Topics

1

Arctic background / Solar cycle effects on barometric pressure in polar regions

« on: June 11, 2019, 08:53:08 PM »

Let's discuss differences in barometric pressure at polar latitudes, during different stages of the solar cycle.

"The magnitude of the change in the troposphere is large enough to
alter sea level pressure fields such that a more positive
winter Southern Annual Mode (lower pressure at higher
latitudes) is produced in about 70% of the cases (especially
with climatological and historical SST). The sea level
pressure differences are on the order of 4 mb at high
southern latitudes"

"This effect, as well as the winter zonal
wind change descending into the troposphere, is more
consistent in the Southern Hemisphere during June –August
then in the Northern Hemisphere for December–February,
most likely owing to the greater planetary wave forcing and
inherent variability during Northern Hemisphere winter"

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rind_ri07700f.pdf


Page 166 starts "Variations In Air Pressure And In Solar Activity"

https://books.google.com/books?id=yV81i_hopSwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

2

Science / Response to Plinius

« on: July 30, 2015, 06:59:59 PM »

I think, weatherdude, you should stop bullshitting around about things that you do not understand. Climate models (CMIP5) with updated forcings (yes, unheard of, but somehow people failed to predict volcanic eruptions...) are fully in line with the observations (and do _NOT_ overpredict temperature rise), and they do have ECS between 2.1 and 4.5K.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051607/full

I see I hit a nerve. Perhaps you are angry because you are biased? This paper is almost the equivalent of a "sectional". Even the IPCC reduced climate sensitivity after this paper was published.

Apart from that:
Combining this paper:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/abs/ngeo2228.html

Here is a paper claiming half the warming in the arctic is from natural variation.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20140508

with this one:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abstract

Right from this link the paper claims to only be able to account for 38% . "Applying the methodology of the HadCRUT4 record to climate model temperature fields accounts for 38% of the discrepancy in trend between models and observations over the period 1975-2014."

I suppose that one can call your unfunded blunder about low climate sensitivity in the 1.5 region pretty optimistic, given that the transient response is already above 1.8K.
Maybe some divine intervention lowers the climate sensitivity below the transient response?

For example CERES suggest a climate sensitivity of 1.3 C. (All the recent data sets I have seen imply climate sensitivity below 1.5 C.
http://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSelection.jsp