weak positive or negative NAO indicators are different to strong positive or negative indicators, and a trend of increasingly extreme indicators on either end (if it establishes itself) could be a sign that there is something even more extreme happening that could cause an abrupt tipping point that we haven't got the tools to predict.

Casualsingby wrote: »

I don't take SS of your posts obviously, I should have quoted your original post with my comment, before you edited it because you're on your last warning on this thread . Anyway,have a nice day.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

You have neither shown or described what was in my post which you are now saying was so contentious that it required my changing it because I'm on my "last warning on this thread".

Whether it is a deliberate trolling tactic or not I don't know, but I do know it adds nothing to any debate, regardless of the subject matter, but particularly so when it is already been accepted by all that the subject matter is one which is generally considered as being contentious.

It doesn't help to make the subject any less contentious by creating imaginary claims about posts that cannot be backed up.

If this post results in my being banned, so be it.
-I hope it doesn't, but if it does it does.

The tactic will have worked.

Attached is a screenshot to show the small edit I saved, which was to add a page title.

Casualsingby wrote: »

Any thoughts on what might happen to the North Atlantic drift in the years to come if the current predictions come true?

Nobody really knows. If the Gulf stream shuts down, other oceanic currents would probably establish themselves and transfer heat another way, but this in turn could disrupt other currents in other parts of the world.

There are some studies that say that the gulf stream is already weaker than it's been in over a thousand years while others say that there are safety valves allowing fresh water to escape out of the labrador sea and this could delay any major breakdown of that Thermohaline current, but given that greenland ice melting is accelerating along it's coast, we'll probably learn a lot more than we really want to know about how resilient these currents are in the coming decade.

Nabber wrote: »

I’m against all forms of closed discussions.
Skeptics and deniers: that language alone sets the debate off on “I’m right your wrong” introduction.

Historically it’s this sort of mind set that ultimately loses the general public. We are slowly seeing a movement away from AGW to a less aggressive ‘weather change’

Many of the predictions have not come true, the current predictions find their way generally into Tabloid front page. They hit with a punchy doom and gloom predicted not by global scientific consensus, but rather from a developed country or some influential world leader in Meteorology who in the back ground likely have a heavy green tax.

We even see people on the fence are treated as “deniers”, their perceived ignorance is worse than the ‘skeptic’. They need to be taken out fast.

All that said, when I see the graphs, the statistics, I eventually call BS on the lot. When measurements of .5c are used, for any year 2018 or 1880, and the margin for error.

Does the debate still linger on CO2 being a cause or effect of warming?
What happened to the hole in the Ozone, why was the hole over predominately white countries?
Why are 92% of alien abuctions on white Americans?
Why are ‘adjusted’ measurements accepted?
Why are more people turning away from the theory of AGW?
After all the taxes, the move to green, the recycling the more taxes, how come it’s more doom and gloom?
Can someone work out how many snails in Indonesia I saved by using to dim for purpose 60w bulbs?

As a final rant: when Hollywood celebs promote it, I usually stop caring about it!

If you go by the tabloid headlines then your world view on any subject would be totally warped.

Why don't you focus on the scientific literature, the analysis published in respected peer reviewed journals, and the work of professional scientific bodies who are dedicated to scientific research (as opposed to politically motivated think tanks and lobby groups of any hue)
And forget about hollywood, why would you care what actors think about any subject other than acting?
Here are my answers to your questions

Does the debate still linger on CO2 being a cause or effect of warming?
No, the scientific literature is in overwhelming agreement that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are a major driver of climate. This is not based on models or projections or looking back at historical records, this is easily verified using physics, experiments, direct observations

What happened to the hole in the Ozone, why was the hole over predominately white countries?
The hole in the ozone layer is still there, it's not over white countries, its's over antarctica (mostly) The damage to the ozone layer is mostly reducing now since the global ban on CFCs was implemented under the Montreal Protocal. Ozone creation which happens naturally is able to replace the ozone destroyed by ozone depleting chemicals at a rate slightly faster than we are losing it.

Why are 92% of alien abuctions on white Americans?
I'd like to see your statistics on this, particularly I'm interested in any study that shows that a single person on this planet has ever been abducted by aliens
Why are ‘adjusted’ measurements accepted?
Because when you compare two things that are not exactly the same, you have to adjust for known differences to make a valid comparison. Is 30 degrees farenheit the same as 30 degrees celcius? No, so you have to convert one temperature into the other scale so that they can be directly compared. Similarly, if mercury thermometers produced by company x are known to give a reading of a half a degree warmer than digital thermometers produced by company y, then to get a valid comparison between the two temperatures, you need to adjust the temperatures to account for the known bias. In industrial and scientific practices, the calibration of instrumentation is a well established and important field. There are entire industries dedicated to producing tools for calibrating instruments so that the results can be verified and against known values, whether it's PH, temperature, salinity etc.
In biomedical processing, PH is a very important factor, but PH can be influenced by temperature, so when calibrating PH probes, the operators need to calibrate them at a standard temperature so that the readings are consistent.
In weather and climatology before any instruments are changed, there is a period of transition when both new and old instruments are used at the same time, and any differences are recorded and a reconciliation takes places to adjust the old data to fit with the readings of the new instruments.

In satellite readings the RSS satellite data is adjusted to account for the fact that the satellites are drifting out of their original orbit and were reading at the wrong time of the day, so when this issue was identified, those raw data readings needed to be adjusted to give accurate results.

Why are more people turning away from the theory of AGW? The people that know the most about it, ie, climate scientists, believe in Global warming overwhelmingly. The general public may or may not be turning away from it, you'll have to provide a study to prove this, but the public perception of the theory of AGW would be more to do with it's representation in the media than it's scientific credibility

After all the taxes, the move to green, the recycling the more taxes, how come it’s more doom and gloom?
Because we're not even done a fraction of what we need to do to fix the problem. And all the taxes in the world don't matter as long as the oil and gas and coal industry are still producing at their current capacity. Governments need to invest hugely in replacing carbon based energy with carbon neutral energy, most likely a mix of Nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric etc.

Can someone work out how many snails in Indonesia I saved by using to dim for purpose 60w bulbs? I'm beginning to think you're not as open minded as you said you were.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I know the NAO isn't actually a driver, the conditions that the NAO indicate drive the weather in the northern hemisphere so I could have been more precise, but my underlying point still stands.

I got my information from a paper published in 2001 in PNAS which showed a multi decadal shift from mostly negative NAO to mostly Positive NAO indicators

In more recent years there might have been a more negative shift, but climate is measured in decades not years. One interesting change in recent NAO activity is the record breaking peaks in the indicators during wintertime (when there ought to be the biggest temperature gradient between the arctic and tropics)

You don't know what would happen but you're still confident enough to defend your position that this is all being exaggerated and that global warming isn't a serious problem for this region, or the world in general.

Positive NAO leads to more stable weather, ie weather systems that can last weeks without changing but climate can still be destabilised if it means that the previous established wind sun and precipitation patters are being changed to something different. More 'stable' weather can lead to prolonged cold snaps in winter, prolonged heat or drought conditions in summer and all of these can impact our health, our economy and our ability to produce food.

And weak positive or negative NAO indicators are different to strong positive or negative indicators, and a trend of increasingly extreme indicators on either end (if it establishes itself) could be a sign that there is something even more extreme happening that could cause an abrupt tipping point that we haven't got the tools to predict.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Positive NAO means a zonal, more progressive pattern, not the stationary or retrogressive pattern you talk about. That's a negative NAO. Maybe you got it mixed up.

There's been no real trend in the NAO since the 17-yr old paper you referenced. It's still a bit on the positive side, but it's mostly affected by the AMO and PDO, whose pattern is visible in the NAO over the last century.

nao.timeseries.gif

Nabber wrote: »

Can someone work out how many snails in Indonesia I saved by using to dim for purpose 60w bulbs?

No.

No one including the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change, has shown what role (if any) Ireland has played in creating catastrophic climate change.

So I wouldn't be too worried about your 100watt light bulbs or your 1200 watt vacuum cleaner killing snails in Indonesia or causing climate change.

If they could quantify and attribute the blame, I don't think there'd be much delay in doing so.

Edit: You will hear a lot about "climate justice" and your "carbon footprint".

Make of it what you will. Does it mean that a form of equality for carbon usage is being sought so that we'll all have the same carbon footprint?

Justice and equal rights for all owners of carbon footprints.

Lumi

Mod Note

dense is taking a short break from the forum for ignoring mod instruction so they cannot reply to your posts

Thanks

dense wrote: »

Ď

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

You have neither shown or described what was in my post which you are now saying was so contentious that it required my changing it because I'm on my "last warning on this thread".

Whether it is a deliberate trolling tactic or not I don't know, but I do know it adds nothing to any debate, regardless of the subject matter, but particularly so when it is already been accepted by all that the subject matter is one which is generally considered as being contentious.

It doesn't help to make the subject any less contentious by creating imaginary claims about posts that cannot be backed up.

If this post results in my being banned, so be it.
-I hope it doesn't, but if it does it does.

The tactic will have worked.

Attached is a screenshot to show the small edit I saved, which was to add a page title.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1930/to:1981/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1930/to:1981/trend

I've been using my time to take stock.

To reconsider things. (And, to get a new hairstyle!)

I got to thinking about how I'd heard things that were said about climate change from sources that aren't the most reliable, and how I'd believed them.

Now I'm not so sure.

It started with seeing this kind of exchange on the interwebs:

"Do we have to do this every winter?

Just because it's cold doesn't mean climate change isn't real."

What climate change? The one that makes it necessary to explain that every winter it's still winter? Where's the climate change there?

Then I got thinking about Ophelia.

That wasn't caused by climate change according to opinions published by
THE ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY (which) IS IRELAND'S LEADING BODY OF EXPERTS IN THE SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

https://www.ria.ie/news/climate-change-and-environmental-sciences-committee-climate-change-blog/what-caused-storm

The recent snowperson building extravaganza opportunity can't reliably be pinned on it either:

https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2018/0226/943852-is-the-beast-from-the-east-a-sign-of-long-term-weather-trends/

Tuvalu isn't sinking as a result of it, nor is Venice.

The war in Syria can't be attributed to it.

Global land area being lost to fire is reducing.

There's been no acceleration in sea rise levels threatening the swamping of European cities by 2020.

The polar bears are doing well too, as is mankind in general, going by most accounts.

The main reason for the current concern about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration.

And unless I'm mistaken nothing detrimental has happened as a result.
So I've now come to doubt that climate change actually exists at all, where previously I would have said, yes, of course it exists, it's natural that climates would change and cause terrible things to happen, all coinciding with mankind starting to burn fossil fuels.

Historic "bad weather" which didn't have the "human fingerprint of fossil fuels" was the same as it is today, bad weather.

Am I right in thinking that if climate change does exist, no one has been able to actually attribute anything detrimental to it?

Aside from the climate justice folk who appear to want justice in the form of equal or non existent carbon footprints for all, because something?

Lord, I sound like Richard Lindzen!!

And that in the 20th century there were as many years of a hiatus in global temperature trends as rising trends?

trend

Water expands when heated. Increasing the temperature of an ocean filled with a large volume of water means a rising sea level and therefore increased risk flooding of all low lying areas. Or at the very least, spending fortunes building artificial flood protection.

I honestly can't see a scenario where rising sea levels isn't considered a detrimental thing for the current way of living for many humans.

Nabber

Turtwig wrote: »

Water expands when heated. Increasing the temperature of an ocean filled with a large volume of water means a rising sea level and therefore increased risk flooding of all low lying areas. Or at the very least, spending fortunes building artificial flood protection.

I honestly can't see a scenario where rising sea levels isn't considered a detrimental thing for the current way of living for many humans.

Your point is valid. Now you have to show that carbon release is related to warming oceans.

Nabber wrote: »

Your point is valid. Now you have to show that carbon release is related to warming oceans.

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. A greenhouse gas prevents thermal energy from leaving the earth and going back into space. The net result is the planet is on average warmer than it would have been had the gas not been there in the first place.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years and are only now levelling off to where no acceleration has been observed in the 20th century.

I don't see either any human fingerprint on it or anything detrimental about it.

http://www.rte.ie/archives/2014/1106/657137-land-reclamation-in-dublin-bay-1969/

Land reclamation around Dublin Bay has been going on for centuries. But in 1969, plans to reclaim large amounts of land for industrial use proved controversial, with a campaign against it led by the Dublin Bay Preservation Association.

‘Newsbeat’ examines the issue in this report from 6 November 1969. According to reporter Michael Ryan, Dublin Port doesn’t need planning permission for land reclamation as it can get a harbour works order from the minister for transport and power. Previous projects have resulted in amenities such as Fairview Park, but if current proposals go ahead, most of the Clontarf sea front will be filled in for industrial development.

Clontarf, 2 January 1915 - A heavy storm which passed over Dublin last night has caused considerable flooding in parts of the city.

Sea water overflowed and submerged the shore road at Clontarf and Dollymount Strand. This meant that tramway traffic had to be suspended and passage through the area was impossible.

As well as heavy rain, the storm brought fierce winds, which seem to have done little or no damage to buildings.

The weather had been fine and dry until midnight yesterday, with the storm coming on suddenly in the early hours of the morning.

http://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/index.php/articles/heavy-rains-flood-clontarf

Meanwhile the Greens seem to think it's all new, and someone in the comments now wants a 10 metre high wall.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/eamon-ryan-on-clontarfs-sea-wall-were-gonna-need-a-bigger-boat-3791603-Jan2018/

The Earth has been here for thousands of years. Iirc 40 million or so years the global sea level were several tens of metres higher than they are now. Everything though must be taken within context. Regardless of the cause, there are potentially series consequences of global sea level rises in the next century.

Over the last thousands of years millions of people died from illnesses humans now seek to treat and prevent. Just because something occurred for thousands of years doesn't mean its benign - and it certainly doesn't mean we should not try to understand the problem more and explore preventative measures.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'm afraid you're wrong. Positive NAO means a zonal, more progressive pattern, not the stationary or retrogressive pattern you talk about. That's a negative NAO. Maybe you got it mixed up.

There's been no real trend in the NAO since the 17-yr old paper you referenced. It's still a bit on the positive side, but it's mostly affected by the AMO and PDO, whose pattern is visible in the NAO over the last century.

Yeah I got it backwards when I was posting that.

I'm FAR from an expert on this, but I have been following what actual experts have been saying about how arctic temperature changes have already been been screwing with our weather by affecting both the jet stream and the stratospheric polar vortex

There's a great video here

The first half hour is a high level overview of climate science, but from about 35 minutes onwards she talks about her research into how arctic warming is already affecting weather patterns around the world using the 'it takes two to tango' idea that multiple factors, all affected by climate change can have amplified effects when they line up with each other in certain ways.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239

Nice scientific looking map depicting Temperature Trend.

Nice glow from the hot parts. Toasty.

Awesome temperature variations there too, from -0.1°c right up to +0.1°c

Only thing is, the "scientists" who made the nice map admit that the level of uncertainty of the measurements used to produce the nice map (which depicts tenths of a degree temperature variations) is between 2 to 3 degrees c.

At least they're honest about it.

The map is based on thermal infrared (heat) observations made by a series of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite sensors. Because the satellite is observing energy radiated from the Earth’s surface, the image shows trends in skin temperatures—temperatures from roughly the top millimeter of the land, sea ice, or sea surface—not air temperatures. Making a long-term record out of data from different sensors is challenging because each sensor has its own quirks and may measure temperatures a bit differently. None of the sensors were in orbit at the same time, so scientists could not compare simultaneous observations from different sensors to make sure each was recording temperatures exactly the same. Instead, the team checked the satellite records against ground-based weather station data to inter-calibrate them and make the 26-year satellite record. The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius.

piuswal

https://www.ria.ie/news/climate-chan...t-caused-storm

Ray Bates lead author. Just in case anyone missed it.

piuswal wrote: »

https://www.ria.ie/news/climate-chan...t-caused-storm

Ray Bates lead author. Just in case anyone missed it.

That link is broken but from memory, Ray Bates' study only looked at sea surface temperature along the final track of storm Ophelia. Storms like Ophelia form all the time and we don't care about them if they stay out to sea, the reason why it was an unusual storm was that it reached so far north east , so a proper analysis should have included atmospheric conditions as well as SST conditions that drove the storm so far north.

Hurricane Sandy a few years was also a highly unusual storm for it's northward track. The Jet Stream has been changing due to climate change. During Ophelia there was a mid latitude Jet Stream that slung Opehlia into Ireland. A proper analysis of this should have looked at the atmospheric conditions and if they are affected by climate change and if these conditions may be more common in future.

Ray Bates' analysis was extremely one dimensional and it should not be used to conclusively dismiss any link between Ophelia and climate change. Last year alone we saw Hurricane Harvey dump 50 inches of rain on Texas due to unusual jet stream conditions, and Ophelia being slung up north east by the jet stream, and now we're seeing 'the beast from the east' delivering weather charts that most of the weather experts on here consider to be extremely unusual while North america is being hammered by storms and snow (again, because of the meandering jetstream)

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

That link is broken but from memory, Ray Bates' study only looked at sea surface temperature along the final track of storm Ophelia. Storms like Ophelia form all the time and we don't care about them if they stay out to sea, the reason why it was an unusual storm was that it reached so far north east , so a proper analysis should have included atmospheric conditions as well as SST conditions that drove the storm so far north.

Hurricane Sandy a few years was also a highly unusual storm for it's northward track. The Jet Stream has been changing due to climate change. During Ophelia there was a mid latitude Jet Stream that slung Opehlia into Ireland. A proper analysis of this should have looked at the atmospheric conditions and if they are affected by climate change and if these conditions may be more common in future.

Ray Bates' analysis was extremely one dimensional and it should not be used to conclusively dismiss any link between Ophelia and climate change. Last year alone we saw Hurricane Harvey dump 50 inches of rain on Texas due to unusual jet stream conditions, and Ophelia being slung up north east by the jet stream, and now we're seeing 'the beast from the east' delivering weather charts that most of the weather experts on here consider to be extremely unusual while North america is being hammered by storms and snow (again, because of the meandering jetstream)

All hearsay, Your Honour.

There was no unusual setup with Ophelia. Slightly colder upper air and an upper trough to storm's northwest both provided the instability and ventilation to sustain Ophelia slightly longer than average. It's happened before and will happen again; Debbie in 1961, Frances in 1980 (that we know of). Here's a detailed analysis https://irishweatheronline.wordpress.com/2017/11/03/hurricane-ophelia-a-detailed-analysis/

Harvey got stalled by a weak jet. Happens all the time, only this is time by chance it happened to occur over land. Hurricane Sandy, while unusual, was not unprecedented. The real discussion about Sandy was the poor handling by all the models except the ECM, which nailed its westerly track well in advance while the others screamed an easterly turn out to sea.

The recent easterly is not unprecedented either. It too has happened before. Suddenly stratospheric warnings are a natural occurrence and have delivered such late cold before.

You seem to be making wild statements of individual events being linked to this and that without any shred of evidence. You dismiss Bates' paper "from memory " because it doesn't fit the hype (and probably because it's Bates). The link I posted contains the link to his paper so have a read of it again to refresh your memory and then come back with all the evidence to back up your claims.