This year western Europe has experienced a mild winter as a parade of low pressure systems coming in from off the Atlantic has fed the continent with a steady supply of mild southerly winds.
For Germany this winter will be the first mild one in 6 years after a record 5 consecutive winters of colder than normal winters. The warm winter here may be in part due to the massive cold that has dipped and remained deep into North America over much of the winter. As cold Arctic air clashes with warm Atlantic air off the southeast coast of the USA, low pressure systems are spawned and travel across the pond to Europe.
Yesterday Ulli Kulke of Die Welt writes that this milder winter is more the exception than the rule, resulting from the positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Despite this year’s warm winter, the winters for Europe over the coming decades are expected to be on the cold side. Kulke writes:
Meteorologist Dominik Jung of ‘wetter.net‘ recently examined the temperature development for many ski areas in Germany, Austria and Switzerland and reached the result that ‘in the last 20 years, its has gotten cooler’ and ‘in some place quite massively’. The trend looks good for skiing.”
The winters, Kulke writes, are very much dependent on the natural ocean cycles.
The changeovers between positive and negative NAO occur in roughly 30 year cycles. And so that means after the last large changeover just before the millennium, there are still over 15 years of ‘good skiing and sliding left’.
WHAT HAPPEN TO:
Global Cooling-Wanna Bet?
FROM http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet/langswitch_lang/en/
“By Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, William Connolley, David Archer, and Caspar Ammann #
Global cooling appears to be the “flavour of the month”. ……Now, an entirely new discussion is capturing the imagination, based on a group of scientists from Germany predicting a pause in global warming last week in the journal Nature (Keenlyside et al. 2008).
:….
The bet we propose is very simple and concerns the specific global prediction in their Nature article. If the average temperature 2000-2010 (their first forecast) really turns out to be lower or equal to the average temperature 1994-2004, we will pay them € 2500. If it turns out to be warmer, they pay us € 2500. This bet will be decided by the end of 2010. We offer the same for their second forecast: If 2005-2015 ….. (cont.) “
Good science bets. NTZ has to wait until 2020; https://notrickszone.com/join-the-climate-bet-for-charity/
Funny how they are now blaming the oceans for eating the heat.
Well, Gavin works at GISS so he can fudge any temperature he likes to make his pals win. We know that he has the power to retroactively make the past cool down.
RE. PG & DH
“The oceans play a central role in global change processes”, says GEOMAR/Kiel/DE
http://www.geomar.de/en/research/the-role-of-the-ocean-in-climate-change/ . I never understood that Moijb Latif (and all his AGW colleagues) never acknowledged it indubitable. The physical influence of ocean water on the atmosphere is so vast, http://www.seaclimate.com/a/a3/mid/big/A3_5.png , that is seems prudent to define CLIMATE as the continuation of the oceans by other means; as suggested in a LETTER to NATURE 1992 (Vol. 360, page 292): http://www.whatisclimate.com/1992-nature.html.
The average temperature of the ocean is only about +4°C. It would be a miracle if anyone is able to measure ocean heat content (or eating of heat) with any precision.
I regard Kulke’s Die Welt article a big step forward, but oceans are not only dominant with regard to frequent climatic cycles.
Best regards AB
Just one correction, mild and wet with rain and rain and rain.
Our Primer Minister visited the Somerset lakes and spoke of biblical proportions, anybody has a blueprint of an Ark lying around?
I have one for the B-Ark but am having trouble procuring sufficient rubber ducks and lemon-scented refresher towels for all the refugees.
☼ Multidecadal Sun/Climate-Change 101: Solar-Terrestrial Spatiotemporal Aggregation Primer on Trivial Extension of Milankovitch ☼
Yes it is natural cycles that are determining climate change. Climate models are wrong because they are all based on an assumption of there being isothermal temperatures in a planet’s troposphere in the absence of so-called greenhouse gases.
Don’t you find it interesting that they say that the greenhouse gas water vapour does most of the warming, perhaps 30 degrees of it, with carbon dioxide helping with the other 3 degrees. Water vapour may well vary in different regions. There may be only a third of the mean in a dry desert area for example, so the IPCC authors are, in effect, telling us that water vapour is raising the temperature by only, say, 10 degrees in a dry desert area. Thus the mean temperature in such a location would be below freezing point.
I don’t care how many peer-reviewed published papers in respected journals there may be supporting this absurd conjecture, I’m not falling for the bluff. It’s not supported by physics.
The temperature has already been raised by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient in the troposphere which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us must happen as an autonomous result of the spontaneous evolving of thermodynamic equilibrium. It does not happen as a result of any lapsing process. There is no surface at the base of the Uranus troposphere and there is no solar radiation or internally generated thermal energy reaching that layer. Gravity has trapped thermal energy over the life of the planet and the whole temperature plot in the Uranus atmosphere is maintained by gravity, and so too is the case on Earth.
I am the author of published articles and papers on climate matters, and my new book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” will be available on Amazon and Barnes & Noble by early in March.
This reminds me, I just read that it is now assumed that the moon has a (smallish) liquid core (result of the lunar laser ranger experiment it seems).
DirkH,
Prof Kees de Jager has just put up a new presentation discussing the origins of the earth and the moon. He also discusses the Great Impact Theory, mooted in the 1970s after the findings of the Apollo moon landings. We had Theia that crashed into the proto-earth, and the moon started out as a molten body. Not sure about that molten inner core.
http://www.cdejager.com/presentaties/
Check the ontstaan maan aarde presentation. Kees also gives his opinion on the current sun cycle in one of his presentations.
A lot of people have trouble wrapping their minds about the concept of adiabatic compression which can be explained by the ideal gas law: PV=nRT
The poor quality of teaching at schools is the problem. It is far easier to blame the fairies, elves, goblins, and carbon-dioxide for the fact that we have climate change than teaching proper science.
Because most of the science teachers have no science education.
They’re specialist educators.
And, if you’re wondering why students don’t go into the hard sciences and mathematics, that is probably the main reason. The educators cannot become genuinely enthusiastic about stuff which they do not (try to) understand.
Science education has, in many parts of the world, devolved into studying the history of science and the sociological impact of science.
News:
In Australia, it’s the oceans as well:
Global warming: Australian scientists find explanation for pause in rising temperatures
“What’s not commonly understood is that when we talk about global warming we mean ocean warming,” Dr Rintoul said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/scientists-find-explanation-for-global-warming-pause/5248456
To “complete” the quote:
Which of course he cannot say for certain, one way or another. Not with any reasonable confidence because we have less than a decade’s data on ocean conditions. (Argo) Everything before that is predominately from shipping lanes and coastal data; and inferred temperature from satellites. i.e. spotty, inconsistent and unvalidated.
Certainly not with the better than 0.01⁰C resolution required to find the “missing heat”. Even Argo struggles to be that good.
The “missing heat” is either well within the error bands or it never got to the surface.
Mother Nature is wise. Like a good house wife, who puts extra family income on a special bank account, she stores her extra heat in the ocean. How does she make a distinction between normal heat and extra heat?
[…] By P Gosselin on 9. February 201, NoTricksZone […]