BornFromTheVoid
-
Posts
11,369 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
27
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by BornFromTheVoid
-
-
Sea ice growth on the IJIS site has increased to above 100k per day for the last 3 days, so slightly above average.
-
1
-
-
There is a high emphasis on the theorised existence of artificial positive feedbacks.
Understanding the stand alone nature of CO2 and GHG's in terms of their warning effects is one thing and nothing new in climate history. But in the absence of associated amplification feedbacks, then such warming is not sustainable through natural cyclical variation.
So believing that there is an extended and perpetuating artificial positive feedback relationship is another thing altogether. Especially in terms of the assumed number of them. And also especially in terms of the understating of natural feedback systems which climate history has evidential proof of their existence.
At this time there is no real hard evidence that can translate to any degree of estimable verfication - there is a therorised idea that they might exist that translates into great uncertainty instead.
Can you give some examples of theorised artificial feedbacks? I'm not sure I'm aware of any artificial feedbacks (they all seem quite natural to me) especially none that are just theorised and have no physical and evidential basis to them.
CO2 doesn't rise and fall in the paleoclimate record without corresponding ups and downs in the temperature and other records, so large scale feedbacks in association with CO2 changes and other causes of temperature variations are quite well established.
-
I think it is right to let research continue into AGW theory at the same time as research should be allowed to continue into natural forcings with the biggest regard to solar phases and cycles. From a sceptical pov, this is a prudent line to take and to put aside issues of fudging data etc
The truth and the facts will verify in this way and any potential theoretic assumptions will be outed, however long it takes. Sceptical opinion and open mindededness evolve accordingly with what time and further research will show us Fixed and assumptive opinions on the other hand will hinder this processThe coming decade or so could tell us a lot about the net cost balance between the effects of negative feeback solar cyclical activity, and any artificial positive warming feedbacks that are theorised - should these exist, or not, as the case may be
What would you consider the fixed and assumptive opinions, over say, the evidence based ones?
-
@BFTV. In another 13 years a number of climate scientist are predicting a downward trend in global temps, now these scientist may not be on the payroll of the corrupt IPCC but their credentials are as good as any.
SI, as has been said numerous times, to you, the scientists that contribute to the IPCC report do it voluntarily. Your continued accusations (assumptions) to the contrary do not put you in a positive light
Who are the acclaimed scientists predicting cooling in 13 years?
I'll take you silence on the topic as admittance that you were wrong about the climate models then.
Please try and put some of your sceptical inquiry abilities to use when reading WUWT articles.
-
2
-
-
No amount of jiggery pokery alters the fact that not one climate scientist came out and state there would be a pause in global temps, which in another 13 years will give us enough climatic data to reevaluate the alleged consensus as we will have entered another chapter in the globes climate.
You make the assumption that the models don't show something, I show data showing some do. Where's the jiggery pokery? Is that the term for data you don't like?
I bet no climate scientists said there be faster than expected warming from 1992 to 2006, or bet that we'd see cooling from 2010 to 2013, or that we'd see see rapid warming from 1999 to 2007, why? Because non of those are climate predictions, short timescales are dominated by natural variability, not long term climate drivers.
In another 13 years, some of the climate trends will likely have become statistically significant if they continue as they are.
-
3
-
-
@BFTV. With regards to the pause and your insistence climate models showed this, poppycock that's a case of shutting the stable door once the horse as bolted. Nearly 17 years of no warming with the CET having only risen 0.85c since the LIA.
More (false) assumptions SI? I though you disliked those?
On the low side currently? Yes
Completely beyond the range of projections? No
Where are the much more accurate "climate sceptic" predictions btw?
-
4
-
-
What would be the point of studying for something that imo is plain wrong in how it handles climate sensitivity and still continues to bury it's head in the sand regarding the pause, besides all that I know enough on the basics of physics and the rest of the course is built on unreliable climate modelling, assumptions and a ton load of conjecture. I did email them regarding the pause and why they think climate models cannot get to grips with feedbacks, strangely enough I never received a reply.
Open mindedness and all that. The IPCC published data regarding "the pause", it has been looked at, despite your claims. Remember, models do show slowdowns of a similar length to what we've seen.
Refusing to learn a little climate science is burying ones head in the sand. Perhaps if you did the course, you might be able to explain some of those questions yourself?
That's one of the drawbacks of dual threads, increased polarisation and they feel able to include far more previously suppressed name-calling such as you get on the extremist hate blogs.
It's all about 'good' science of course.
Calling out a blog for engaging in climate denial is like an extremist hate blog!? A little dramatic isn't it!?
He didn't produce any evidence of all this oil-funding they like to trot out, because there isn't any - how much 'funding' would be needed to run a blog anyway - a few $100s?
They build up Watts into a high priest of denialist evil - reveals more how scared they are of anyone prepared to publish contrary material than anything.
Yeah, $88,000 funding and payments for speaking at their denier conferences is nothing.
So climate denier ="a high priest of denialist evil"! You really have a penchant for the dramatic. I bet you just love the balanced musings of James Delingpole
-
1
-
-
I love this on the other thread ‘climate change deniers’ almost sounds like the ‘Witch craft deniers’
WUWT is the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change for a reason.
Its looking to give a balance view
Sorry Stew, but anyone who thinks that WUWT provides a balanced view has at best, been seriously misled. I mean c'mon, they provide a platform for the likes of Monkton, Steven Goddard, Fred Singer and anyone who will deny, playdown, provide misdirection or confusion on climate change.
What about the BEST temperature series? Watts claimed that he was "prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong".
And when it did prove him wrong, he describes it as "post normal science political theater."
That's as biased as you're going to find.
If you want balance or to really call yourself a sceptic, look at the science, not a twisted, biased, ideologically driven interpretation of it. At the very least, RealClimate, where you have actual, actively publishing climate scientists discussing things.
The former TV weatherman and his Heartland Institute buddies are not out there to provide balance, plain and simple.
-
4
-
-
Actually they changed the prediction for Mediterranean summers from the early part of the 21st century to the latter part when it was obvious to all that this wasn't going to happen, hence the press release a few years back on stocking up on Mediterranean plants now. Personally I'm looking at the facts in front of me such as no warming going on for nearly 17 years, when that starts to show an uptick you'll get my attention until then it's as you were.
Can you show me where the evidence is for this? Also, it's not particularly relevant to the paper on sea ice changes and summer precip, is it!
Once again, measuring climate on a short time scale is pointless, and no statistically significant warming is different to no warming. So it ain't a fact SI!
-
The Mediterranean-like summer climate was predicted for the latter half of this century. Complaining that it hasn't arrived now is like whining that it hasn't stated snowing yet in September. That's just a straw man argument.
As for the no mechanism claims, read the actual paper. It suggests several mechanisms. Because there may be a link between low sea ice and wetter summers here, that doesn't mean it overides everything else all the time. Yet another silly straw man arguments.
-
2
-
-
“resistance†– movements of “people or groups of people†who “adopt a certain set of dynamics that does not fit within the capitalist cultureâ€. According to the abstract for his presentation, this includes “environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groupsâ€.
I'm struggling with how this relates to:
Few things with leading scientists and especially things that make sense are...
And as for oil-funding of a blog allegation, no evidence for that exists so far as I know.
I would have expected better than repeating sound bytes - and tittle-tattle designed to discredit - from someone in further education.
The article in question has many leading scientists in it, Jason Box, James Hanson, Brad Werner, Kevin Anderson, Alice Bowes and Clive Hamilton. And it makes sense.
Of course, cherry picking and selectively ignoring the majority of the article might leave you struggling to reconcile things.
Nothing wrong with calling out WUWT for what it is. It's not a science site, but a pro-fossil fuel, free market propaganda provider, that dishes out "sound bytes" and repeats long debunked myths for climate change deniers to spread throughout the internet. Watts ties with the Heartland Institute are well known.
Odd that you expect others to act in such a more timid and respectful way than yourself 4?
-
5
-
-
Great article by Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine (great documentary too, available on netflix if you have an account).
Naomi Klein: How science is telling us all to revoltIs our relentless quest for economic growth killing the planet? Climate scientists have seen the data – and they are coming to some incendiary conclusions.In December 2012, a pink-haired complex systems researcher named Brad Werner made his way through the throng of 24,000 earth and space scientists at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, held annually in San Francisco. This year’s conference had some big-name participants, from Ed Stone of Nasa’s Voyager project, explaining a new milestone on the path to interstellar space, to the film-maker James Cameron, discussing his adventures in deep-sea submersibles.But it was Werner’s own session that was attracting much of the buzz. It was titled “Is Earth F**ked?†(full title: “Is Earth F**ked? Dynamical Futility of Global Environmental Management and Possibilities for Sustainability via Direct Action Activismâ€).Standing at the front of the conference room, the geophysicist from the University of California, San Diego walked the crowd through the advanced computer model he was using to answer that question. He talked about system boundaries, perturbations, dissipation, attractors, bifurcations and a whole bunch of other stuff largely incomprehensible to those of us uninitiated in complex systems theory. But the bottom line was clear enough: global capitalism has made the depletion of resources so rapid, convenient and barrier-free that “earth-human systems†are becoming dangerously unstable in response. When pressed by a journalist for a clear answer on the “are we f**ked†question, Werner set the jargon aside and replied, “More or less.â€There was one dynamic in the model, however, that offered some hope. Werner termed it “resistance†– movements of “people or groups of people†who “adopt a certain set of dynamics that does not fit within the capitalist cultureâ€. According to the abstract for his presentation, this includes “environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groupsâ€.
More here http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt
And yes "sceptics", we know it's not up to the infallible standard of the oil funded beacon of truth, WUWT. Few things with leading scientists and especially things that make sense are...
-
4
-
-
The more criteria you use the smaller the sample size becomes. You will probably end up with a composite of just 1 day, BFTV!
Well, I suppose I should clarify that any suggested criteria to add should have records going back at least a few decades! Not every criteria has to match up though, so for the composite maps I might add a year once that had 5/9 matches, then twice for 6/9, and so on.
-
Minimum of 7.0C and maxima likely to be around the mid 11s, we should see a drop to 12.9C on tomorrows update.
After that, the 06z GFS op run has the CET at
12.8C to the 30th (9.0)
12.7C to the 31st (10.8]
So 12.6 to 12.8C before corrections, and 12.1 to 12.7C after methinks.
Just 8 members in with a chance as far as I can see.
-
2
-
-
I've decided to seek suggestions for other criteria that I could use when developing the composite maps. Perhaps turn my forecasts into something of a crowd forecast.
The criteria I consider are the previous 6-9 months trends, mean and variance in the
AO
NAO
PDO
AMO
QBO
Snow Cover
Sea Ice
11 Year Sunspot Variation
I've been toying with the idea of adding something for short term solar activity, but cannot find much in the way of peer reviewed studies to support it's impact on our weather. If anyone has any papers on the subject I'd appreciate a link.
Also, if anyone has any suggestions for other criteria I could take into account, do suggest some!
I've been trying out adding different weightings for different seasons to the criteria I consider too, such as increasing the weighting for sea ice and snow cover in winter, and generally having a reduced weighting for the AO and NAO as they can often be the result of some of the other criteria used.
As this winter is likely to be ENSO neutral, another thing I'm considering, is after all the years have been matched up with the criteria mentioned above (so that each year since 1951 has a certain number of matching criteria with this year, e.g., say 1959 has similar AO, NAO, Snow Cover, Solar, AMO and PDO to this year, but dissimilar ENSO, sea ice, and QBO, so has 6/9 matching) the years with strong ENSO events would have their weightings further reduced (so 1959, if it had a strong El Nino, would be reduced from 6/9 to 5/9, and so might appear in the composite map once instead of twice).
Anywho, suggestions are welcome!
-
1
-
-
Of course the growth has dropped, it grew fast early.
The overall levels are still way up.
Well, if the growth was relatively rapid, we might have changed from having the 6th lowest extent in September to something higher now, but we still have the 6th lowest extent for the time of year. The sea ice growth so far this month has been almost bang on the 2002-2012 average. People tend to get excited when they see 100k+ gains in October, but it's completely normal.
-
1
-
-
6.6C was the low here, 4th lowest of the Autumn. Blue skies and showers mix so far today, a nice change.
-
In the last 2 weeks, 10 days have had sea ice growth below the 2002-2012 average, with just 4 above (IJIS). Still no risk of dropping below 6th lowest before months end or early November.
The SSMIS instrument used by the NSIDC and many others is experiencing problems, which is limiting the amount of sea ice data available too.
-
firstly i did not say in any way shape or form that the sun was responsible for the storm this week, I just made a point that it was coincidental that with the rise in sunspots and IF that had any link with Mount Etna erupting, although I can not prove any link, nor can you disprove it, or how long it would take sunspots to affect earth.
I was just using the storm as an example, I wasn't trying to attribute that to you.
Proving a negative is something few rational people would attempt! As I've said, many things, including perhaps solar activity, need to be examined to work out the cause of events like individual volcanic eruptions (but I don't think we're close to figuring out exactly why eruptions occur when they do anyway!). I'm sure we both agree on that?
-
3
-
-
yeah I agree with the not showing evidence but not everyone on here knows how to load things up and that.
quick look just now and came up with this
http://solarflareeffects.wordpress.com/category/natural-disaster/volcano/
its still all theories I think but like all theories it isn't right or wrong till its picked through properly and that's what this period of time will give us.
we cant say yet if theres evidence but i'm sure in coming years we will find out.
it goes the same with the weather we cant dismiss solar effects just now it has to be put in there with the rest and only when the sun returns to normal we can know for sure if climate and other affects are due to this or not.
I'm sure solar variability can have an effect of volcanic/tectonic activity, but claiming that changes in the last week is responsible for a single eruption is pushing it a little. In a similar way, we can't say yesterdays storm was caused by the sun, climate change, the AMO or any other individual thing, as there's just too many factors involved! It's only by examining a broad spectrum of factors, can you begin to tease out the causes of such events.
-
4
-
-
yeah it seems some people on here forget without the sun we wouldn't have any weather and be one big ball of ice and people who put down the suns affects on us need to rethink things a little.
same as we here all this the suns affects have lag times well all I can say to that is @*&^%$ the sun directly affects our weather every day as we see the heat of the days sun trigger thunderstorms and such and if you believe in the butterfly affect then that sun setting off afternoon storms is bount to have a larger overall affect on our climate
Actually, without our atmosphere (mainly the greenhouse gasses) the Earth would be a ball of ice anyway!
Nobody is disputing that the sun has an integral role in our weather and climate, but claiming that it's slight variations are the cause of every and any little thing, without presenting any evidence, is pointless.
-
1
-
-
Everything is linked to everything else though, one way or another. And seeing as the sun created the Earth and dominates it in every way possible, why not sunspots and volcanoes? :-)
Asking for evidence is neither accepting nor disregarding an idea!
-
2
-
-
Coldest max of the Autumn so far here, 12.1C. Just 7 maxima below 15C so far this month
-
maybe I will just keep my comments to myself, I thought this forum was different, maybe not
Nothing wrong with looking for evidence, irishlad69. Better to have our assumptions challenged than to slip into the mindset of believing things without evidence!
The truth and the facts will verify in this way and any potential theoretic assumptions will be outed, however long it takes. Sceptical opinion and open mindededness evolve accordingly with what time and further research will show us
Winter 2013-2014 Discussion- Part 2
in Spring Weather Discussion
Posted
Seeing as the forecast is for ENSO neutral conditions during the Winter, I made a composite map based on all ENSO neutral Winters since 1950 (by using years with October to February Nino 3.4 average anomaly between -0.5 and +0.5).
For the individual winter months
........ ........December................. ..................January............... ........................... February
It is of course, just one factor among many, but interesting nonetheless.