'Why do we need to march for climate change?'

Page 4 of 6 [ 82 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Joined: 14 Mar 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,343
Location: Seattle

02 Oct 2014, 3:22 pm

The other thing is Humanaut, you forget that the record cold temperatures for all those cities were for one year, which does not map onto your 16-year cooling theory. Were all those cities that cold during the winter for all 16 years?

You're right about one thing though; winter could get that cold again, as long as the average temperature is up and the polar air circulation remains that weak.
The whole concern with climate change is that we can expect to have more erratic, problematic weather to deal with. That's going to cost us.

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

02 Oct 2014, 3:24 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

Again, why 16 years? Why not 15 or 17?

Because 1998 marks a trend shift.

ThetaIn3D wrote:

In a nutshell, a warmer atmosphere with more homogenous temperatures weakens the circulation of the jet stream which "corrals" the colder polar air, confining it to the polar region. When this circulation weakens, colder air is able to break out and come south.

The effect described is correct, but not the cause. The jet streams are modulated by solar activity.

ThetaIn3D
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,343
Location: Seattle

02 Oct 2014, 3:28 pm

Humanaut wrote:

ThetaIn3D wrote:

The effect described is correct, but not the cause. The jet streams are modulated by solar activity.

Source?

And please explain "modulated" by "solar activity".

Which activity of the sun, specifically, and how does it achieve that effect, in detail?

ThetaIn3D
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,343
Location: Seattle

02 Oct 2014, 3:39 pm

Humanaut wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Again, why 16 years? Why not 15 or 17?

Because 1998 marks a trend shift.

Does it?

Source:
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/g ... s-globally

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

02 Oct 2014, 3:48 pm

ThetaIn3D wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Again, why 16 years? Why not 15 or 17?

Because 1998 marks a trend shift.

Does it?

Yes, according to satellite data.

Check out Mike Lockwood's works for more information on solar modulation of the jet streams and blocking events.

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/1353

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,859
Location: London

02 Oct 2014, 3:54 pm

Humanaut wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Again, why 16 years? Why not 15 or 17?

Because 1998 marks a trend shift.

It doesn't, though! If it did, then that trend would still be there if you looked at 15 years or 14 years or even 17 years.

You are cherry picking. It is bad science and bad statistics.

Do you have a degree? What is it in? If not, have you been to a school? What did you study?

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

02 Oct 2014, 3:57 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

You are cherry picking.

Absolutely not. I'm simply pointing out a relevant trend shift.

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

02 Oct 2014, 4:13 pm

Humanaut wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

You are cherry picking.

Absolutely not. I'm simply pointing out a relevant trend shift.

There is no trend shift (do you even know what the word "trend" means?).

The only thing that stands out is the 1998 temperature itself... both preceding and subsequent years follow the same warming trend.

Like The_Walrus said... cherry-picking...

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

02 Oct 2014, 4:35 pm

You are free to believe in global warming if you want to. No problem.

ThetaIn3D
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,343
Location: Seattle

02 Oct 2014, 4:36 pm

Humanaut wrote:

ThetaIn3D wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Again, why 16 years? Why not 15 or 17?

Because 1998 marks a trend shift.

Does it?

Yes, according to satellite data.

No, according to the satellite data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Humanaut wrote:

Check out Mike Lockwood's works for more information on solar modulation of the jet streams and blocking events.

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/1353

And which of this one man's 64 papers are you referring to, which actually has something to do with the sun's influence on Earth weather?
Based on the field of research I see that Mike Lockwood is in, are you trying to argue that cosmic rays from the sun and the Northern Lights caused the cold air release from the Polar Vortex?

ThetaIn3D
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,343
Location: Seattle

02 Oct 2014, 4:38 pm

Humanaut wrote:

You are free to believe in global warming if you want to. No problem.

You tried to play a game you don't have a firm grasp on, and you fudged your evidence and interpretations.

Everyone is entitled to their own private opinion, but not their own private facts.

ThetaIn3D
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,343
Location: Seattle

02 Oct 2014, 4:43 pm

Humanaut wrote:

You are free to believe in global warming if you want to. No problem.

And we're also free to call out bogus political interpretations of the data, which delay critical action, thereby endangering human ability to survive and thrive on Earth.

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

02 Oct 2014, 4:50 pm

ThetaIn3D wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

ThetaIn3D wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Again, why 16 years? Why not 15 or 17?

Because 1998 marks a trend shift.

Does it?

Yes, according to satellite data.

No, according to the satellite data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

I don't think that is satellite data.

Quote:

And which of this one man's 64 papers are you referring to, which actually has something to do with the sun's influence on Earth weather?

This might be relevant.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100414/ ... 0.184.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/

Quote:

Based on the field of research I see that Mike Lockwood is in, are you trying to argue that cosmic rays from the sun and the Northern Lights caused the cold air release from the Polar Vortex?

Cosmic rays does not come from the sun, and the aurora is not causing anything on its own. It is an atmospheric effect of the solar wind, which is also affecting the influx of cosmic rays.

ThetaIn3D
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,343
Location: Seattle

02 Oct 2014, 5:02 pm

Humanaut wrote:

ThetaIn3D wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

ThetaIn3D wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Again, why 16 years? Why not 15 or 17?

Because 1998 marks a trend shift.

Does it?

Yes, according to satellite data.

No, according to the satellite data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

I don't think that is satellite data.

I set off in search of land data as well, which that is. And is also valid. Further down the page, under "Current Analysis Method", it states that satellite observations are used to check the data, and control for factors such as local human development.

Humanaut wrote:

Quote:

And which of this one man's 64 papers are you referring to, which actually has something to do with the sun's influence on Earth weather?

This might be relevant.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100414/ ... 0.184.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/

Those aren't by Mike Lockwood, and they only deal with local conditions in Europe during Winter. That is a different subject than global average surface temperature.
You think they demonstrate your point, but they aren't entirely on topic.
Meanwhile, you evaded my actual question instead of answering it.

Humanaut wrote:

Quote:

Based on the field of research I see that Mike Lockwood is in, are you trying to argue that cosmic rays from the sun and the Northern Lights caused the cold air release from the Polar Vortex?

Cosmic rays does not come from the sun, and the aurora is not causing anything on its own. It is an atmospheric effect of the solar wind, which is also affecting the influx of cosmic rays.

Which means what?

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

02 Oct 2014, 5:18 pm

ThetaIn3D wrote:

...it states that satellite observations are used to check the data, and control for factors such as local human development.

Not satellite data, then.

Quote:

Those aren't by Mike Lockwood...

Mike Lockwood is the lead author.

Quote:

...and they only deal with local conditions in Europe during Winter. That is a different subject than global average surface temperature.

I know. We were discussing the cause of blocking events.

Quote:

You think they demonstrate your point, but they aren't entirely on topic.

I didn't bring blocking events into the discussion. You did.

Quote:

Meanwhile, you evaded my actual question instead of answering it.

A wrong question cannot be answered until it has been corrected.

ThetaIn3D wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

ThetaIn3D wrote:

Based on the field of research I see that Mike Lockwood is in, are you trying to argue that cosmic rays from the sun and the Northern Lights caused the cold air release from the Polar Vortex?

Cosmic rays does not come from the sun, and the aurora is not causing anything on its own. It is an atmospheric effect of the solar wind, which is also affecting the influx of cosmic rays.

Which means what?

It means that cosmic rays do not come from the sun and that the aurora is not causing blocking events.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

02 Oct 2014, 5:32 pm

I said GLOBALLY. Just look at the NOAA website.

North America was under the influence of a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation during the winter of 2013-2014. This resulted in an extreme southern movement of what is termed the "Polar Vortex." It directly affected the northern Midwest, and indirectly affected the Northeast. Temperature anomalies (cold) were especially prominent in the United States, as opposed to Canada.

The UK, on the other hand, had quite a mild winter, with record rainfall. Very few frosts in London--Maybe a couple of ground frosts a month. I believe the rest of Europe was relatively mild as well.

Page 4 of 6 [ 82 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

'Why do we need to march for climate change?' Post Reply New Topic

'Why do we need to march for climate change?'