Global Warming | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT! Our inbox is full of email errors from members who have not updated their emails, please follow the instructions on how to update here
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Global Warming

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
30,329
8,192
Melbourne
La Nina kicking in.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2021_v6.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
30,329
8,192
Melbourne

La Nina clue to sun’s power on climate (paywalled)​


Evidence is mounting that changes in the Sun’s magnetic energy has a much bigger influence on Earth’s weather and climate conditions than previously thought.

New research was able to predict the onset of La Nina weather conditions that produced torrential rains across eastern Australia before they happened, something not previously considered possible. The latest research was published in Earth and Space Science and funded by US space agency, NASA.

The accurate prediction of La Nina extends a six-decade pattern linking changes in magnetic activity in the Sun and El Nino-Southern Oscillation-driven weather conditions on Earth.

The accurate prediction is not proof of a link but dramatically lessens the chances of it being coincidence. The research, led by NASA scientist Robert Leamon from the University of Maryland, Baltimore, tries to “open a broader scientific discussion of solar coupling to the Earth and its environment.”

The exact mechanism that links the Sun’s activity to changes from El Nino to La Nina conditions is not yet understood but the findings add to the belief by some scientists that solar activity, including sunspots and cosmic rays, has a much greater impact on Earth’s climate than thought.

Researchers try to avoid being dragged into controversial theories that have put forward, but they say the findings open debate about the suitability of climate models and the relationship between incoming cosmic rays and clouds and precipitation over our oceans.

The latest research builds on research published last year in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, which was able to map the irregular solar cycle of sunspot activity on to a uniform solar cycle clock that takes place over a 22-year magnetic polarity cycle.

The NASA-funded research uses the new cycle to track changes in the El Nino and La Nina states.

“Using direct observation and proxies of solar activity going back some six decades, we can, with high statistical significance, demonstrate a correlation between the occurrence of terminators and the largest swings of Earth’s oceanic indices: the transition from El Nino to La Nina states of the central Pacific”, the research paper says.

“This empirical relationship is a potential source of increased predictive skill for the understanding of El Nino climate variations, a high‐stakes societal imperative given that El Nino impacts lives, property and economic activity around the globe.’’

The research was published in March 2021 but conducted before the La Nina phase that has just ended. It predicted a rapid transition into La Nina conditions in 2020 following the sunspot cycle 24 terminator.

“A forecast of the Sun’s global behaviour places the next solar cycle termination in mid-2020; should a major oceanic swing follow, the challenge becomes: when does correlation become causation and how does the process work?’’, the paper said.

Researchers presented clear evidence of a recurring empirical relationship between ENSO and the end of solar cycles.

The paper said ENSO was the largest mode of atmospheric variability driving costly extreme weather events on Earth.

Any improvement in prediction of the ENSO cycle would be of societal benefit, the scientists said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,923
5,694
Melbourne
I do love the way the baseline for the UAH graph is 1991 to 2020. Let's pick the hot years as a baseline so it looks like March 2021 is not so hot.

Look at the temperature record for the years 1991 to 2020 - does this look like reasonable baseline?

temp-2020_comparison-plot.jpg


NASA use a more sensible baseline of 1951-1980.

But UAH distorting the way the data is presented surprises me not at all.

DS
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
30,329
8,192
Melbourne
I do love the way the baseline for the UAH graph is 1991 to 2020. Let's pick the hot years as a baseline so it looks like March 2021 is not so hot.
Was recently changed from 1980-2010 in line with the more recent data available (measurements commenced during 1979). It did not change the warming trend at all - still 0.14 degrees per decade.

You need to get over the fact that Spencer & Christy’s work is very highly regarded, and that the UAH/NOAA/NASA (that’s right, it’s a joint project) measurements provide the most comprehensive global coverage available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,923
5,694
Melbourne
Recently changed their baseline to warmer years, and a shorter period. Yeah that works, if you want to present your data in a distorted way.

Highly regarded by whom? Murdoch and the shills he employs at the Australian?

The NOAA, who you cite above also have a graph of temperature changes, it looks like this:

Fig.-2-Global-trends.jpg


Bracketing the UAH data with NOAA and NASA (see above) makes no sense as they don't correlate. Unsurprisingly it is the UAH data which is out.

Satellite data has more statistical uncertainty than data from temperature gauges on the surface.

In the 1990s Christy and Spencer were claiming that the climate was cooling - and you criticise climate models which are far more accurate - see https://www.universetoday.com/14232...y-accurate-within-1-20th-of-a-degree-celsius/

Of course it is not easy to measure temperature using a satellite because they measure temperature indirectly, they do it using microwave sounding and then they have to convert the data to temperature, using an algorithm which the following flowchart shows the most important aspects of:

jgrd16826-fig-0002.png


This is in stark contrast to reading temperature off a thermometer, ie: a direct measure of temperature.

Do you seriously doubt climate change is happening and is having a dramatic impact on the world?

DS
 
Last edited:

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
30,329
8,192
Melbourne
Recently changed their baseline to warmer years, and a shorter period. Yeah that works, if you want to present your data in a distorted way.
Some background for you.
Statistics calculated over standard periods (commonly a 30 year interval) are often called climate normals, and are generally used as reference values for comparative purposes. The period is long enough to include the majority of typical year to year variations in the climate, but no so long that it is significantly influenced by longer-term changes in climate. In Australia, the current reference climate normal is generated over the 30-year period 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1990.

 

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
1,099
600
Why change to more recent, hotter, years for the baseline?

DS
If you are looking at a slope it’s irrelevant what zero is.

but it would seem a chart since co2 levels started increasing with industrial revolution and wide spread use of fossil fuels and also ones over much longer time frames are likely to be more meaningful.
 

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
1,099
600
Terrestrial datasets are less accurate than satellite measurements. They were meant to be phased out by the satellites. That was before they were tortured to confess that the past was actually colder than we knew.
I’m out of my depth so I’ll back out as I haven’t put the effort in to understand the detail/accuracy of the historical temperature records.

I’m going on the assumption they are good so if that isn’t true then clearly a long term trend of bad data is not good!
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
30,329
8,192
Melbourne
I’m going on the assumption they are good so if that isn’t true then clearly a long term trend of bad data is not good!
Well they're far better than nothing but the older they are, the less representative they are. The systematic lowering of historical temps has been covered to death so I won't go into it again. There's also the heat island effect which is evident from the lower temps we've seen in Melbourne since the instrumentation was moved from the CBD out to Olympic Park.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,923
5,694
Melbourne
Well they're far better than nothing but the older they are, the less representative they are. The systematic lowering of historical temps has been covered to death so I won't go into it again. There's also the heat island effect which is evident from the lower temps we've seen in Melbourne since the instrumentation was moved from the CBD out to Olympic Park.

But surely if your conspiracy was true they wouldn't have moved the BOM instruments away from the city.

But I suppose you make a fair point, it must be all the scientists being paid megabucks to conspire together to falsify data worldwide and the poor fossil fuel industry just can't afford to buy them off as Institutes of Science are so much more cashed up than billion dollar corporations.

The reality is that the statistical uncertainty of satellite derived temp data is higher.

DS
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
30,329
8,192
Melbourne
But surely if your conspiracy was true they wouldn't have moved the BOM instruments away from the city.
They changed sites because the old one had developed an obvious flaw. The data for many terrestrial stations is coloured by urban development.

Probably 98% of climate scientists are funded to find evidence for man-made global warming. I know it's galling when the 2% finds evidence of solar influence like in the article above. I expect the walls will continue to close in on flawed modelling as knowledge advances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,923
5,694
Melbourne
They changed sites because the old one had developed an obvious flaw. The data for many terrestrial stations is coloured by urban development.

Probably 98% of climate scientists are funded to find evidence for man-made global warming. I know it's galling when the 2% finds evidence of solar influence like in the article above. I expect the walls will continue to close in on flawed modelling as knowledge advances.

So, they changed sites despite the claim you make that they are funded to find a particular outcome. Yeah right, they do the right thing and you twist it to claim it as part of the grand conspiracy of climate science, of course if they didn't do the right thing you would have a go at BOM too. This is reminiscent of your claims about the timing of BOM observations, ie: total crap.

Solar influence on La Nina, yep that's a smoking gun right there, pity how it missed the target.

As for the flawed modelling, as that NASA article shows, the modelling is within 1/20 of a degree, lot better than the multiple changes Spencer and Christy have had to make to their modelling to sort out the satellite data.

Meanwhile, the impacts of climate change continue:


DS
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
21,392
6,954
This is the hilarious/tragic aspect of the denialist woo around "doctored data".

The physical evidence of climate change is all around us. Sea ice and permafrost loss, glacial ice loss,shift of tropical/ sub tropical/ temperate borders, impact on farming and habitat, sea level rise and the list goes on.

I've pretty much given up on this thread as lee trots out the same sad old denialist tropes time after time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
30,329
8,192
Melbourne
This is the hilarious/tragic aspect of the denialist woo around "doctored data".

The physical evidence of climate change is all around us. Sea ice and permafrost loss, glacial ice loss,shift of tropical/ sub tropical/ temperate borders, impact on farming and habitat, sea level rise and the list goes on.

I've pretty much given up on this thread as lee trots out the same sad old denialist tropes time after time.
Only responding to the same old stuff from DSS which has been done to death.

Yes, it's warming. No, it's not unprecedented. Yes, the warming has been largely beneficial to the planet. No, it's not warming catastrophically.

How much can we do about it? I'm skeptical.

e.g. contrary to David's pretty Antarctic propaganda blurb above:

The sea ice satellite record dates back to October 25, 1978. Unlike the Arctic, where sea ice extent is declining in all areas in all seasons... Antarctic-wide sea ice extent—for the annual average, winter maximum, and summer minimum extents—showed a slightly positive trend overall

Antarctic_Sepmax_1979-2020_620.gif


 
Last edited:

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,923
5,694
Melbourne
Meanwhile, the impacts of climate change continue:


Hey, maybe NASA should change their baseline for sea ice extent to 1991-2020, would make it look less like there is a problem.

DS
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
30,329
8,192
Melbourne
Meanwhile, the impacts of climate change continue:


Hey, maybe NASA should change their baseline for sea ice extent to 1991-2020, would make it look less like there is a problem.
Stop posting propaganda garbage.

No coral atoll nations are going under the waves. In fact many of them are increasing in size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user