The Belt of Precipitation and Sudden Glacial Rebound

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Here's the snip from the C's session of 9 May 1998:

Q: Okay, let me get more specific: the Atlantean land that
was supposed to have existed in the Atlantic Ocean... what
was the farthest north of any any part of Atlantis that
was in the ocean, that no longer exists?
A: It is "time for you" to know that Atlantis was not a
nation, land, Island, or continent, but rather, a
civilization!
Q: All I wanted was to have an idea of a land mass in the
Atlantic ocean that people talk about - where did it sit?
A: Where do you think?
Q: Well, I sort of think that the Azores and the Canary
Islands are sort of...
A: Yes, but many other places too. Remember, the sea level
was several hundred feet lower then...
Q: Why was the sea level several hundred feet lower? Because
there was ice somewhere or because there was not as much
water on the earth at that time?
A: Ice.
Q: Was the ice piled up at the poles? The ice sheet of the
ice age?
A: Yes.
Q: So, Atlantis existed during the ice age?
A: Largely, yes. And the world's climate was scarcely any
colder away from the ice sheets than it is today.
Q: Well, how could that be? What caused these glaciers?
A: Global warming.
Q: How does global warming cause glaciers?
A: Increases precipitation dramatically. Then moves the belt
of great precipitation much farther north. This causes
rapid buildup of ice sheets, followed by increasingly
rapid and intense glacial rebound.

And here's an article I read this morning. Ignore all the "human caused global warming" nonsense.

Claim: LLNL scientists find precipitation, global warming link
Posted on November 13, 2013 by Anthony Watts

LIVERMORE, Calif. — The rain in Spain may lie mainly on the plain, but the location and intensity of that rain is changing not only in Spain but around the globe.

A new study by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists shows that observed changes in global (ocean and land) precipitation are directly affected by human activities and cannot be explained by natural variability alone. The research appears in the Nov. 11 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

{The "cannot be explained by natural variability" part is due to the fact that these nincompoops are not thinking in terms of the onset of an Ice Age and the fact that nobody living has ever witnessed this phenomenon.}

Emissions of heat-trapping and ozone-depleting gases affect the distribution of precipitation through two mechanisms. Increasing temperatures are expected to make wet regions wetter and dry regions drier (thermodynamic changes); and changes in atmospheric circulation patterns will push storm tracks and subtropical dry zones toward the poles.

Both these changes are occurring simultaneously in global precipitation and this behavior cannot be explained by natural variability alone,” said LLNL’s lead author Kate Marvel. “External influences such as the increase in greenhouse gases are responsible for the changes.”

{It certainly CAN be explained by the onset of an Ice Age which is not your ordinary "natural variability". And the Cs did exactly that back in 1998.}

The team compared climate model predications with the Global Precipitation Climatology Project’s global observations, which span from 1979-2012, and found that natural variability (such as El Niños and La Niñas) does not account for the changes in global precipitation patterns. While natural fluctuations in climate can lead to either intensification or poleward shifts in precipitation, it is very rare for the two effects to occur together naturally.

{So, these idiots are comparing their climate models to observations between 1979 and 2012 when they OUGHT to be looking at models over 10K years in the past since any first year climatology student knows that there is a cycle of Ice Ages and we are due for the onset of the next one. Geeze, how do these people dress themselves?}

“In combination, manmade increases in greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion are expected to lead to both an intensification and redistribution of global precipitation,” said Céline Bonfils, the other LLNL author. “The fact that we see both of these effects simultaneously in the observations is strong evidence that humans are affecting global precipitation.”

{This is about the stupidest statement I've ever read. Again notice that their comparisons are severely restricted to just the recent past, they are not taking into account much longer time periods and the obvious grand cycles of Ice Ages, and so, they just conclude that since they didn't see anything like it in the last 35 years or so, it MUST be "human caused." This is about as ignorant as saying that a person who has hydrophobia is possessed by demons.}


Marvel and Bonfils identified a fingerprint pattern that characterizes the simultaneous response of precipitation location and intensity to external forcing.

“Most previous work has focused on either thermodynamic or dynamic changes in isolation. By looking at both, we were able to identify a pattern of precipitation change that fits with what is expected from human-caused climate change,” Marvel said.

{Well, when you believe in demons, what you see is demons even if a microorganism is the real cause. They also ignore the changes to other planets in the solar system which cannot possibly be "human caused" and which suggests a solar system-wide phenomenon. Again, their idiocy/stupidity is jaw-dropping.}

By focusing on the underlying mechanisms that drive changes in global precipitation and by restricting the analysis to the large scales where there is confidence in the models’ ability to reproduce the current climate, “we have shown that the changes observed in the satellite era are externally forced and likely to be from man,” Bonfils said.

Hubris will getcha every time. "Restricting the analysis to the large scales"???!!! Thirty five years of observations when it is well-known that interglacials last, on average, about 10K years and we are past 11K years of the current interglacial???

Oh, puh-leeeeeeeeeze.

In any event, at least their observation of the movement of the zone of precipitation farther north (toward the poles) confirms what the Cs said and makes their predicted onset of an Ice Age far more probable in the very near future. As they said in February of 1997:
One change to occur in 21st Century is
sudden glacial rebound, over Eurasia first, then North America. Ice ages
develop much, much, much faster than thought.
 
A: Yes, but many other places too. Remember, the sea level
was several hundred feet lower then...

Q: Why was the sea level several hundred feet lower? Because
there was ice somewhere or because there was not as much
water on the earth at that time?
A: Ice.

In a way to understand more and more the weather and climate change since I´m not scientist I have been taken pieces of the total picture from sott mainly and I was wondering for the near future these things: 1-the sea level will be lower than it is today, so 2-the climate/weather of each zone in the planet will change radically ( In the North, ice mainly ) but for the tropics exactly where I could find out how was the weather/climate???? I was trying to figure it out because of the food, the dress, that kind of stuff in accord of the weather conditions? :huh:
 
It seems to me that their analysis of the situation does much to corroborate the ideas presented in the Basic Laws of Human Stupidity thread!
 
Laura said:
{ Geeze, how do these people dress themselves?}

Apparently, without light (ie. knowledge)

Another example of mouth-piece scientists 'not seeing the forest for the trees' (ie. missing the big picture)
 
Richard S said:
It seems to me that their analysis of the situation does much to corroborate the ideas presented in the Basic Laws of Human Stupidity thread!
Probably! The stupidity of take a sample of years so short and "the man is all responsible", shows an obvious wishful thinking. And that desire is money. The "Anthropogenic Global Warming" makes they pay you good checks, as has been said around here. Money corrupts people corrupt (or without any internal work or stupid) and the worse, paralyzed science.
 
the article says storm tracks and dry zones will shift to the poles. this sounds like opposite things that cancel each other out.
 
wetroof said:
the article says storm tracks and dry zones will shift to the poles. this sounds like opposite things that cancel each other out.

The article states that "will push storm tracks and SUBTROPICAL dry zones toward the poles." This doesn't mean they will end up in the polar regions, but that they will be moved in the direction of the poles from where they are currently located - in the sub tropical regions. They are also stating that the areas of precipitation will also be moved further poleward than at present. There is really no canceling of anything in what they are saying in the article because both phenomena will move in the poleward direction at the same time.
 
Richard S said:
wetroof said:
the article says storm tracks and dry zones will shift to the poles. this sounds like opposite things that cancel each other out.

The article states that "will push storm tracks and SUBTROPICAL dry zones toward the poles." This doesn't mean they will end up in the polar regions, but that they will be moved in the direction of the poles from where they are currently located - in the sub tropical regions. They are also stating that the areas of precipitation will also be moved further poleward than at present. There is really no canceling of anything in what they are saying in the article because both phenomena will move in the poleward direction at the same time.

Yes. And that it is exactly what would pretty much built thick ice sheets over Northern America and Europe. This would lead to a massive decrease in sea level. The water would evaporate, precipitate further north where it would now be permanently frozen and then stockpile as ice/snow for God knows how long never melting.

Good catch anyways. Another sign pointing towards an imminent Ice Age.
 
What I meant is that dry zones seem to be the opposite type of weather than that of storm tracks. but I don't know the full meaning of "subtropical dry zone" maybe it is synergetic with storm tracks.

I believe reading that glacial ice expansion take a while to occur, when the trend does start to happen. this is for the major 100,000 year cycle and mini ice-ages.

one thing that does interest me is the scientists that propose a volcanic winter can trigger global cooling much more rapidly - when the climate is already in a period of beginning to globally cool. the argument centers around the supereruption of lake toba - and 1,000 year glacial expansion near the same time.

to me that seems like a more likely way to get really fast cooling in the next decade. but I have not really examined the climate science besides a few articles. this is just a feeling and may not be the right thing to look into.
 
wetroof said:
What I meant is that dry zones seem to be the opposite type of weather than that of storm tracks. but I don't know the full meaning of "subtropical dry zone" maybe it is synergetic with storm tracks.

Here is a pretty good description of them:
From: _http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/517114/subtropic_warming_could_mean_bigger_deserts/

"The fast-heating area girdles the globe at about 30 degrees north and south latitude, crossing the southern United States, southern China and north Africa in the Northern Hemisphere, and southern Australia, South Africa and southern South America in the Southern Hemisphere.

Based on 25 years of satellite data, researchers at the University of Washington also determined that the jet streams — a pattern of westerly winds that help drive weather in both hemispheres — have shifted about 70 miles toward their respective poles.

This is important because the jet streams mark the northern and southern boundaries of the tropic climate zones, said John Wallace, an atmospheric scientist and co-author of a research paper in this week’s Science journal. The jet streams’ shift toward the poles means the zones are expanding.

The research is not predictive, but does show a long-term trend, Wallace said by telephone.

“If (this jet-stream shift) is going to stop and it just ends up being 70 miles, that’s not a big deal,” he said. “But if it were to continue at the same rate over the next century, then that would amount to a couple of hundred miles (kilometers) and that would start to have significant effects.”

I believe reading that glacial ice expansion take a while to occur, when the trend does start to happen. this is for the major 100,000 year cycle and mini ice-ages.

one thing that does interest me is the scientists that propose a volcanic winter can trigger global cooling much more rapidly - when the climate is already in a period of beginning to globally cool. the argument centers around the supereruption of lake toba - and 1,000 year glacial expansion near the same time.

to me that seems like a more likely way to get really fast cooling in the next decade. but I have not really examined the climate science besides a few articles. this is just a feeling and may not be the right thing to look into.
I think your idea is quite possible because if the Earth is already just about at the tipping point a whole bunch of volcanic activity might just push it over the edge. What we are seeing at the present time with so many volcanoes going off all over the place might just be one of the trigger mechanisms which can produce an ice age. Another thing is that there have recently been discovered lots more undersea volcanoes than anyone had ever imagined could be there.
 
The European Environment Agency published a report in November 2012 showing the trends in precipitation across Europe. The data indicates that whilst Northern Europe has seen an increase in precipitation since 1950, the reverse has been noticed in Southern Europe over the last few decades.

The results seem to agree with what the Cs have said regarding the increasing precipitation moving towards the poles.

A new report with updated precipitation data should be published this month so it will be interesting to see if the climate is continuing to follow this trend, especially in light of the recent floods in most European countries.

_http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/european-precipitation-1/assessment

Key messages

Annual precipitation trends since 1950 show an increase by up to 70 mm per decade in north-eastern and north-western Europe and a decrease by up to 70 mm in some parts of southern Europe.

Seasonal precipitation trends show an increase in winter precipitation in northern Europe and a decrease in southern Europe, albeit with large interannual variations.

The direction of future precipitation changes is simulated robustly in many parts of central and western Europe across all seasons. However, many parts of Europe, such as eastern and southern Europe, lack model consensus on the direction of change.


image_large



Past trends

Annual precipitation records averaged across Europe show no significant changes since 1950 according to the E-OBS dataset, based on the European Climate Assessment dataset. At the sub-continental scale, the trend in precipitation is most significant in north-eastern and south-western Europe. The majority of Scandinavia and the Baltic States have observed an increase in annual precipitation of greater than 14 mm per decade, with an increase of up to 70 mm per decade in western Norway. In contrast, annual precipitation has decreased in the Iberian Peninsula, in particular in north-western Spain and in northern Portugal (Figure 1). While there is some evidence linking land use, in particular forest cover, to local and regional precipitation patterns, it is not clear if the relatively minor land-use changes since 1950 have influenced the observed precipitation trends.

Projections

Seasonal mean precipitation values and inter-annual variability is better reproduced by an ensemble of RCMs than by any single RCM. Recent work, building on the two EU-funded research projects PRUDENCE and ENSEMBLES has shown that RCMs have a reasonably strong consensus across Europe in predicting changes in seasonal average rainfall. These projections indicate a general increase in annual precipitation in northern Europe and a decrease in southern Europe. The change in annual mean between 1961-1990 and 2071-2100 according to the ENSEMBLES project varies between 10% and 20 % in northern Europe and between -5 to -20 % in southern Europe and the Mediterranean (Figure 2 left). Projections for summer precipitation show a decrease over southern, central and northwest Europe, which can reach of up to 60 % in parts of southern Europe. Precipitation is projected to remain constant or to increase slightly in northeast Europe.
 
Back
Top Bottom