Weather

Fine end to September & more on rare solar cycle

Fine end to September

It’s been an unsettled and often cool September, but the jet stream is on the move northwards in the next few days, allowing high pressure to build across the UK, which will lead us into a very pleasant spell of autumn weather.

At this time of the year, the main forecasting headache is likely to be the extent of mist and fog development by night, and how quickly it will clear during the day.

But the sun still has strength, and warm sunshine is expected to break through in most areas this weekend, lasting for much of next week, although cloud amounts will be variable at times.

More on current rare solar cycle

Following on from last week’s piece on NASA’s forecast of a very weak solar cycle, it is interesting to note that one of the possible consequences in terms of regional climate could be magnified warming in the Arctic region.

The winter of 2009/2010, when cold air was forced southwards across our latitudes, went hand in hand with a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation (AO).

Negative AO's are thought likely to happen more often in winter as a result of prolonged weak solar activity.

The pattern would allow warmer than average conditions to develop across the Arctic, which is likely to exacerbate the declining trend in Arctic ice seen since the late 1970’s.

To that end there’s been a big response to last week’s article, so some of you may be interested in a research paper co-authored by well-known climate scientists such as Michael Mann in 2001.

It’s titled ‘solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder minimum’ and offers an interesting insight into climate patterns during the ‘mini Ice age’ of the late 17th century during the Maunder solar minimum.

It can be read by clicking HERE

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 109. Posted by NTropywins

    on 26 Sept 2013 20:30

    Love the sound of true believers in denial. Just keep saying it ain't so and dont let any evidence get past your prejudices.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 109: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 109: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 108. Posted by john_cogger

    on 26 Sept 2013 18:37

    @103 RobWansbeck

    So by the definition that we can't trust a website that posts something stupid... I'm not sure we can ever link to any site ever! WUWT doesn't have the greatest record either!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 108: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 108: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 107. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 26 Sept 2013 18:29

    #105.

    "No, that doesn't follow. The 'more than half' part just refers to the total warming observed, not to the level of confidence attached to it."

    I disagree. The two figures must be used in conjunction and not simply the 95% part which as I have shown , some people are implying is of ALL of the warming.
    If they are 95% certain that (say), 51% of the warming is man made, what is their confidence that a large % of the warming is man made?
    Just as hypothetical examples, why not say 85% confidence that 60% of warming is man made?
    Or 75% of 70%, or 65% of 80% or 50% of 100%?
    A 50% confidence that 100% is man made, isn't as impressive as 95% of 51%, especially if you forget to mention the 51%.

    "It's quite clear about that; there is 95% confidence that more than half of the global warming seen since 1951 is man-made."
    But what does "more than half" mean? Some people might interpret that as over 50% and others as a higher figure. If you don't specify the "more than half", or leave it out entirely, you are creating a false impression.

    Also, I have seen comparisons which suggest that the 95% is higher than in previous summaries, but do those earlier % relate to the same amount of warming?

    I guess that what I am saying is that the 95% is meaningless unless you know what it is 95% of.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 107: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 107: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 106. Posted by newdwr54

    on 26 Sept 2013 18:03

    102. QuaesoVeritas

    "Again, what does "the main reason" mean?
    Why combine a very precise figure (95%) with some quite vague statements, i.e. "main reason", or "more than half"."
    _________________________

    95% confidence brings it to the 2 sigma level; the level at which the confidence becomes 'significant' in statistical terms. That's why they are being precise with this figure.

    They are confident to a statistically significant degree that most of the global warming observed since 1951 is man-made.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 106: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 106: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 105. Posted by newdwr54

    on 26 Sept 2013 17:48

    101. QuaesoVeritas

    "What does "more than half" mean? Is it 51% or 60% or more?"
    ________________________

    They can't be more precise with "extremely likely" than > 50%. It means that the Panel believes that it is extremely likely more than half of the global warming seen since 1951 was the result of human activity.

    "While the warmists will no doubt concentrate on the headline"95%" part, they may not mention the "more than half" part, which may imply that the IPCC is less than 50% certain that all warming is man made."
    _______________________

    No, that doesn't follow. The 'more than half' part just refers to the total warming observed, not to the level of confidence attached to it.

    It's quite clear about that; there is 95% confidence that more than half of the global warming seen since 1951 is man-made.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 105: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 105: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 104. Posted by newdwr54

    on 26 Sept 2013 17:36

    100. NTropywins

    Re 1: It's not a new phenomenon. Deep ocean heat content has been monitored since the late 1960s at various, though admittedly sparse, locations. Even so, records from these locations are consistent with the more recent information coming from more widely distributed Argo buoys.

    2. Entropy doesn't get us out of jail on this. It just means that *some* of the energy that went into heating the deep oceans will be unavailable (entropy increases). Further heat transfer from the oceans to the surface is now inevitable.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 104: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 104: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 103. Posted by RobWansbeck

    on 26 Sept 2013 16:50

    Before responding to anyone who still links to SkepticalScience first look at this:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1_herrcook.jpg

    It must take true unthinking devotion with emphasis on the unthinking. ;)

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 103: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 103: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 102. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 26 Sept 2013 16:38

    Another BBC report which says:

    "According to the latest scoop, the scientists are set to say they are more convinced than ever that global warming is caused by humans. They will say they are 95% certain that our use of fossil fuels is the main reason behind the global rise in temperatures since the 1950s. "

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23755901

    Again, what does "the main reason" mean?
    Why combine a very precise figure (95%) with some quite vague statements, i.e. "main reason", or "more than half".

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 102: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 102: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 101. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 26 Sept 2013 16:30

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504

    The above report on the BBC website says the following about the leaked AR5 "summary for policymakers":

    "The panel states that it is 95% certain that the "human influence on climate caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperatures from 1951-2010.""

    What does "more than half" mean? Is it 51% or 60% or more?
    I thought I heard a report on the BBC which mentioned 51% but I might be wrong.

    I note that at least one "warmist site", is implying that it said 95% of ALL warming:

    http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/09/top-climate-myths-ipcc

    "They're doing anything they can to undermine public acceptance of the dangers posed by global warming, which, at least according to a leaked draft of the report, is "extremely likely" (or, 95 percent certain) to be caused by human activities."

    While the warmists will no doubt concentrate on the headline"95%" part, they may not mention the "more than half" part, which may imply that the IPCC is less than 50% certain that all warming is man made.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 101: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 101: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 100. Posted by NTropywins

    on 26 Sept 2013 15:57

    if heat really is hiding in the deep ocean, which I would be pretty sceptical about by the way, then a couple of things seem to follow:

    1. as this is a new phenomenon then it cannot be included in the models that have been used to predict thermageddon; and

    2. as entropy always increases there is apparently no way that heat can come back to haunt us

    so this would be good news for mankind, except for the true believers that gather here for spiritual solidarity

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 100: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 100: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next