Refrigernation - Brrrrrrrr


Selene

Recommended Posts

I have always read and loved the Farmers Almanac - I am picking up a copy - haven't read one in five (5) years...

This is the AP story,,,

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- The Old Farmer's Almanac, the familiar, 223-year-old chronicler of climate, folksy advice and fun facts, is predicting a colder winter and warmer summer for much of the nation.

Published Wednesday, the New Hampshire-based almanac predicts a "super-cold" winter in the eastern two-thirds of the country. The west will remain a little bit warmer than normal.

"Colder is just almost too familiar a term," Editor Janice Stillman said. "Think of it as a refriger-nation."

More bad news for those who can't stand snow: Most of the Northeast is expected to get more snowfall than normal, though it will be below normal in New England.

Before unpacking the parka, however, remember that "colder than average" is still only about 2 to 5 degrees difference.

- Florida's winter could be rainier than most years while other locales in the Southeast and central states will see less rain.

- Summer will be warmer than usual in most places while a drop in rainfall in the country's midsection could hurt crop yields.

- Despite some winter downpours in the west, the almanac says California's drought will likely continue.

-- Hurricane season isn't expected to be especially active though a major storm could hit the Gulf Coast in late August.

For loyal readers of an almanac that also tracks to the minute every sunrise and sunset for the year, the timing of this year's publication may come as a surprise. Normally, it hits the stands in mid-September. In recent years, its younger cousin, the Maine-based Farmer's Almanac, has published in August and a competition of sorts has emerged, though Stillman said it had nothing to do with the earlier drop date.

"We've found that folks want the almanac as soon as the issue is done up, right as the growing season is done," she said. "It's also time to order oil, wood, salt for roads. We've had so many inquiries we just decided to get it into people's hands earlier."

The almanac, which has about an 80 percent success rate in its forecasts, employs modern technology but still uses the "secret formula" that founder Robert Thomas devised in 1792. By combining the study of sunspots, prevailing weather patterns and basic meteorology, the almanac's weather staff comes up with a long-range forecast. The temperature deviations are based on 30-year averages compiled by government forecasters.

The almanac also provides advice on planting, astronomy, food, love and trends.

OK defund the environmental climate change grants. Let folks buy the Farmer's Almanac if they want.

Specifically, send a check to each individual taxpayer with the amount saved.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OLD_FARMERS_ALMANAC?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-08-20-15-08-00

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

This is priceless...

Science Daily summarizes a new study in Geophysical Research Letters, one of the leading climate science journals, about how climate models are struggling (to put it mildly) to explain decade-by-decade climate variability. On the one hand, the study seems to attempt to downplay the significance of the recent temperature “pause,” but at the price of inadvertently undermining the climate models themselves. At least that’s how I read this summary:

A new Duke University-led study finds that most climate models likely underestimate the degree of decade-to-decade variability occurring in mean surface temperatures as Earth’s atmosphere warms. The models also provide inconsistent explanations of why this variability occurs in the first place.

These discrepancies may undermine the models’ reliability for projecting the short-term pace as well as the extent of future warming, the study’s authors warn. As such, we shouldn’t over-interpret recent temperature trends.

“The inconsistencies we found among the models are a reality check showing we may not know as much as we thought we did,” said lead author Patrick T. Brown, a Ph.D. student in climatology at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment.

Don’t know as much as we thought we did? But settled science! And 97 percent!

There’s more:

“When you look at the 34 models used in the IPCC report, many give different answers about what is causing this decade-to-decade variability,” he said. “Some models point to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as the cause. Other models point to other causes. It’s hard to know which is right and which is wrong.”

Hopefully, as the models become more sophisticated, they will coalesce around one answer, Brown said. (Emphasis added.)

In other words: “C’mon people—we need to get our story straight!”

P.S. There’s this curious bit in the middle of this summary:

To conduct their study, they analyzed 34 climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fifth and most recent assessment report, finalized last November.

The analysis found good consistency among the 34 models explaining the causes of year-to-year temperature wiggles, Brown noted. The inconsistencies existed only in terms of the model’s ability to explain decade-to-decade variability, such as why global mean surface temperatures warmed quickly during the 1980s and 1990s, but have remained relatively stable since then.

So let’s see if we have this straight: we can explain annual changes fairly well, but can’t get longer-term changes right? Isn’t this exactly the opposite of what you’d expect—unless it means the annual model runs are being tweaked to match up with the temperature record of the individual year in question? This sounds like doing the TV weather forecast a day later.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/01/advice-to-climatistas-stop-sniffing-model-glue.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

See it is climate change...and it now has to move back into that global cooling stupidity of the '70's?

Nah, climate change is perfect since it means nothing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html#v-4348504992001

The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.

A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.

This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html#ixzz3fbAYBDoP

Can these climate change fools just realize that this is the nature of reality.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've cross-posted a comment from Greg in another thread -- APS .


It is a fascinating area of physics, trying to predict the solar cycles. The study by Zharkova et al is itself a fascinating extension of abilities to model and predict solar activity.

In a nutshell, we are in the midst of Solar Cycle 24. Where Zharkova's predictions operate is over the course of the next two cycles, 25 and 26. Here is where things are so far ..

800px-Solar_cycle_24_sunspot_number_prog

. From the Royal Astronomical Society explanation:

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called 'principal component analysis' of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.


[Royal Astronomical Society (RAS). "Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to 'mini ice age' levels: Sun driven by double dynamo."]


Neat stuff. We will have to live another twenty-some years to see how this model prediction plays out in reality in the two cycles ahead. The double-dynamo effect may revolutionize the art of prediction.

It is important to know that the earth is still a few years out from the predictions made in the RAS study. Here is a prediction made by around 2005.

predictions3_strip.jpg

See a more recent prediction, which includes the cycle 23 and 24.

ssn_predict_l.gif

-- one of the difficulties in interpreting such prediction within the topic 'global warming' is that you have to know what is being argued one way or the other. Is there a relationship between the observed global temperatures and the swings up and down of solar variability? Would a new Maunder Minimum in sunspots/solar activity at the end of the next decade vitiate or cancel out any global warming still in the pipe? These are scientific questions, and may not be amenable to political inquiry or orientation.

See NASA's Solar Science page on Sunspot Cycle.

The Daily Mail sez: "Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet," and that between 2030 and 2040 (Cycle 26) the earth may experience a replay of the last Maunder Minimum.

For an earlier prediction of an approaching minimum, see the Real Climate thread from 2011:
What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum? It covers the work of Frank Hill and colleagues which suggested -- just as Zharkova did -- that a minimum would occur after 2020

Solar physicists do not yet understand how an extended solar-activity low like the Maunder Minimum arises. Yet there is recent observational evidence for an unusual behavior of the Sun during the current cycle 24, including a missing zonal wind flow within the Sun, decreasing magnetic field strength of sunspots and lower activity around the poles of the Sun. These observations prompted Frank Hill and colleagues to suggest that the Sun might enter a new Maunder-like minimum after the current 11-year cycle ends (i.e. after 2020 or so).


RC goes on to work out what a new Minimum would do to effect other climate processes.

It remains to be seen whether this prognosis turns out to be true (there have been some doubts expressed), but since grand minima of solar activity did occur in the past, it is certainly interesting to explore what effects such a minimum might have on 21st century climate if it did occur. This is precisely the question Stefan Rahmstorf and I investigated in a study published last year (see also our press release. (Earlier estimates for the size of this effect can be found here and here.) In our study we find that a new Maunder Minimum would lead to a cooling of 0.3°C in the year 2100 at most relative to an expected anthropogenic warming of around 4°C. (The amount of warming in the 21st century depends on assumptions about future emissions, of course).



The weather here is typical of a global cooling pattern for some time now...

...progressively longer and colder Winters in the higher US latitudes with record breaking drought in the lower US latitudes.


You are talking the "weather here" to be taken as your particular area of Los Angeles, are you? If so, it is confusing to claim that the 'weather' in your home area is typical of anything elsewhere. If you can, please explain what the global cooling pattern is, and what 'some time now' means?

Also confusing is your idea that higher US latitudes have been having progressively longer and cooler winters (than some baseline). What do you mean by higher US latitudes -- do you mean by standard measures, that north of 60 degrees is the high latitudes?

You seem to be under the impression that there have been longer and cooler winters in Alaska, Have you checked that impression against reality?

The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.


Can these climate change fools just realize that this is the nature of reality.

Who are you marking out as fools?

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

derp.png

Derp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

derp.png

Derp?

No hablo español...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.

Can these climate change fools just realize that this is the nature of reality.

Who are you marking out as fools?

[some animated gif. .Not this one. Playful-animated-monkeyand-dog-gif-image]

Derp?

No hablo español...

Oh well.

Try communicating in English with your readers and not with animated gifs, then. Or use both derp and gifs. Not everyone is able to see the images, for some unknown reason. Anyhow, It is unclear (Sp: no está claro) what you responded to (lo que respondió). Maybe you were storing your thought about 'these climate change fools' ... for chewing over later.

If some of my posts make you sleepy, or if you are incurious about the solar cycles, or if you don't feel like communicating, no problem. I will then just read your derpy comments and empty gifs as the equivalent of a tail thumping on the floor. Something happened in your mental world, but we cannot know precisely what. Thump thump. Gif. Derp.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many nickels do you have to part with?

main-lucy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pong-animated-gif.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can these climate change fools just realize that this is the nature of reality.

A...

The Little Ice Age was from 1300 c.e to 1800 c.e approximately. The interesting thing as the the weather went from medieval warm to really nasty cold in less than 5 decades. So climate can turn bad very fast, within a human life time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK defund the environmental climate change grants. Let folks buy the Farmer's Almanac if they want.

Specifically, send a check to each individual taxpayer with the amount saved.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OLD_FARMERS_ALMANAC?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-08-20-15-08-00

The Farmer's Almanac could not have predicted that the "Little Ice Age" would persist for nearly 500 years.

Weather is one thing. Climate another.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK defund the environmental climate change grants. Let folks buy the Farmer's Almanac if they want.

Specifically, send a check to each individual taxpayer with the amount saved.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OLD_FARMERS_ALMANAC?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-08-20-15-08-00

The Farmer's Almanac could not have predicted that the "Little Ice Age" would persist for nearly 500 years.

Weather is one thing. Climate another.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Weather the climate?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK defund the environmental climate change grants. Let folks buy the Farmer's Almanac if they want.

Specifically, send a check to each individual taxpayer with the amount saved.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OLD_FARMERS_ALMANAC?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-08-20-15-08-00

The Farmer's Almanac could not have predicted that the "Little Ice Age" would persist for nearly 500 years.

Weather is one thing. Climate another.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yees Bob we know, the little morder thingy which froze the Thames and lasted for 70 years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now