As Earth Warms Up, The Sun Is Remarkably Quiet

By: Bob Henson , 8:09 PM GMT on January 11, 2017

If you’re looking toward the sun to help explain this decade’s record global heat on Earth, look again. Solar activity has been below average for more than a decade, and the pattern appears set to continue, according to several top solar researchers. Solar Cycle 24, the one that will wrap up in the late 2010s, was the least active in more than a century. We now have outlooks for Cycle 25, the one that will prevail during the 2020s, and they’re calling for a cycle only about as strong as--and perhaps even less active than--Cycle 24.

Weak solar cycles tend to produce fewer solar storms, those dramatic bursts of magnetized material from the sun that generate spectacular auroral displays and play havoc with satellite-based systems and power grids on Earth. However, solar storms that do emerge during weak cycles can be among the most potent, notes Scott McIntosh (National Center for Atmospheric Research). Just as a catastrophic hurricane can occur in an otherwise quiet season, a quiet solar cycle can still cause devastating space weather, McIntosh told me. “If you look at the record of extreme events from the sun, they most often occur in weak cycles, and they almost always occur in the deep, descending part of the cycle,” he said.

When scientists like McIntosh fret about the potential consequences of a solar storm, they often point to the Big One: the outburst from September 1-2, 1859, that’s been dubbed the Carrington Event. Occurring near the peak of a fairly quiet cycle, the Carrington Event was an extremely intense solar flare aimed directly at Earth. It produced stunning auroral displays around the globe, even in Cuba and Hawaii. The barrage of magnetized particles also knocked out telegraph communications across Europe and North America. A 2013 study from Lloyds of London (see PDF) found that a similar event today could cause up to $2.6 trillion in damage, with up to 40 million Americans losing power for anywhere from two weeks to two years. “While the probability of an extreme storm occurring is relatively low at any given time, it is almost inevitable that one will occur eventually,” noted the report. In fact, we dodged a major solar bullet in July 2012, when a flare roughly as strong as the one in 1859 happened to point away from Earth instead of toward it. See this 2009 post by Jeff Masters for more on how a solar storm can disable electric grids.



Figure 1. Solar material bursts from the sun in this close-up from a video captured on July 9-10, 2016, by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, or SDO. The sun is composed of plasma, a gas in which the negative electrons move freely around the positive ions, forming a powerful mix of charged particles. SDO captured this image in wavelengths of extreme ultraviolet light, which are typically invisible to our eyes. The imagery is colorized here in red for easy viewing. Image credit: NASA/SDO/GSFC/Joy Ng.


Climate and the solar cycle
The solar cycle, which is about 11.5 years long on average (it varies from 9 to 14 years), can be measured in various sophisticated ways. It’s also trackable simply by counting sunspots, an activity that dates back to the 1600s. The weakest cycles on record occurred during the so-called Maunder Minimum, from about 1645 to 1715. This happens to coincide with the peak of the Little Ice Age, which brought long stretches of conditions far colder than today’s climate to parts of North America and Europe. We can’t pin the Little Ice Age entirely on the Maunder Minimum, though, since volcanic eruptions appear to have kicked things off centuries earlier. It’s now believed that the Maunder Minimum played a minor role at best in sustaining the chill, though it does appear that weak solar periods can lead to colder winters in Europe, based on centuries of data from central England.


Figure 2. International Sunspot Numbers (one of two leading measures of sunspot activity) show the dip in sunspots during the Maunder Minimum as well as the ups and downs of each solar cycle through the mid-2010s. The current solar cycle (Cycle 24, only partially depicted here) reached dual peaks in 2011 and 2014, with a top ISN just over 100. This was the lowest top ISN for a solar cycle since Cycle 14, which peaked in 1906. Image credit: David Hathaway, NASA.


Newly precise measurements confirm that the total solar energy reaching Earth actually doesn’t change all that much from cycle to cycle. As a single cycle ramps up from minimum to maximum, the sun spits out as much as 10 times more energy in extreme ultraviolet wavelengths. However, the sun’s total energy output (irradiance) goes up by a mere 0.1% during a solar cycle, and this boosts global surface temperature by no more than 0.1°C per cycle, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


Figure 3. Global temperature change (thin light red line), as reported by NASA/GISS, together with the annual total solar irradiance, or TSI (thin light blue). The dark red and dark blue lines show the 11-year moving averages. Data sources: Temperature from NASA GISS, and TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates). Image credit: Courtesy skepticalscience.com.

What makes a solar cycle?
As with many solar cycles, Cycle 24 had a double peak, in 2011 and 2014, and it’s still on its downward swing, as evident in the Solar Cycle Progression graphics at the website of NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center. Cycle 24 isn't expected to end until around 2020. (Each cycle is defined as starting when the previous one bottoms out). New approaches to prediction are lending more confidence in scientists’ ability to predict how the upcoming minimum and the following maximum--which should arrive in the mid-2020s--will unfold.

The prevailing notion among solar experts is that plasma flows through the sun in two giant loops that cause the solar cycles to wax and wane. As it flows equatorward, the plasma carries magnetic fields with it, generating sunspots and other features at the surface. Magnetic fields that rises to the surface of the poles during solar minimum are believed to serve as the raw material for the subsequent cycle’s strength. As these magnetic fields drift toward the solar equator, they get stretched and distorted, which helps to trigger sunspots as well as outbursts of charged plasma that can hurtle toward Earth and cause solar storms. The distortion occurs because the gaseous solar sphere actually moves with a faster rotation rate as you go toward its equator, like a sphere made of taffy that’s mounted on a spindle and spun along its midsection. (This NASA animation shows the process in three dimensions, including a rendition of the poorly understood flow beneath the solar surface.)

Unfortunately, the sun’s magnetic fields are very hard to observe, especially near the poles, which complicates the task of predicting the next solar cycle. However, some phenomena related to the polar fields are easier to measure, such as a minimum in geomagnetic activity (the flow of energy reaching Earth via the solar wind). Over the last several cycles, such indices have been extremely well correlated with the strength of the following cycle peak, with correlations as high as 0.99.

Outlook for the 2020s: Another modest cycle
The community of solar researchers has only recently come into consensus on the “polar predictor” method of using polar magnetic fields as the best predictor of solar cycles. A decade ago, various methods produced conflicting results on how strong Cycle 24 would end up. Forecasts based on polar fields at solar minimum did remarkably well; others had more trouble in capturing the cycle’s length and strength. “One of the things we learned is that the difference between the hemispheres is critical,” said McIntosh. The north half of the sun ran about two years ahead of the south during Cycle 24, and that overlap led to the double-peaked maximum (2011 and 2014) while lessening the cycle’s overall peak strength.

Researchers are now trying to push the limits of prediction further. They’re using statistical and dynamical models, plus some data-based intuition, to predict several years in advance how the subsurface magnetic fields will look when they emerge near the poles around 2020, and what, in turn, those fields may tell us about Cycle 25.

• David Hathaway (recently retired from NASA) and Lisa Upton (NCAR and Space Systems Research Corporation) expect a Cycle 25 about as strong as Cycle 24, or perhaps slightly weaker. They published their outlook in November in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Hathaway and Upton used an ensemble model to project the polar fields from now to the end of 2019, with the ensemble showing an uncertainty by that point of about 15%. Natural solar variations in the early 2020s could add to the uncertainty, they note.

• Leif Svalgaard (Stanford University) pioneered the idea of using solar polar fields as prediction tools with colleagues in the 1970s, and he successfully pegged the eventual weakness of Cycle 24 back in 2005. Svalgaard is calling for a weak Cycle 25, but perhaps just a bit stronger than Cycle 24, based on precursors that appear slightly more active this time around.

• NCAR’s McIntosh believes Cycle 25 could extend the recent string of progressively weaker cycles. “We anticipate that the growing degree of overlap between cycles means that Cycle 25 will be weaker than Cycle 24,” he told me.

• Also at NCAR, Mausumi Dikpati will release her outlook for Cycle 25 in a paper to be published later this year. Dikpati and colleagues predicted a stronger-than-average Cycle 24 (as did Hathaway and others). This didn’t materialize, but Dikpati did correctly forecast that Cycle 24 would begin later than usual. Dikpati is now doing a post-mortem on her Cycle 24 forecast, which was based on a pioneering model of the solar dynamo (the flow of plasma that produces magnetism within the sun). As with weather models, she expects that improved data assimilation--bringing the latest observations into the solar dynamo model--will help boost its accuracy.


Figure 4. A composite of 25 separate images from NASA's SDO, spanning one year from April 2012 to April 2013. The image reveals the migration tracks of active regions towards the equator during that period. Image credit: NASA/SDO/Goddard.

Tweaking the time frame of solar forecasts
Even if we have several more decades of a quiet sun ahead of us--a “grand minimum,” which is quite plausible according to recent work published by McIntosh and others--we know that quiet cycles can produce dangerous solar storms, so there’s plenty of motivation to push ahead with solar forecasting. This includes predicting variations that last only a few months to a year or two. Dikpati is leading a team with participants from NCAR, NOAA, Stanford, and the University of Colorado Boulder in order to help advance this type of prediction. Their goal is to use data-infused models to predict solar activity and the likelihood of solar storms a few months in advance. “A seven-day lead-time forecast of weather on Earth covers a period of seven Earth rotations,” Dikpati said in an email. “Similarly, forecasting bursts of solar activity up to seven solar rotations ahead would mean about six months of lead time, since one solar rotation takes about 27 days.”

Every bit of advance notice on the likelihood of dangerous solar storms could be invaluable in a world ever more dependent on reliable power and communications. The potential benefits of cycle forecasts include making satellite projects less risky and more efficient. That’s because the solar cycle can cause air density at low-earth-orbit heights to vary tenfold, vastly altering the atmospheric drag on satellites. Even the most ambitious plans for outer space have a stake in better solar outlooks, according to Svalgaard, who cites this quote from colleague Dean Pesnell (NASA): “A society that travels to other planets needs forecasts of the solar activity visible from any point in the solar system several years in advance.”

We’ll be back with a new post on Friday, including a look at a major late-week/weekend storm that’s still on track to coat large parts of the central U.S. with dangerous freezing rain.

Bob Henson

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 433 - 383

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

433. Misanthroptimist
8:34 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 432. blizzard1024:



Ah... but who decides who is a reputable source? I say it is folks like Dr Christy, Dr Spencer, Dr Curry, Dr. Gray, and Dr Lindzen, Dr Soon etc. All high level PHDs with solid understanding of radiative transfer and thermodynamics. So you are saying these award winning scientists are not reputable? I agree with these "luke" warmers... How am I so radical??? Cheap energy is important for a high standard of living. I agree we should go to renewables when the market supports it. Big oil and fossil fuel companies that block this I totally disagree with. But right now, carbon taxes would decimate our economy and the lower and middle classes. Look at Canada, 30-40 cents/per KWhr??? we pay less than 10 cents per KWhr. If you want a high standard of living we need fossil fuels until renewables are more efficient. Solar is looking promising...heck... if the cost comes down enough I am getting panels or solar shingles...I hate paying the local utility!

Peer-reviewed papers and data published in reputable journals are credible sources...always.

Those award winning scientists are not a reputable source if they are going against the data and the published literature. They got nothing. They tried. Their hypotheses (when they made any) uniformly failed. They didn't fail because of some nefarious world-wide plot by evil, commie scientists. They failed because their hypotheses were in conflict with observation, physics, or were otherwise scientifically deficient.

As a courtesy I am informing you that I'm placing you on my ignore list. That way, you don't have to answer me...or you can lob your last substance-free grenade or whatever. I have no more time to waste on CTs. Have a good 'un!
Member Since: March 20, 2015 Posts: 0 Comments: 742
432. blizzard1024
8:02 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 423. Misanthroptimist:


That's nonsense and irrelevant to my post since I neither linked to nor quoted SkS. I linked to published science in peer-reviewed journals and in one case NASA. Your assurances of the fidelity of the graph is of no interest to me. I want to see the source material from a reputable source. Otherwise, you've posted a denialist cartoon, which is what I suspect.


Ah... but who decides who is a reputable source? I say it is folks like Dr Christy, Dr Spencer, Dr Curry, Dr. Gray, and Dr Lindzen, Dr Soon etc. All high level PHDs with solid understanding of radiative transfer and thermodynamics. So you are saying these award winning scientists are not reputable? I agree with these "luke" warmers... How am I so radical??? Cheap energy is important for a high standard of living. I agree we should go to renewables when the market supports it. Big oil and fossil fuel companies that block this I totally disagree with. But right now, carbon taxes would decimate our economy and the lower and middle classes. Look at Canada, 30-40 cents/per KWhr??? we pay less than 10 cents per KWhr. If you want a high standard of living we need fossil fuels until renewables are more efficient. Solar is looking promising...heck... if the cost comes down enough I am getting panels or solar shingles...I hate paying the local utility!
Member Since: August 6, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 41
431. LAbonbon
7:30 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 425. Barefootontherocks:

For you and your plussers, I am just out to keep the facts straight, ma'am, something the writer of your linked article did not quite do.

First of all, let's keep science, i.e. facts, straight and separate from speculation, even "Most likelys"...Okay?

The linked site says it presents "science news." News requires good journalism. Science requires good science. This story presents neither good science nor good journalism.

While she may be well-intentioned, that "freelance writer" wrote a story that concludes with a false statement revealing her bias. She ends up drawing the conclusion "... the Black Bear Creek case is important in that it proves that this method of wastewater disposal has an impact on groundwater systems." Sorry. That is true only if the quake was caused by an injection well or wells. So, let's see....

1. Headline. Black Bear Creek flows into the Arkansas but is not itself a river.

2. By her own words, and the study she cites, this writer terms the Pawnee quake has not been "proven" to be injection-well caused beyond "most likely". The study she cites means nothing unless that causality becomes established.

3. For a strong earthquake centered near Shawnee, OK in 2011, USGS and Oklahoma geophysical people proved injection well causality. In the Pawnee quake case, have they not? What made the difference? Interesting and bears further search for actual USGS and Oklahoma geophysical Pawnee studies.

4. History shows us earthquakes from any cause can bring dramatic changes in surface water.

New Madrid, 1811 quake artist rendering
image credit: Smithsonian Magazine Click image to read the accompanying article.

5. I see in the online AGU journal, Research Letters', about link the "letters are subject to an editor's review, BUT are these "letters" actually peer-reviewed and published in print as such? If so where was this one published? Maybe it was just a conference presentation.

6. I need more information before accepting as "science" a "science news" story presented in the way this writer presented the Pawnee study and her conclusions about it.

You seem to take issue with articles posted on the AGU site, particularly when they involve OK. I'm getting deja vu. Did you actually read the paper, or did you dismiss it out of hand?

The research was published in Geophysical Research Letters. The link was provided in the article. As it was behind a paywall, I searched Google Scholar, and obtained the full article freely available from Berkeley. In their paper, the authors gave the following acknowledgments:

Acknowledgments
This paper is supported by NSF grant
EAR1344424 to M.M., C.Y.W., and M.S.
We thank the U.S. Geological Survey for
operating the network on gauging stations
and making the hydrological and
seismic data and data products readily
available and in real time. We thank
Jason Lewis, William Andrews, Brad
Sewell, and staff in the city of Pawnee
for answering queries about the
responses and possible confounding
processes, and Estella Atekwana for
sharing the locations where liquefaction
occurred. We thank the reviewers and
Editor for constructive comments and
suggestions.
Data used to generate the
figures are available from the authors
upon request. The USGS discharge and
precipitation data are available from
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.


Additional information about the process for GRL publication can be found here.

When I post an article written for a layperson about scientific research, I almost always post a link to the original research if there's one available. In this case I linked the non-paywalled one from Berkeley's website. The link to the GRL publication is in the article, but there it is paywalled.

From the research I linked there's this excerpt:

"The occurrence of earthquakes with magnitude > 3 in Oklahoma has now exceeded that in California [e.g.,
McGarr et al., 2015]. Most of the larger events with M > 5 are caused by the deep injection disposal of contaminated
water produced during hydrocarbon extraction [e.g., Ellsworth, 2013]. Similar to many other
induced events in Oklahoma [McNamara et al., 2015], it was a strike-slip earthquake on a NW-SE trending
fault. Given the focal mechanism and fault orientation of the Pawnee event and other induced earthquakes
in Oklahoma, it is reasonable to assume that increases in pore pressure may induce earthquakes on critically
stressed faults. At the present time, however, it is not confirmed by detailed modeling that this particular
earthquake was induced by the 26 wastewater disposal wells in the vicinity, within 20 km (Figure 1).
Nevertheless, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission responded immediately and wells that inject into formations
in contact with basement ceased operations and others were required to reduce disposal volumes. If
the 3 September event is induced, it is the largest earthquake caused by wastewater injection to date, greater
than the 2011 Mw 5.7 Prague, Oklahoma earthquake, though it is smaller than some earthquakes attributed to
water impoundment in reservoirs [e.g., Gupta, 1992; Ge et al., 2009]."

The researchers acknowledge that "it is not confirmed by detailed modeling that this particular
earthquake was induced by the 26 wastewater disposal wells in the vicinity, within 20 km
".

Your statement that the 'study she cites means nothing unless that causality becomes established' is your opinion.

You seem to take issue with the research, the publication GRL, the review process, and the writer who summed up the research for AGU. Perhaps you should take it up with AGU, GRL or the researchers themselves?

Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 4498
430. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:26 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
I am going to have to quit hanging out at the bar. I look up and the party has moved to next door. sigh
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5345
429. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:18 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 401. blizzard1024:



Why would someone trust anything from skeptical science or real climate? Far left wing propaganda sites. Its the same both ways. The science is too politicized. Climate4you shows the data from The NASA study. No one else does because it is contrary to the CO2 thermostat narrative.


Is this your admission that you base your views on the scientific evidence far more on your political preferences than you do on the scientific observations being made?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5345
428. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:08 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 381. pipelines:

Here in Birmingham we've seen over a dozen record highs (zero record lows) in the past 400 days. Virtually all of them have occurred in the fall/winter time frame. Currently we're running over 20 degrees above average and this streak is supposed to last at least 14 days.

Anyone have any clue why we're seeing so much warming in these seasons, but not in the summer? Not that I'm complaining... it's just interesting.


It certainly does not lend any credence to those that are in denial and will claim that "it's the SUN!". This is similar to their saying that it's the UHI that is showing a warm bias in the temperature data and then omits the fact that the Arctic region is warming at ~ twice the rate as the rest of the planet, where very little urbanization has been taking place.

Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5345
427. vis0
6:41 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 414. elioe:



Lol... the elephant is so happy, perhaps it thinks it is a mammoth :)

reply at my zilly blog

see what i did
La.   i'm much worse but place it where only 3 see it today


...million much later when its 'ol newz cause what is more important is the latest tabloid news.

... which makes me think (as others have posted) maybe some real scientists should create a seasonal tabloid type salacious headline enquirer type tabloid (.com and on cheap recyclable pages sold for a dime at supermarkets ) BUT WITH REAL SCIENCE info inside to compete with alt-rght pho news - pho science pages supported by globe ravaging greed and sold to people by creative headlines to grab ones attention.. 

HEADLINE :: Your property will become worthless if the globe keeps warming.

Inside an article iMAGES/GRAPHICS showing how more warmth means more energy for LOWS to form and stay put., adding more rain in that area under the LOW/storms.

In turn since the LOW stays put over one area the HIGH (generally means cloudless skies)  behind the LOW also stays put over an area for longer than the normal and presto change-OH! we have too much water next (700 miles apart) to too little water. 

Both extremes lower property values.

add comments of REAL PEOPLE with REAL IMAGES of such weather extremes and the cost of cleaning up.

TMZ should have a 10- min segment (once a week) with 1 guest presenting aGW proof and 1 guest presenting that aGw if made up.  TMZ keeps score of when one repeats the same story/url versus new updates backed by science/physics.  When one repeats the same proven to be unreliable report a horn sounds (watch $keptics use this) Example Trump repeated for the 8th time in 3 months that 96 million w?o jobs (you'd here a loud horn w/red screen then explanation that Trump's numbers are well Trumped up as Trump is counting the retired, those that don't desire to work, some disabled that recently can't work due to debilitating injuries, that recently (within year) moved to another country

...like when Trump said 45% of Americans are unemployed when the real number is from ~4.5% to 7%...remember THE GREAT DEPRESSION (1930s with hundreds on dozens of long lines) had ~35% unemployed yet Trump says today its 45% .

 where are today's  hundreds on hundreds of long lines??? ... at Bars and sporting events not at food handouts.
Member Since: December 15, 2006 Posts: 265 Comments: 3810
426. vis0
6:40 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
 (i t s   a   F O R T R A N  I B M  C A R D )
 .                 .                                    .
...   .     .
Member Since: December 15, 2006 Posts: 265 Comments: 3810
425. Barefootontherocks
6:39 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 395. LAbonbon:

Speaking of 'unintentional geoengineering'...from AGU:

River's Rise Linked to Oklahoma's Largest Earthquake
As human-induced earthquakes increase in frequency and magnitude, researchers race to uncover their effects on surface water and groundwater.

SOURCE: Geophysical Research Letters By Sarah Witman 2 hours ago

Earthquakes do much more than literally make the earth quake. The shifting of massive sheets of rock has an effect on all sorts of hydrogeological processes, affecting groundwater and surface water like rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.

Some of this activity, however, is not natural. For example, geologists have extensively documented that when wastewater is injected deep into the Earth, as a means of disposal, it can induce seismic activity, which could, in turn, have hydrogeological effects. As overall induced seismic activity has increased in frequency in recent years, scientists seek to learn more about the secondary and potentially residual impacts of human-induced quakes.

A recent study by Manga et al. is the first documented instance in which an earthquake that was most likely induced by wastewater injection had a visible effect on surface water.
Full article

The research paper is fully and freely available here:

Increased stream discharge after the 3 September 2016 Mw 5.8 Pawnee, Oklahoma earthquake
For you and your plussers, I am just out to keep the facts straight, ma'am, something the writer of your linked article did not quite do.

First of all, let's keep science, i.e. facts, straight and separate from speculation, even "Most likelys"...Okay?

The linked site says it presents "science news." News requires good journalism. Science requires good science. This story presents neither good science nor good journalism.

While she may be well-intentioned, that "freelance writer" wrote a story that concludes with a false statement revealing her bias. She ends up drawing the conclusion "... the Black Bear Creek case is important in that it proves that this method of wastewater disposal has an impact on groundwater systems." Sorry. That is true only if the quake was caused by an injection well or wells. So, let's see....

1. Headline. Black Bear Creek flows into the Arkansas but is not itself a river.

2. By her own words, and the study she cites, this writer terms the Pawnee quake has not been "proven" to be injection-well caused beyond "most likely". The study she cites means nothing unless that causality becomes established.

3. For a strong earthquake centered near Shawnee, OK in 2011, USGS and Oklahoma geophysical people proved injection well causality. In the Pawnee quake case, have they not? What made the difference? Interesting and bears further search for actual USGS and Oklahoma geophysical Pawnee studies.

4. History shows us earthquakes from any cause can bring dramatic changes in surface water.

New Madrid, 1811 quake artist rendering
image credit: Smithsonian Magazine Click image to read the accompanying article.

5. I see in the online AGU journal, Research Letters', about link the "letters are subject to an editor's review, BUT are these "letters" actually peer-reviewed and published in print as such? If so where was this one published? Maybe it was just a conference presentation.

6. I need more information before accepting as "science" a "science news" story presented in the way this writer presented the Pawnee study and her conclusions about it.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 22370
424. Xyrus2000
5:43 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 401. blizzard1024:



Why would someone trust anything from skeptical science or real climate? Far left wing propaganda sites. Its the same both ways. The science is too politicized. Climate4you shows the data from The NASA study. No one else does because it is contrary to the CO2 thermostat narrative.


And there goes any hope of you establishing any sort of credibility.

The information provided by those sites are well cited with extensive references to data sources and research articles. Actual peer reviewed research, as opposed to your crackpot nonsense that has nothing but your dubious claims to support it.

So now you've gone to the last bastion of the denier: conspiracy. You can't support your arguments. The science disagrees with every aspect of your claims. But an ego like yours simply can't accept that. No! They're all wrong! They're all out to get you! It's a conspiracy I tell you! A massive global worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists trying to...make the environment cleaner and...preserve the environment and...come up with long term sustainable plans for the future...hey where is everybody going?

Go find some other blog to troll.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3049
423. Misanthroptimist
5:39 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 401. blizzard1024:



Why would someone trust anything from skeptical science or real climate? Far left wing propaganda sites. Its the same both ways. The science is too politicized. Climate4you shows the data from The NASA study. No one else does because it is contrary to the CO2 thermostat narrative.

That's nonsense and irrelevant to my post since I neither linked to nor quoted SkS. I linked to published science in peer-reviewed journals and in one case NASA. Your assurances of the fidelity of the graph is of no interest to me. I want to see the source material from a reputable source. Otherwise, you've posted a denialist cartoon, which is what I suspect.
Member Since: March 20, 2015 Posts: 0 Comments: 742
422. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
5:33 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
421. LAbonbon
5:30 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 415. Qazulight:

I'm just south of Kansas City, I should be in the ice in an hour and a half

MoDOT reporting I-49 as 'clear' until Nevada, then it's 'mostly clear' until Joplin. Be safe!

MoDOT Traveler Information
Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 4498
420. CaneFreeCR
5:23 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 410. LAbonbon:

Astro, I give you credit for responding in a more professional manner than I did. I went to remove my post when I saw it was quoted...sigh...

I shouldn't respond when someone's post sets me off like that.
Bon, I plussed your post because I think you made the right response earlier, not because I think you were right to apologize (I don't). But I agree a hasty reply may go astray. :-)
Member Since: August 12, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 877
419. Astrometeor
5:22 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Either publish papers that support CO2 climate change or find another profession.

*Astro goes to the Journal of Climate and searches "CO2 climate change" Ping! 4000 responses of research papers. 4000 papers on the backbone of CO2 is causing climate change.

>.>
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 112 Comments: 12388
418. washingaway
5:21 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
There has been a lot of science and math thrown around the last couple of days. Let me quantify, exemplify, and simplify:

This is bad

This is good

Get rid of this

And you get this

Now, where is my Nobel Prize and doesn't it come with a million bucks?





Member Since: July 14, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 2017
417. EmsiNasklug
5:21 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 109. CaneFreeCR:

And you would say that intentionally digging up, and pumping out, fossil fuels in enormous quantities and burning them to overheat homes and overcharge cell phones and drive inefficient vehicles too fast isn't engineering?


It's engineering, but not geo-engineering - because the latter means a planned forcing with the aim to change the environment, whereas with the "normal" engineering you get the unintended side effects which eventually cause our era to be the anthropocene.
Member Since: April 14, 2016 Posts: 0 Comments: 201
416. daddyjames
5:14 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 415. Qazulight:

I'm just south of Kansas City, I should be in the ice in an hour and a half


Texting while driving? :O

Take care.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 6906
415. Qazulight
5:13 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
I'm just south of Kansas City, I should be in the ice in an hour and a half
Member Since: October 30, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
414. elioe
5:10 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 374. barbamz:
First snow day of 2017 at the Oregon Zoo


Lol... the elephant is so happy, perhaps it thinks it is a mammoth :)
Member Since: November 2, 2015 Posts: 3 Comments: 548
413. Astrometeor
5:06 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 410. LAbonbon:

Astro, I give you credit for responding in a more professional manner than I did. I went to remove my post when I saw it was quoted...sigh...

I shouldn't respond when someone's post sets me off like that.


Happens to the best of us, LA. :-) Posts like those irritate me as well...calling science "left wing propaganda" smh.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 112 Comments: 12388
411. daddyjames
5:02 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 401. blizzard1024:



Why would someone trust anything from skeptical science or real climate? Far left wing propaganda sites. Its the same both ways. The science is too politicized. Climate4you shows the data from The NASA study. No one else does because it is contrary to the CO2 thermostat narrative.


I am sure that NASA shows it too. Science is science.

What's your point? Spewing all this nonsense serves what purpose?

All honesty, I don't care. If we can generate even a fraction of energy from renewable sources, and remove the generation of energy away from the control of large corporate entities what is the harm in that?
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 6906
410. LAbonbon
5:01 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Astro, I give you credit for responding in a more professional manner than I did. I went to remove my post when I saw it was quoted...sigh...

I shouldn't respond when someone's post sets me off like that.
Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 4498
409. OKsky
4:59 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 403. blizzard1024:



again a left wing propaganda site not to be trusted...


I looked at their "about us" and "team" pages, didn't see any of the usual indicators of this being a political PR site........they look like an international group of scientists pushing science.

Im curious...what sites do you trust?

Member Since: December 17, 2015 Posts: 0 Comments: 241
407. blizzard1024
4:57 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 376. wartsttocs:



That's what happens when one goes down the conspiracy rabbit hole and peddles the garbage around. Alleging conspiracy and fraud on a massive scale and then painting yourself as the persecuted victim doesn't win any sympathy.

On the above average temperature forecast:

A little warmer than a few runs ago. No complaints here.


What? Stating factual information on the climate system and what is going on in academia of which I know first hand from people in the field is not a "conspiracy theory". Its fact. Either publish papers that support CO2 climate change or find another profession. Its true unless you are a tenured older prof of which most do not buy into all this. My position on global warming (and many other PHDs and Meteorologists alike) is that there will be some warming from increased GHGs. I think between 1 and 1.5C and many others do too. My scientific understanding leads me to a lower sensitivity. That is close to the lower end of the IPCCs sensitivity of 1.5C. How am I such a radical??? I show evidence that there is a lot more going on in the climate system and I get blasted. CO2 is a component of the climate system, yes, but is it the primary driver of the Earth's temperature? I doubt it. The geological record does not support it and that's a fact!!! The ice core data proves that CO2 does not drive the climate. The arguments on skeptical science and real climate in this area are full of holes and don't make scientific sense or even hold up to common sense!! Just read them.
Member Since: August 6, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 41
406. Astrometeor
4:56 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 401. blizzard1024:



Why would someone trust anything from skeptical science or real climate? Far left wing propaganda sites. Its the same both ways. The science is too politicized. Climate4you shows the data from The NASA study. No one else does because it is contrary to the CO2 thermostat narrative.


Ole Humlum runs the blog Climate4you which mixes climate data from a number of sources with his own graphs. Link far left wing propaganda? Lmao. Now you went off on the deep end.

Skeptical Science and Real Climate properly cite their sources and are backed up by numerous papers and the IPCC.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 112 Comments: 12388
405. Sfloridacat5
4:52 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 400. weathermanwannabe:


I was always under the impression that one of the reasons that coastal temps (in Florida as the example) in cities on the Atlantic or Gulf, as opposed to locations further inland, during the day, including in the Winter, are often several degrees warmer was because of the moderating influence of the water/ocean relative to the preveilling winds coming in from over the water.


The GOM and Atlantic have a Warming effect along the coast especially during the Winter (when it's cold outside - like after a cold front). But with SST around 60 degrees (Panhandle area), that would actually keep the beaches cooler than areas inland from the coast during warm weather like we are expecting.

In the Summer, the GOM and Atlantic keep the coastal areas a little cooler during the day. The GOM and Atlantic usually keep the coastal areas warmer at night though.
In my area, the beaches are usually about 5-10 degrees cooler during the afternoon than areas say 15 miles inland during the summer.
Member Since: September 16, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 14349
404. LAbonbon
4:50 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
.
Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 4498
403. blizzard1024
4:47 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 361. 999Ai2016:


?

what-you-need-to-know-about-karl-2015.html - SkepticalScience



again a left wing propaganda site not to be trusted...
Member Since: August 6, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 41
402. weathermanwannabe
4:47 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
I was always under the impression that one of the reasons that coastal temps (in Florida as the example) in cities on the Atlantic or Gulf, as opposed to locations further inland, during the day in the Winter, are often several degrees warmer was because of the moderating influence of the water/ocean relative to the preveilling  winds coming in from over the water.
Member Since: August 8, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 14390
401. blizzard1024
4:45 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 363. Misanthroptimist:


Why, in the name of all that's scientific, would I trust a graph from that website? Short answer: I won't. No one should if they are interested in science. Show me a similar graph from a reputable source or I will simply disregard the graph in your post as a cartoon, for entertainment purposes only.


Why would someone trust anything from skeptical science or real climate? Far left wing propaganda sites. Its the same both ways. The science is too politicized. Climate4you shows the data from The NASA study. No one else does because it is contrary to the CO2 thermostat narrative.
Member Since: August 6, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 41
400. weathermanwannabe
4:43 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Sorry for the double post
Member Since: August 8, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 14390
399. Xandra
4:38 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 381. pipelines:

[...] Anyone have any clue why we're seeing so much warming in these seasons, but not in the summer? Not that I'm complaining... it's just interesting.

The human fingerprint in the seasons

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2332
398. LAbonbon
4:35 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 383. 999Ai2016:

James Warner / @MetmanJames on Twitter:

"The atmosphere in 2016; visualised using precipitable water. Featuring hurricanes, monsoons, tropical convection and much more." (click for video)

Yeah that's pretty darn cool. Kind of mesmerizing, really.
Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 4498
397. Sfloridacat5
4:32 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 396. Patrap:



Clue, the SSTS have Zero to do with the warmth today and the weekend.

Thanks


The SST in the Panhandle region would actually make it cooler on or near the coast due to the relatively cool water temperatures (in the 60s) in that area.
Member Since: September 16, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 14349
396. Patrap
4:29 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 390. weathermanwannabe:

And in North Florida, closer to the equator relative to the rest of Conus and bounded by the warm Gulf SSTs to the South, the highs today (in mid-January) are close to 80.


Clue, the SSTS have Zero to do with the warmth today and the weekend.

Thanks
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 456 Comments: 145045
395. LAbonbon
4:29 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Speaking of 'unintentional geoengineering'...from AGU:

River's Rise Linked to Oklahoma's Largest Earthquake
As human-induced earthquakes increase in frequency and magnitude, researchers race to uncover their effects on surface water and groundwater.

SOURCE: Geophysical Research Letters By Sarah Witman 2 hours ago

Earthquakes do much more than literally make the earth quake. The shifting of massive sheets of rock has an effect on all sorts of hydrogeological processes, affecting groundwater and surface water like rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.

Some of this activity, however, is not natural. For example, geologists have extensively documented that when wastewater is injected deep into the Earth, as a means of disposal, it can induce seismic activity, which could, in turn, have hydrogeological effects. As overall induced seismic activity has increased in frequency in recent years, scientists seek to learn more about the secondary and potentially residual impacts of human-induced quakes.

A recent study by Manga et al. is the first documented instance in which an earthquake that was most likely induced by wastewater injection had a visible effect on surface water.
Full article

The research paper is fully and freely available here:

Increased stream discharge after the 3 September 2016 Mw 5.8 Pawnee, Oklahoma earthquake
Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 4498
394. no1der
4:26 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
New record low global sea ice area, a month ahead of the normal minimum.
Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 783
393. Xandra
4:19 PM GMT on January 13, 2017


Click on image to read article!
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2332
392. weathermanwannabe
4:18 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Member Since: August 8, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 14390
391. daddyjames
4:16 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 388. vanderwaalselectrics:



.


I would love if you could provide links to some references about this topic. Could you provide some?

And I see that you still are Twitter challenged.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 6906
390. weathermanwannabe
4:16 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
And in North Florida, closer to the equator relative to the rest of Conus and bounded by the warm Gulf SSTs to the South, the highs today (in mid-January) are close to 80.
Member Since: August 8, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 14390
389. Sfloridacat5
4:05 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Sunny with temperatures in the 80s for at least the next week here in S.W. Florida. Definitely not going to be much of a Winter this year across the southern half of Florida.

We had temperatures in the 80s almost everyday in December, with the exception of just a few days.
Member Since: September 16, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 14349
388. vanderwaalselectrics
4:01 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 354. blizzard1024:



You are not correct here. The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project was run by NASA 1983-2009.

Data sources: NASA's International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. You can see there is an inverse relationship during the study period between low cloud cover and global average temperatures as calculated by the Hadley Centre's temperature dataset. This suggests variations in global low cloud cover regulates global temperatures. So increasing low-level water vapor from surface warming could simply lead to more low clouds and reflect solar radiation back to space cooling the planet. Again, the complexities are so enormous, even computer models can't handle the problem adequately.


Here in California weather is particularly impacted by the Pacific high and then that wheel of air is what produces the fog or the low clouds into the Bay Area. Is the high blocking storms? Unlike green house gas theory, an electrical complexity suggests a dependent relationship of clouds that produce the Pacific high directly, not as the result of warming. This dependent relationship requires the global electrical circuit to power it. It's like you don't know you have a higher wattage bulb until you flip the switch. This is why in my view most of the temperature extremes have been found in the fall and early winter. Peak lightning occurs about 8/15-10/15, then changes to carbonation levels in the near shore ocean where this would matter in terms of surface lows bringing that carbonation to clouds above them, would be sensitive to dams, farming with fossil fuels, and other changes to hydrology. The carbonation levels are also sensitive to methane hydrates, which are plentiful along the west coast, as they unform and the microbial biosphere quickly metabolizes the hydrates from methane to CO2. All this tends to occur later in the year. As global temperatures have cooled following the el nino, the Pacific high isn't in blocking mode and we are getting record rains. Large scale electrical currents don't leak along the conductive pathway in the Nino 1,2 region back to the central and western Pacific. That is because colder oceans are less conductive, 1 deg F for each percent of conductivity. California goes from drought to flooding. It's extremes. The extremes show a failure to dampen, defects in feedback loops that are natural that help regulate ocean temperature and chemistry and ultimately the earth's magnetic field that keeps the atmosphere here in the first place. The extremes will ultimately lead to vast methane hydrate fields unforming in the Arctic along with ice sheet less body of water that goes from being highly insulated to highly conductive salt water.
This is the mechanism of neo glacial storms. Once they start, water removed from the oceans to be placed on the teresphere or land makes the remaining oceans more saline and hence more conductive and markedly changes albedo. Lower oceans melt the hydrates and cause similar coastal decabonation events around the world. This changes the equilibriums involved and by geo history the storms rage for about 10 years until the ice is laid, which is then followed by thousands of years of colder drier climate. The scientific community continues to miss the electrical complexity and its alarming significance.
Member Since: December 29, 2016 Posts: 0 Comments: 30
387. Barefootontherocks
3:50 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
The big picture... from our sister site, WSI/Intellicast, good radar for winter weather.


Ps. WSI site also has regional views.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 22370
386. daddyjames
3:45 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Quoting 380. Barefootontherocks:

dj, Did you see Norman has adjusted N OK forecast downward and Stillwater is on the edge of 0.25-.0.5' through Sunday a.m.? Still a significant amount. Anything on elevated surfaces? Power is underground, so maybe tree branches?

Missouri's getting some heavy stuff at present.



We have maybe 1/8 of an inch at most - and that would be generous. Understand that most of it is supposed to come tomorrow, so was not expecting much today.

Yes, accumulation of branches, cars, and other surfaces off the ground.

Thanks for the heads up, I had not checked the forecast from NWS. Glad they lowered it for my neck of the woods. Feeling for those in KS and NW OK, as it looks as if they'll get the worst of it..
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 6906
385. ToesInTheWater
3:43 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
Enjoying all the weather news in between the derp! Ok, also enjoying powerful refutations of said derp (Xyrus in particular is a rock star).
Just remember folks:
Peace On Earth= Purity of Essence
Lol
Member Since: September 10, 2016 Posts: 0 Comments: 21
384. LAbonbon
3:40 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
NWS-Springfield has an excellent briefing (in PDF) on the freezing rain/icing event for their area. It includes an expected ice accumulation graphic, graphics showing risks today and Saturday, and graphics showing the movement of the forecast freezing line's movement northward.



Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 4498
383. 999Ai2016
3:38 PM GMT on January 13, 2017
James Warner / @MetmanJames on Twitter:

"The atmosphere in 2016; visualised using precipitable water. Featuring hurricanes, monsoons, tropical convection and much more." (click for video)
Member Since: December 10, 2015 Posts: 5 Comments: 1534

Viewing: 433 - 383

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Category 6™

About

Cat 6 lead authors: WU cofounder Dr. Jeff Masters (right), who flew w/NOAA Hurricane Hunters 1986-1990, & WU meteorologist Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

Local Weather

Light Rain
45 °F
Light Rain Mist

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Storm on the Amalfi Coast
Vesuvius view
Snow on the trail to Vesuvius
The mists of Iceland