-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
H
hard rain
Overnight minimums?
Got this graph from Wiki regarding Australia's temperatures.
Yep, warming alright. Bureau of Meteorology. 1910-2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Australia
How does Trichs polar vortex, sunspot, or whatever argument he happens to use at the time explain that?
Last edited:
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
He and his biddies will tell you it's fake for some dumb reason. Like NASA or NOAA are covering up a 40 year old math error so their climate math is wrong.Overnight minimums?
Got this graph from Wiki regarding Australia's temperatures.
Yep, warming alright. Bureau of Meteorology. 1910-2019.
[URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=17596&pictureid=2000893&thumb=1]View Image[/url]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Australia
How does Trichs polar vortex, sunspot, or whatever argument he happens to use at the time explain that?
In any case, half the stuff trichrider posts PROVES global warming. Try to explain that to him and you end up arguing with a 12 year old. I just stopped.
E
ESTERCHASER
lmao "haters floundering in the wake of woke" fuken comedy gold , carlin woulda loved that one
H
hard rain
Nothing you just posted discounts human influence on the climate. There are natural climate and weather systems and added to that are the activities of 7.5 billion people.
However thanks for linking the journal because I found a lot about climate change such as this. Funny they don't seem to be questioning global warming.
Letter
Published: 16 December 2019
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation less predictable under greenhouse warming
Shujun Li, Lixin Wu, Yun Yang, Tao Geng, Wenju Cai, Bolan Gan, Zhaohui Chen, Zhao Jing, Guojian Wang & Xiaohui Ma
Nature Climate Change volume 10, pages30–34(2020)Cite this article
1375 Accesses
1 Citations
86 Altmetric
Metricsdetails
Abstract
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is the most prominent form of decadal variability over the North Pacific, characterized by its horseshoe-shaped sea surface temperature anomaly pattern1,2. The PDO exerts a substantial influence on marine ecosystems, fisheries and agriculture1,2,3. Through modulating global mean temperature, the phase shift of the PDO at the end of the twentieth century is suggested to be an influential factor in the recent surface warming hiatus4,5. Determining the predictability of the PDO in a warming climate is therefore of great importance6. By analysing future climate under different emission scenarios simulated by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (ref. 7), we show that the prediction lead time and the associated amplitude of the PDO decrease sharply under greenhouse warming conditions. This decrease is largely attributable to a warming-induced intensification of oceanic stratification, which accelerates the propagation of Rossby waves, shortening the PDO lifespan and suppressing its amplitude by limiting its growth time. Our results suggest that greenhouse warming will make prediction of the PDO more challenging, with far-reaching ramifications.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0663-x
kickarse
Active member
Melbourne is about 2c under average for the month, been that way for months
been 3 colder than normal winter in a row, haven't had a decent summer for 9/10 years
have been getting some warm autumns tho, its part time "global warming" occasionally here
FFS we get one day heatwaves these days, its laughable
you blokes carry on with your worship of the mighty Co2, its more powerful than the Sun apparently
I believe in the God of thunder after all
been 3 colder than normal winter in a row, haven't had a decent summer for 9/10 years
have been getting some warm autumns tho, its part time "global warming" occasionally here
FFS we get one day heatwaves these days, its laughable
you blokes carry on with your worship of the mighty Co2, its more powerful than the Sun apparently
I believe in the God of thunder after all
Most of the skeptics and deniers do exactly this because it's all cherry picked, copy paste jobs, lack the full context, or they never get passed the title/abstract.
White Beard
Active member
I know folks hate it when their gullibility is pointed out...makes me feel sorry for schoolteachers all across the US...but if these “DO YOUR RESEARCH” guys had a clue how to research something, maybe they’d stop posting “PROOF in this link” without reading and trying to understand the goddam shit they’re linking.
I mean, they only make themselves look bad
“INCONCEIVABLE!!!”
kickarse
Active member
How about some proof from you DC's
have not seen any at all, its all "could" "might" and "maybe"
FFS 1c over 140 years, its a fucking joke anyway
trust the science hey, 40 years of failed predictions, why would you ?
another under avarge day here, "global warming" makes it colder lol
thought it was supposed to get hotter and hotter and hotter
give me some $$$$$ and I'll fix it for ya, say the socialists
I feel sorry for school kids all over the western world, they have been cheated out of a proper education
have not seen any at all, its all "could" "might" and "maybe"
FFS 1c over 140 years, its a fucking joke anyway
trust the science hey, 40 years of failed predictions, why would you ?
another under avarge day here, "global warming" makes it colder lol
thought it was supposed to get hotter and hotter and hotter
give me some $$$$$ and I'll fix it for ya, say the socialists
I feel sorry for school kids all over the western world, they have been cheated out of a proper education
funny how not reading my posts proves you're right.
H
hard rain
What failed predictions are you talking about? Some exerts from a recent article. From the 7 News site:
In 2008, a climate change report made an eerie prediction that Australia would face an extreme bushfire season in 2020.
At least 22 people have died and more than 1700 homes have been destroyed as catastrophic bushfires continue to wreak havoc across the country in what has been described as an unprecedented event.
Now, 12 years on, the Garnaut Climate Change Review is back in the spotlight as angered Aussies share its findings that warned of what was to come.
Written by distinguished economist Ross Garnaut, the report used projections to predict bushfire seasons would progressively "start earlier, end slightly later and generally be more intense".
The report went on to make projected increases in the number of days with extreme fire weather.
It claimed that, in 2013, there could be +5-25 extreme fire days and as many as +100-300 in 2067, a 300 per cent increase.
The study was initiated in 2007 by then-leader of the opposition, Kevin Rudd, and the leaders of all states and territories.
The aim of the independent study was "to examine the impacts of climate change on the Australian economy".
Garnaut was tasked "to recommend medium to long term policies and policy frameworks to improve the prospects of sustainable prosperity".
In 2008, the federal government, then under the prime ministership of Rudd, accepted several of the report's key recommendations.
But the government failed to pass arguably one of the most important - an emissions trading scheme.
https://7news.com.au/news/bushfires...e-increase-of-fire-intensity-by-2020-c-636017
Oh, and in case you missed the temperature graph I posted earlier;
Last edited:
kickarse
Active member
Apparently a carbon tax will stop all bush fires, droughts and floods
so we can dismiss all the old bush fire reports as propaganda, good to know
I must of imagined Ash Wednesday and black Saturday
what caused the fires, droughts and floods of the last 250 years, can't of been the heat, there wasn't any, not enough Co2
so we can dismiss all the old bush fire reports as propaganda, good to know
I must of imagined Ash Wednesday and black Saturday
what caused the fires, droughts and floods of the last 250 years, can't of been the heat, there wasn't any, not enough Co2
Since when has the establishment ever told you the truth?
temps here expected to break all-time records next week, over 35 degrees above normal. nope, nothing odd about that. getting massive thunderstorms, flooding & possibly tornadoes when we normally get snow.
Yeah - what happened to winter? - over here in London U.K. its mid-winter, and we are not getting the freezing temperatures and snow/ice we used to get when I was a lad hardly at all - down here in the south of England right now (and for the past few years) - the weather is more like an extended autumn - or an early spring at this time of year - its confusing the heck out of the trees, plants and shrubs etc -
Before too long we might end up with the weather of southern Spain they say - then no-one will bother to go to Spain any more - so yes, I have noticed that this area has warmed up some - compared to what I remember it as -
Before too long we might end up with the weather of southern Spain they say - then no-one will bother to go to Spain any more - so yes, I have noticed that this area has warmed up some - compared to what I remember it as -
Earth’s Energy Budget
Note: Determining exact values for energy flows in the Earth system is an area of ongoing climate research. Different estimates exist, and all estimates have some uncertainty. Estimates come from satellite observations, ground-based observations, and numerical weather models. The numbers in this article rely most heavily on direct satellite observations of reflected sunlight and thermal infrared energy radiated by the atmosphere and the surface.
Earth’s heat engine does more than simply move heat from one part of the surface to another; it also moves heat from the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere back to space. This flow of incoming and outgoing energy is Earth’s energy budget. For Earth’s temperature to be stable over long periods of time, incoming energy and outgoing energy have to be equal. In other words, the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere must balance. This state of balance is called radiative equilibrium.
About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system. About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface. Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.
Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space, primarily by clouds, but also by other bright surfaces and the atmosphere itself. About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by atmospheric gases, dust, and other particles. The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface. (NASA illustration by Robert Simmon. Astronaut photograph ISS013-E-8948.)
When matter absorbs energy, the atoms and molecules that make up the material become excited; they move around more quickly. The increased movement raises the material’s temperature. If matter could only absorb energy, then the temperature of the Earth would be like the water level in a sink with no drain where the faucet runs continuously.
Temperature doesn’t infinitely rise, however, because atoms and molecules on Earth are not just absorbing sunlight, they are also radiating thermal infrared energy (heat). The amount of heat a surface radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway heating on Earth.
Absorbed sunlight is balanced by heat radiated from Earth’s surface and atmosphere. This satellite map shows the distribution of thermal infrared radiation emitted by Earth in September 2008. Most heat escaped from areas just north and south of the equator, where the surface was warm, but there were few clouds. Along the equator, persistent clouds prevented heat from escaping. Likewise, the cold poles radiated little heat. (NASA map by Robert Simmon, based on CERES data.)
The atmosphere and the surface of the Earth together absorb 71 percent of incoming solar radiation, so together, they must radiate that much energy back to space for the planet’s average temperature to remain stable. However, the relative contribution of the atmosphere and the surface to each process (absorbing sunlight versus radiating heat) is asymmetric. The atmosphere absorbs 23 percent of incoming sunlight while the surface absorbs 48. The atmosphere radiates heat equivalent to 59 percent of incoming sunlight; the surface radiates only 12 percent. In other words, most solar heating happens at the surface, while most radiative cooling happens in the atmosphere. How does this reshuffling of energy between the surface and atmosphere happen?
Note: Determining exact values for energy flows in the Earth system is an area of ongoing climate research. Different estimates exist, and all estimates have some uncertainty. Estimates come from satellite observations, ground-based observations, and numerical weather models. The numbers in this article rely most heavily on direct satellite observations of reflected sunlight and thermal infrared energy radiated by the atmosphere and the surface.
Earth’s heat engine does more than simply move heat from one part of the surface to another; it also moves heat from the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere back to space. This flow of incoming and outgoing energy is Earth’s energy budget. For Earth’s temperature to be stable over long periods of time, incoming energy and outgoing energy have to be equal. In other words, the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere must balance. This state of balance is called radiative equilibrium.
About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system. About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface. Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.
Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space, primarily by clouds, but also by other bright surfaces and the atmosphere itself. About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by atmospheric gases, dust, and other particles. The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface. (NASA illustration by Robert Simmon. Astronaut photograph ISS013-E-8948.)
When matter absorbs energy, the atoms and molecules that make up the material become excited; they move around more quickly. The increased movement raises the material’s temperature. If matter could only absorb energy, then the temperature of the Earth would be like the water level in a sink with no drain where the faucet runs continuously.
Temperature doesn’t infinitely rise, however, because atoms and molecules on Earth are not just absorbing sunlight, they are also radiating thermal infrared energy (heat). The amount of heat a surface radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway heating on Earth.
Absorbed sunlight is balanced by heat radiated from Earth’s surface and atmosphere. This satellite map shows the distribution of thermal infrared radiation emitted by Earth in September 2008. Most heat escaped from areas just north and south of the equator, where the surface was warm, but there were few clouds. Along the equator, persistent clouds prevented heat from escaping. Likewise, the cold poles radiated little heat. (NASA map by Robert Simmon, based on CERES data.)
The atmosphere and the surface of the Earth together absorb 71 percent of incoming solar radiation, so together, they must radiate that much energy back to space for the planet’s average temperature to remain stable. However, the relative contribution of the atmosphere and the surface to each process (absorbing sunlight versus radiating heat) is asymmetric. The atmosphere absorbs 23 percent of incoming sunlight while the surface absorbs 48. The atmosphere radiates heat equivalent to 59 percent of incoming sunlight; the surface radiates only 12 percent. In other words, most solar heating happens at the surface, while most radiative cooling happens in the atmosphere. How does this reshuffling of energy between the surface and atmosphere happen?
Reactions of the Middle Atmosphere Circulation and Stationary Planetary Waves on the Solar Activity Effects in the Thermosphere
A.V. Koval
N.M. Gavrilov
A.I. Pogoreltsev
N.O. Shevchuk
First published: 15 December 2019
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027392
Read the full text
PDF
Tools
Share
Abstract
Using numerical simulations of the general atmospheric circulation during boreal winter, statistically confident evidences are obtained for the first time, demonstrating that changes in the solar activity (SA) in the thermosphere at heights above 100 km can influence propagation and reflection conditions for stationary planetary waves (SPWs) and can modify the middle atmosphere circulation below 100 km. A numerical mechanistic model simulating atmospheric circulation and SPWs at heights 0–300 km is used. To achieve sufficient statistical confidence, 80 pairs of 15‐day intervals were extracted from an ensemble of 16 pairs of model runs corresponding to low and high SA. Results averaged over these intervals show that impacts of SA above 100 km change the mean zonal wind and temperature up to 10% at altitudes below 100 km. The statistically confident changes in SPW amplitudes due to SA impacts above 100 km reach up to 50% in the thermosphere and 10–15% in the middle atmosphere depending on zonal wavenumber. Changes in wave amplitudes correspond to variations of the Eliassen‐Palm flux and may alter dynamical and thermal SPW impacts on the mean wind and temperature. Thus, variable conditions of SPW propagation and reflection at thermospheric altitudes may influence the middle atmosphere circulation, thermal structure, and planetary waves.
Plain Language Summary
Atmospheric large‐scale disturbances, for instance planetary waves, play a valuable role in atmospheric general circulation, influencing its dynamical and thermal conditions. Solar activity might significantly change the mean temperature at heights above 100 km and alter conditions of wave propagation and reflection in the thermosphere. In the present study, we perform numerical simulations to obtain statistically confident results showing noticeable response of atmospheric circulation at altitudes below 100 km to impacts of solar activity above 100 km.
A.V. Koval
N.M. Gavrilov
A.I. Pogoreltsev
N.O. Shevchuk
First published: 15 December 2019
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027392
Read the full text
PDFTools
Share
Abstract
Using numerical simulations of the general atmospheric circulation during boreal winter, statistically confident evidences are obtained for the first time, demonstrating that changes in the solar activity (SA) in the thermosphere at heights above 100 km can influence propagation and reflection conditions for stationary planetary waves (SPWs) and can modify the middle atmosphere circulation below 100 km. A numerical mechanistic model simulating atmospheric circulation and SPWs at heights 0–300 km is used. To achieve sufficient statistical confidence, 80 pairs of 15‐day intervals were extracted from an ensemble of 16 pairs of model runs corresponding to low and high SA. Results averaged over these intervals show that impacts of SA above 100 km change the mean zonal wind and temperature up to 10% at altitudes below 100 km. The statistically confident changes in SPW amplitudes due to SA impacts above 100 km reach up to 50% in the thermosphere and 10–15% in the middle atmosphere depending on zonal wavenumber. Changes in wave amplitudes correspond to variations of the Eliassen‐Palm flux and may alter dynamical and thermal SPW impacts on the mean wind and temperature. Thus, variable conditions of SPW propagation and reflection at thermospheric altitudes may influence the middle atmosphere circulation, thermal structure, and planetary waves.
Plain Language Summary
Atmospheric large‐scale disturbances, for instance planetary waves, play a valuable role in atmospheric general circulation, influencing its dynamical and thermal conditions. Solar activity might significantly change the mean temperature at heights above 100 km and alter conditions of wave propagation and reflection in the thermosphere. In the present study, we perform numerical simulations to obtain statistically confident results showing noticeable response of atmospheric circulation at altitudes below 100 km to impacts of solar activity above 100 km.
