General Climate Change Discussion

[Gray-Wolf]

No it wouldn't. Negative/positive phases do not mean exclusively La Nina/El Nino happening for 20-30 years. It's a percentage game.

I think you may have mis-understood.

My understanding is that the -ve PDO phase limits the extent of El-Nino's and the positive phase augments them .I was merely wondering if we suffered another 97' Nino how that would sit with current understanding of the PDO phenomena. -_-

We are all aware of the forcasts for El-Nino condition to become more frequent as global warming progresses and the criteria for 'Nino' conditions are met by general background oceanic warming.

To me this may well be one of the first time that this new scenario occurs ( if I remember correctly the last 'Nino' was lessened in impact by -ve PDO?) and must be worth monitoring as it progresses.

I am mindful that this is only a forecast (the second to predict such an odd instance.....so odd the first forecast had to reassert it's position in Jan this year?) so we all must wait and see if it occurs at all.

I know we do not see eye to eye on such things Jethro but I was just wondering if your thinking may alter if the above came to pass later in the year?

[jethro]

I think you may have mis-understood.

My understanding is that the -ve PDO phase limits the extent of El-Nino's and the positive phase augments them .I was merely wondering if we suffered another 97' Nino how that would sit with current understanding of the PDO phenomena. :lol:

We are all aware of the forcasts for El-Nino condition to become more frequent as global warming progresses and the criteria for 'Nino' conditions are met by general background oceanic warming.

To me this may well be one of the first time that this new scenario occurs ( if I remember correctly the last 'Nino' was lessened in impact by -ve PDO?) and must be worth monitoring as it progresses.

I am mindful that this is only a forecast (the second to predict such an odd instance.....so odd the first forecast had to reassert it's position in Jan this year?) so we all must wait and see if it occurs at all. :lol:

I know we do not see eye to eye on such things Jethro but I was just wondering if your thinking may alter if the above came to pass later in the year?

Well, no. I know I can be a stubborn old mare but to be honest, it's not stubbornness which makes me say no. Blast's explanation of the PDO phases (and my briefer one earlier) is right. If at the end of the PDO phase (20-30years hence) we can discern a difference, then and only then will any judgements be able to be made. The mega El Nino in '97 had absolutely nothing to do with climate change, if another similar happened again this year or next, it still would have nothing to do with climate change. The two are entirely unconnected.

[Guest Shetland Coastie]

Does anybody have access to Science? Thought this might be an interesting article:

Science article

From the abstract:

Observations and models demonstrate that northern tropical Atlantic surface temperatures are sensitive to regional changes in stratospheric volcanic and tropospheric mineral aerosols. However, it is unknown if the temporal variability of these aerosols is a key factor in the evolution of ocean temperature anomalies. Here, we elucidate this question by using 26 years of satellite data to drive a simple physical model for estimating the temperature response of the ocean mixed layer to changes in aerosol loadings. Our results suggest that 69% of the recent upward trend, and 67% of the detrended and 5-year low pass filtered variance, in northern tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures is the mixed layer’s response to regional variability in aerosols.

[jethro]

Sadly not, but it does sound interesting.

Hopefully it will become available elsewhere soon.

[Chris Knight]

Does anybody have access to Science? Thought this might be an interesting article:

Science article

From the abstract:

Observations and models demonstrate that northern tropical Atlantic surface temperatures are sensitive to regional changes in stratospheric volcanic and tropospheric mineral aerosols. However, it is unknown if the temporal variability of these aerosols is a key factor in the evolution of ocean temperature anomalies. Here, we elucidate this question by using 26 years of satellite data to drive a simple physical model for estimating the temperature response of the ocean mixed layer to changes in aerosol loadings. Our results suggest that 69% of the recent upward trend, and 67% of the detrended and 5-year low pass filtered variance, in northern tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures is the mixed layer’s response to regional variability in aerosols.

Go here, and follow the instructions to download the article - neat eh? Cherchez l'auteur.

[noggin]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01...m.htm?list82994

Taken from the above link, David Hathaway says "Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years".

"ANTHROPOGENIC global warming, anyone?" "No, no, no" says she, answering her own question.

It's the Sun, I tell ye, along with an ever-changing combination of other inter-acting natural cycles and events.

Edited April 2, 2009 by noggin

[Thundery wintry showers]

One glaring contradiction in the anti-AGW arguments by Noggin and others:

The proponents of AGW are criticised for saying the science is settled and that AGW is definitely happening to a large extent, when there is clearly much uncertainty. That's fair. But then, arguing that AGW definitely isn't real, and it's the sun? Is that not being guilty of exactly the same thing as the pro-AGW people are being accused of, only from the other side of the spectrum?

[Methuselah]

One glaring contradiction in the anti-AGW arguments by Noggin and others:

The proponents of AGW are criticised for saying the science is settled and that AGW is definitely happening to a large extent, when there is clearly much uncertainty. That's fair. But then, arguing that AGW definitely isn't real, and it's the sun? Is that not being guilty of exactly the same thing as the pro-AGW people are being accused of, only from the other side of the spectrum?

Yes, it is...

[Devonian]

One glaring contradiction in the anti-AGW arguments by Noggin and others:

The proponents of AGW are criticised for saying the science is settled and that AGW is definitely happening to a large extent, when there is clearly much uncertainty.

I think the science* is settled, but that how that pans out in the future is where the uncertainty is.

*of course that needs defining. OK: that there is a GH effect, that adding GH gasses perturbs said, and that we are the cause of the extra GH gas is settled? What's not settled is feedbacks and whether some equally as large effect as AGW comes along and masks it for a while?

That's fair. But then, arguing that AGW definitely isn't real, and it's the sun? Is that not being guilty of exactly the same thing as the pro-AGW people are being accused of, only from the other side of the spectrum?

Yes!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I think the science* is settled, but that how that pans out in the future is where the uncertainty is.

*of course that needs defining. OK: that there is a GH effect, that adding GH gasses perturbs said, and that we are the cause of the extra GH gas is settled? What's not settled is feedbacks and whether some equally as large effect as AGW comes along and masks it for a while?

Yes!

No, sorry. I think this needs correcting.

*Think* is the crucial word here. It is your opinion that the science is settled- not a fact. The science is anything but settled. That is a fact.

My opinion is that I think that cyclical/natural factors outweigh human factors by some margin.

However, unlike you, I cannot try and present this as a fact. Nothing is settled.

If you admit that there is feedback uncertainty then that in turn affects the science and makes it uncertain. Different 'atmospheric' chain reactions are set in place depending on which feedback trumps the other. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways Dev.

Also you are equally stating just your opinion by suggesting that other forcings outside of AGW are temporary and only masking it. You are making the automatic assumption that human forcing is 100% the overriding forcing, with all positive feedbacks/amplifications stronger than negative and natural/cyclical one's - period. That is also extremely debateable and unproven.

By suggesting that the science is 'settled' is just giving an opinion - not stating it as a fact as if you expect everyone to concur with it.

Worth trying to remember the difference between theory and fact.

Edited April 2, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

No, sorry. I think this needs correcting.

*Think* is the crucial word here. It is your opinion that the science is settled- not a fact. The science is anything but settled. That is a fact.

My opinion is that I think that cyclical/natural factors outweigh human factors by some margin.

However, unlike you, I cannot try and present this as a fact. Nothing is settled.

If you admit that there is feedback uncertainty then that in turn affects the science and makes it uncertain. Different 'atmospheric' chain reactions are set in place depending on which feedback trumps the other. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways Dev.

Also you are equally stating just your opinion by suggesting that other forcings outside of AGW are temporary and only masking it. You are making the automatic assumption that human forcing is 100% the overriding forcing, with all positive feedbacks/amplifications stronger than negative and natural/cyclical one's - period. That is also extremely debateable and unproven.

By suggesting that the science is 'settled' is just giving an opinion - not stating it as a fact as if you expect everyone to concur with it.

Worth trying to remember the difference between theory and fact.

That could all be said of Evolution by natural selection?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - a fact??? or, does the existence of one denier reduce it to a theory?

And, as far as '100% the overriding factor...' That's what you are saying - knowing of course that it's merely a straw man argument...By your very own argument, your 'facts' cannot be facts either!

[Devonian]

No, sorry. I think this needs correcting.

*Think* is the crucial word here. It is your opinion that the science is settled- not a fact. The science is anything but settled. That is a fact.

My opinion is that I think that cyclical/natural factors outweigh human factors by some margin.

However, unlike you, I cannot try and present this as a fact. Nothing is settled.

If you admit that there is feedback uncertainty then that in turn affects the science and makes it uncertain. Different 'atmospheric' chain reactions are set in place depending on which feedback trumps the other. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways Dev.

Also you are equally stating just your opinion by suggesting that other forcings outside of AGW are temporary and only masking it. You are making the automatic assumption that human forcing is 100% the overriding forcing, with all positive feedbacks/amplifications stronger than negative and natural/cyclical one's - period. That is also extremely debateable and unproven.

By suggesting that the science is 'settled' is just giving an opinion - not stating it as a fact as if you expect everyone to concur with it.

Worth trying to remember the difference between theory and fact.

Huh?

I'm sorry but despite you bolding and repetition I didn't use the word fact once and I used question marks because I was asking TWS.

But I do stand by what I actually said.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

What is fact is that for 10 years the global climate is NOT responding to how the models of AGW have forecast.

BFTP

[noggin]

But then, arguing that AGW definitely isn't real, and it's the sun? Is that not being guilty of exactly the same thing as the pro-AGW people are being accused of, only from the other side of the spectrum?

I don't think so.

I am often reminded, on here, by myself(!), of when my youngest daughter was a baby and I feared that she had meningitis. I was distraught, hysterical even. All of the symptoms were there. However, it turned out that she actually had three different things all at once.......chickenpox, a heavy cold and an ear infection.

The point of my mentioning this is that a whole load of unconnected things can actually turn out to look like something completely different.

I am also aware that this can apply both ways. We all are able to decide which way we look at climate change......AGW or natural cycles. I plump for the latter. It makes the most sense to me and experience (one example shown above, but I have many others) tells me that that, on balance and in general, there is usually a simple and far less frightening reason which is more likely to be the correct one. Add in a dash of "we've been here before" and sprinkle liberally with mans' propensity to catastrophise and, BINGO! you have AGW, just like we've had all the other armageddon- type scenarios over the decades.

Well, that's my view anyway. We are all entitled to our own thoughts. We do not, as yet, have "thought police", although I wouldn't put their introduction past Gordon Brown, but that's for another time and place).

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

That could all be said of Evolution by natural selection?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - a fact??? or, does the existence of one denier reduce it to a theory?

And, as far as '100% the overriding factor...' That's what you are saying - knowing of course that it's merely a straw man argument...By your very own argument, your 'facts' cannot be facts either!

I am talking about CO2 within the context of AGW - not as a stand alone natural product. Of course it is a fact that it exists. It is not inevitable though that through dint of its existence that it automatically results in AGW.

I'm sorry, I genuinely don't understand your point about my reference to the '100% overriding factor'. I am stating that the belief that Devonian has that the amplification/positive feedback of CO2 in terms of producing inexorably rising temps is not a certainty. I fail to see what is a 'straw-man' argument about that? Because it isn't a certainty (ie a fact)

Or do you, like him, also believe that this is a fact?

Edited April 2, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Devonian]

What is fact is that for 10 years the global climate is NOT responding to how the models of AGW have forecast.

BFTP

Which was what? A linear rise?

[Methuselah]

I am talking about CO2 within the context of AGW - not as a stand alone natural product. Of course it is a fact that it exists. It is not inevitable though that through dint of its existence that it automatically results in AGW.

I'm sorry, I genuinely don't understand your point about my reference to the '100% overriding factor'. I am stating that the belief that Devonian has that the amplification/positive feedback of CO2 in terms of producing inexorably rising temps is not a certainty. I fail to see what is a 'straw-man' argument about that? Because it isn't a certainty (ie a fact)

Or do you, like him, also believe that this is a fact?

If you mean that will CO2 (being a greenhouse gas) always produce a climate-forcing element that will (all other things being equal) cause a warming moment? Then yes, I agree with Devonian...It (CO2) will do that, that is what it does - stand alone or not stand alone.

But, if the Sun does go into a deep minimum (very far from a certainty at this stage) I'll be rejoicing along with you.

What is fact is that for 10 years the global climate is NOT responding to how the models of AGW have forecast.

BFTP

Neither have national economies, national crime statistics, national immigration statistics etc followed their respective models. Should we simply abandon all theories as rubbish?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I am often reminded, on here, by myself(!), of when my youngest daughter was a baby and I feared that she had meningitis. I was distraught, hysterical even. All of the symptoms were there. However, it turned out that she actually had three different things all at once.......chickenpox, a heavy cold and an ear infection.

The point of my mentioning this is that a whole load of unconnected things can actually turn out to look like something completely different.

That's a reasonable point in itself- it's an example of "correlation doesn't always imply causation"- but on the other hand, sometimes it does. This is an argument that illustrates uncertainty over AGW, not certainty over lack of it!

I am also aware that this can apply both ways. We all are able to decide which way we look at climate change......AGW or natural cycles. I plump for the latter.

That approach is one of the main reasons why so many discussions don't get off the ground, ranging from "Joe Bloggs in the street" discussions to debates among politicians on policymaking. You are assuming that we all have to take up one "side" or the other, and work from the premise that one side or the other is true (which often gives rise to circular reasoning: A is true, so fit evidence B around A being true, and conclude from it that A is true). No, there is a third option, that of surveying the evidence and deriving a conclusion from the evidence, and having an open mind about it, being open to new ideas. If only more people applied that third way of thinking we'd probably get far fewer stupid policies stemming from people in power...

It makes the most sense to me and experience (one example shown above, but I have many others) tells me that that, on balance and in general, there is usually a simple and far less frightening reason which is more likely to be the correct one. Add in a dash of "we've been here before" and sprinkle liberally with mans' propensity to catastrophise and, BINGO! you have AGW, just like we've had all the other armageddon- type scenarios over the decades.

Again, something that can be true, but can also be untrue. I could hypothesise that if I run out in front of a car in the middle of a motorway, I could get run over. By that argument, is that hypothesis wrong because there is usually a less frightening reason which is more likely to be the correct one, and man has a propensity to catastrophise, so therefore it is safe to run out in front of the car? Of course a different subject area, but the point is, this is again all hypothetical stuff and doesn't actually present any evidence against AGW other than straw man stuff.

Well, that's my view anyway. We are all entitled to our own thoughts. We do not, as yet, have "thought police", although I wouldn't put their introduction past Gordon Brown, but that's for another time and place).

Looking through all of that, I see the assertion "I don't think so" and then see absolutely nothing whatsoever to back it up? Or is this a case of abusing the "we're all entitled to our opinions" card- it isn't being guilty of the same thing because your opinion says so, and you're entitled to your opinion and therefore that's right? I think there has to be a distinction made between areas where there are many possible "right" answers and areas where there are indeed "wrong" answers. Otherwise I could retort to any refutation of one of my posts with something like "it's my opinion, I'm entitled to my opinion, and therefore I'm right!"

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

If you mean that will CO2 (being a greenhouse gas) always produce a climate-forcing element that will (all other things being equal) cause a warming moment? Then yes, I agree with Devonian...It (CO2) will do that, that is what it does - stand alone or not stand alone.

But, if the Sun does go into a deep minimum (very far from a certainty at this stage) I'll be rejoicing along with you.

We are (collectively should be anyway) talking about a net outcome over time - not a 'warming moment'. How long is a 'moment' in climate terms anyway? And, much more significantly - how long is 'time'?

An inherent problem with this AGW modernism is that it tries to make a historical case in terms of climate history over a few decades and turn that into a predicted 'forever case' when in fact climate has existed for thousands of years and has ebbed and flowed quite happily over that time the same way as now, and irrespective of our 'help'.

A couple of decades or so IMO is a 'moment' in climate terms and proves or means little or nothing in the overall context of how future climate is likely to proceed given the the perspective as above and does not justify this sense of interminability in terms of endless warming that AGW/warmist people would preach . Solar influences have been around for eons but to AGW'ers they are yet somehow a lesser background factor when judged against our own relatively small part in the grand scheme of things.

Research would do better to try and evaluate the weightings of natural forcings before man began 'interfering with things' rather than try and attempt to (over?)cost these supposed manmade forcings that fit the warming moment and then just simply guess the natural forcings that have stood the test of of 'mere' time.

All t'other way round IMO - hence my favourite cart/horse anology

Edited April 2, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

Moment - as in bending, of inertia ...Not as a small unit of time. In Climate homeodynamics, CO2 provides one forcing agent among many, is still a greenhouse and ergo will do (or contribute) its particular forcing agent; it aways has and always will?

It has nothing to do with one's belief (or not in my case) that all climate change = AGW!

[weather eater]

That approach is one of the main reasons why so many discussions don't get off the ground, ranging from "Joe Bloggs in the street" discussions to debates among politicians on policymaking. You are assuming that we all have to take up one "side" or the other, and work from the premise that one side or the other is true (which often gives rise to circular reasoning: A is true, so fit evidence B around A being true, and conclude from it that A is true). No, there is a third option, that of surveying the evidence and deriving a conclusion from the evidence, and having an open mind about it, being open to new ideas. If only more people applied that third way of thinking we'd probably get far fewer stupid policies stemming from people in power...

An excellent point, for the open minded viewer of the climate change threads the for or against augments are a deep turn off, what we have are any number of people with an entrenched view point looking for evidence to justify that view point, nobody is willing to face the idea that both man made and natural forcings may be both at play, as I have said before many of the scientists who are convinced by the AGW argument are experts in climate change and that includes natural forcing, indeed many of them are the source of what we know about natural forcing. It could also be said that the evidence we have for natural forcing is sketchy, we have no true long term record of sun spot activity it may well have been completely different 1000 years ago, most of our information about past climate change comes from ice cores, geology, tree rings pollen deposits etc. What would be interesting to know is how many Paleoclimatologists are AGW sceptics they after all the are the most expert in past climate.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

..............nobody is willing to face the idea that both man made and natural forcings may be both at play..........

Exactly the point I keep making. As long as there is the slightest possibility that human activities are causing OR contributing to climate change, then all the arguments are merely exercises in academic rigour, because so long as that possibility exists then we must do everything we can to limit/change/eradicate whatever activities our current understanding of climate change suggest might be exacerbating the problem.

In other words, until there is conclusive proof that human activity 100% definitely has no effect on the Earth's climate, then it is up to every single one of us to do everything we can to try and improve the situation.

And I've not seen many 'AGW sceptics' who are prepared to stand up and say that they are 100% confident our activities have 0/nil/zilch/zero effect on the Earth's climate whatsoever................

[Thundery wintry showers]

An excellent point, for the open minded viewer of the climate change threads the for or against augments are a deep turn off, what we have are any number of people with an entrenched view point looking for evidence to justify that view point, nobody is willing to face the idea that both man made and natural forcings may be both at play, as I have said before many of the scientists who are convinced by the AGW argument are experts in climate change and that includes natural forcing, indeed many of them are the source of what we know about natural forcing. It could also be said that the evidence we have for natural forcing is sketchy, we have no true long term record of sun spot activity it may well have been completely different 1000 years ago, most of our information about past climate change comes from ice cores, geology, tree rings pollen deposits etc. What would be interesting to know is how many Paleoclimatologists are AGW sceptics they after all the are the most expert in past climate.

Yes, indeed I've read quite a few peer-reviewed papers recently that pointed to areas of vast uncertainty with regards natural forcing. I don't think there's much room for argument with the notion that cumulatively, human activity is having an effect on the climate. But there's certainly room for the possibility that the extent of the anthropogenic component could be being somewhat overestimated.

It has become increasingly clear to me that "natural" factors pushed towards warming in the 1980s and 1990s, and have mostly reverted to cooler phases in the 2000s- e.g. solar activity, ENSO phase, the strength of the westerlies in the Northern Hemisphere etc. On one hand, I find it quite reassuring that temperatures have stalled in the last decade, but on the other, I find it concerning that they haven't dropped, given that we have had less solar activity and more La Nina events. There's a nagging feeling that there's something in the background bringing in some kind of long-term forcing towards warming- and that's why I reject the idea that recent trends have caused "the wheels to fall off the AGW bandwagon", as AGW could well, in itself, be at least part of that background forcing.

And further to PTFD's post above, there's also the fact that the same actions that could well be causing AGW are also depleting finite energy sources...

[jethro]

nobody is willing to face the idea that both man made and natural forcings may be both at play,

I am, always have been and when it comes to sceptics, I know quite a few of us think the same.

The disagreements arise over the percentage which is attributable to man made versus natural. I still can't find the science to support the "CO2 is driving the warming", I've looked lots. At best, it may be contributing but driving the change? Nope.

[Guest]

I am, always have been and when it comes to sceptics, I know quite a few of us think the same.

The disagreements arise over the percentage which is attributable to man made versus natural. I still can't find the science to support the "CO2 is driving the warming", I've looked lots. At best, it may be contributing but driving the change? Nope.

Tend to agree