Global Warming

[kold weather]

I agree Paul, I think the next year with a major El Nino wil lbreak 1998 record, possibly by quit some way if its during a solar max period as well.

As for the southern Hemisphere, I have a funny feeling that the reason why its showing less warming is simply to do with there being less major cities. Despite the jet streams spreading the C02 everywhere, it would be logical to assume that areas producing the most C02 will also see the most warming while areas that have, shall I say a Diluted amount of C02 such as much of the S/Hemisphere isn't so badly inflicated by warmer temps. Just an idea!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes....and No. According to NOAA, last year, 2005, was statistically indistinguishable from 1998. 1998 was also an El Nino year, whereas last year was not. One could have expected 1998 to have been comfortably warmer, however, the warming trend, 7 years on, allowed a non-El Nino year to challenge an El Nino year, for warmth. The next El Nino year should certainly provide a record Global temperature.

Paul

Hi TWS. As I hinted at, in my previous reply to Mr Sleet, I'm not terribly surprised that we have cooler Temps in the Southern Hemisphere, as it is a La Nina year.

Paul

PS Where'd you get the May figures from? I can't find them on the NOAA site and I have been checking every day for 4 days!

Paul

Look up on a search engine "NCDC Climate of 2006 May" and it will come up. For some reason it can't be accessed via the main site.

Interestingly the point about La Nina is no longer significant, as the NOAA survey showed that ENSO-neutral conditions have taken over, with the La Nina having dissipated during the spring. I have no idea why the land masses of the Southern Hemisphere were so cold, but synoptics were probably a factor.

There is a good chance that a strong El Nino would result in the 1998 record being beaten. Relative to 1961-90, the ENSO-neutral baseline around 1998 was for a +0.35C anomaly, now it is nearer +0.5C, so an El Nino of 1998 intensity would probably result in a year that was about 0.15C warmer. However, 1998 was an exceptionally strong El Nino.

[Dawlish]

Look up on a search engine "NCDC Climate of 2006 May" and it will come up. For some reason it can't be accessed via the main site.

Interestingly the point about La Nina is no longer significant, as the NOAA survey showed that ENSO-neutral conditions have taken over, with the La Nina having dissipated during the spring. I have no idea why the land masses of the Southern Hemisphere were so cold, but synoptics were probably a factor.

There is a good chance that a strong El Nino would result in the 1998 record being beaten. Relative to 1961-90, the ENSO-neutral baseline around 1998 was for a +0.35C anomaly, now it is nearer +0.5C, so an El Nino of 1998 intensity would probably result in a year that was about 0.15C warmer. However, 1998 was an exceptionally strong El Nino.

Thanks TWS. I found them. Strange that you can't access them through the site. I saw the ENSO neutral conditions too. The La Nina seems to have been a short-lived affair. Without that, I too am at a loss to explain the cooler Southern Hemisphere in May. The oceans are almost at their warmest ever and the land area of the Northern Hemisphere was in the top 10 warmest ever, again.

Overall, the month reflects the global Warming trend. If anyone has any thoughts on the southern Hemisphere continents being cooler in May, please say! Synoptics? Could well be. The land area of the Southern Hemisphere continents is much smaller than the land area of the Northern hemisphere and this could mean that a variation in land temperatures could be more pronounced, but I'm clutching at straws.

One thing to note is that it certainly isn't getting colder, Globally, and the warming trend is certainly intact.

Paul

[kold weather]

I suspect Paul that the S.Hemisphere is more prone to the sun cycles, I think my idea in the post above is my main back-up to that possible theory.

Just a quick question, but how many people live in the N.Hemisphere compared to the S.Hemisphere and I'd also be curious to see exactly how many of the top 10 producers of C02 come from the N.Hemisphere, probably nearly all of them....

[Optimus Prime]

I read somewhere (probably the Daily Mail) that although the himan population may be very high at 6.5 billion. If you include all the cars (450 million) that use oxygen and give out Carbon Dioxide, Sulphur, ect it equates to a human population closer to 36 billion!

It's got to be affecting the climate somehow?

Edited July 12, 2006 by Optimus Prime

[Guest Mike W]

cars or industry emmit very little if any at all in the way of sulphur dioxide and soot, thaks to very strict clean air acts, well strict on cooling pollutants anyway, as it does nothing to stop CO2 and other warming emmisions in any way whatsoever, which is why the warming looks as quick as it does, because we are now only emmiting warming gases instead of both warming and cooling gases, when we emmited botht he increase in Co2 was much slower and their are graphs available on the internet that show this.

[kippure]

Heres a link to a documentary on tonight 19.10 bbc world nesw channel

Click here

[kippure]

Opps they seem to have changed the time to 20.10 or 21.10 depanding where you are in the world.

Click here

[Thundersquall]

It's interesting our heatwaves are ocuring around the same time as the G8 Summit.

Maybe Global Warming will get more of a mention than if it was cold and wet!

[VillagePlank]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics, Mark Twain.

Undoubtedly graphs, and their associated source statistical data, are used to promote a conclusion.

This, in the realms of an Internet Forum, whittles down to an issue of trust, both in the author, the funding (as has already been pointed out), and the integrity of the source data in both its measurement, and the corrections made to mitigate the same.

The critical point to understand is what the graph (or summarised figures) is attempting to illustrate. In the case of anomalies against the mean, the critical reference point is the mean that has been chosen.

For instance, if you included the little ice age in the statistics undoubtedly the mean anomaly difference would be higher as the coldness of the period pushes the mean down. If you only include the recent warming trends, since the Industrial Revolution, then this, presumably, pushes then mean up, so that the anomalies appear smaller.

If you only included last year, and used that as your mean then your results, again, would be different (I haven’t tried)

In terms of the published anomaly difference which, presumably it’s opponents would argue, is from an agency promoting global warming, then why didn’t the authors extend the mean to include a colder period as it was only 100 years hence the current start of the mean period? I have no doubt that these figures could be exaggerated to promote a suspected agenda, but, I think, in this case they haven’t. So although not above suspicion, I am tempted to conclude that these figures are, in fact, good.

There is, of course, the question that when considering non-linear (chaotic) systems that a mean value is, essentially, meaningless.

Consider a river.

If we choose to only consider the last mile before the river turns to sea, then, one could argue, we could measure the effective height above a mean sea level of the river as a measure of rainfall that occurred up-stream.

I do not think that, on the face of it, this is an unreasonable hypothesis of indirect measurement. One does not need to delve into the details to find problems with this, though.

First of all sea-level changes with significant variability; it always has done, and will continue to do so without any intervention from the human race. There is, notionally, the concept that a warming world will increase this, and that we’re warming the world, but I shall leave that debate for another time. Secondly, with increased rainfall comes increased erosion both for the riverbed, and for the width of the river. It is entirely feasible that erosion ensures that the river can contain more rainfall without changing the height of the river.

In this case the system of measurement, the base of measurement, and the philosophy of measurement are incompatible for producing the required results which is to reflect rainfall. It should be noted that regardless of the ineptitude of this example, one could still present figures that are accurate, and repeatable; the point is that you are measuring the wrong thing.

I would prefer to measure volume of water flowing through a particular cross section, if I had to measure the river, and develop a function that maps actual rainfall, directly measured, to the volume of flow of water over a specified time frame.

Although we can consistently, and verifiably, show that the Earth is warming, is that actually indicative of the events that are purported to happen as a cause of this? Are we measuring the correct parameters against the correct frame of reference? I suspect that in many instances, actually, we are.

I simply think that readers should be aware that a reasonable peer-reviewed hypothesis and its related conclusion may indeed be convincing, but firstly, you need to be convinced that the answers you receive are answers to the question that should have been asked in the first place.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Wilson

[Dawlish]

Couple of points...firstly JH excellent 'old' head post "warm will follow cold and cold will follow warm" very wise words. EL Nino LA Nina affects the oceans and rainfall distribution and areas are milder wetter etc but is it global especially if they are 'weak' alomost neutral affairs. The fact that climate is not Linear is a very valid and important point IMO. Constant 'forcing' surely [if it was so strong an issue] would cause linear readings, well they have to at some stage otherwise there must be a 'natural' explanation...why is that not the case. Why was there cooling in the mid 20th century? Don't forget...over the last 25 years ther has been NO air temperature increase on a global scale...absolutley zero. And before?... well we don't know because these records are only 25 years old And that says it all...warmest on record means warmest since around 1880ish...or 11th warmest? To little time and to many ifs/buts.....I think the planet has warmed by 0.7C approx over the last century...but I think that is in line with natural response! Be green, do your bit but keep a very open mind...we may be causing problems...but then again mother nature may be about to cause US problems.

BFTP

HI BFTP,

GW will never be a linear process in a chaotic troposphere and ocean. Won't work.

Globally, June was the second warmest recorded. Again, the Northern hemisphere, which had its warmest June since records began was significantly warmer than the Southern hemisphere. The USA had its warmest June ever.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...lobal.html#Temp

With that kind of heat in the Northern hemisphere, we shouldn't really be surprised that records are falling. I still think that North Africa is the key to our current heat.

Paul

[John Cox]

On Topic.

I have had a lot of Global warming yesterday and today with 31C both days.

Off topic.

I am looking forward to a lot of global cooling this coming winter.

Sorry I am not being a little more technical but this heat and a few lagers ..........

[Dawlish]

On Topic.

I have had a lot of Global warming yesterday and today with 31C both days.

Off topic.

I am looking forward to a lot of global cooling this coming winter.

Sorry I am not being a little more technical but this heat and a few lagers ..........

You are forgiven John - this once anyway!

Wilson. Terrific again. Having measured the flow of many rivers in my time I can assure you that I never answered the question I should have asked in the first place.

I think.

hic!

[Dawlish]

I transferred this from the Hot spell thread. I hope you don't mind West, I just knew I'd be off topic!

Blast - I saw this post when I sneaked a peak during interviews in Yorkshire today and I'd like to respond.

I do have some sympathy with you and the fellow anti-GW clan (I won't put fringe for now!) about this. To my mind maxima are not necessarily proof of anything, neither are minima and this is where I probably part company with my friend Dave (TEITS). Maxima can be very notable, but the biggest records are the mean temps for me. If, for example, this turns out to be the warmest July on record then that is remarkable, noteworthy, and potentially much more indicative of something else behind it. It might even be the warmest month on record, although we have a long way to go to achieve that.

The best analogy I can give is from cricket. The supreme batting record that stands out head and shoulders above every other kind of record is without a doubt Bradman's test average of 99.94. For all the high scores (and he had some!), for all the sixes in an over, for all the fast centuries by far the greatest record is Bradman's test average. Why so? Because compared to the others it was so damned hard to achieve - 52 matches for just under 7000 runs over many years.

Likewise for me, the really significant temperature records are when mean records are broken. This month might yet do that, and if not will get close.

However, and now to contradict myself, are you being a tiny weeny bit churlish perhaps? What is interesting to me here, aside from all the local records broken this week and the 17th/18th/19th July records etc. is that in the space of 3 years we have seen 3 maxima records broken: all-time July; all-time* August; all-time maximum. Does this prove GW? Maybe not, because this is where the averages matter. If they continue to show a steady, albeit not linear, increase then you have to sit up. When maximum records also fall alongside the more significant averages then you can't really blame the media for writing up something that the in the scientific community is increasingly becoming the dominant view: namely that the world is getting warmer not merely by natural causes, but by humans too.**

Notes

* all-time = since records began

** humans are of course in one sense part of the natural order.

Well put West. I like the cricketing analogy too. Baseball is a game where the statistics seem to matter more than the play itself, but I can see where the fans are coming from. The best rack up the best average over a career and it is just impossible to ignore what those stats show. Boycott is one of my cricket heroes (being a white rose man, myself and, whatever you might think of his style, you cannot ignorethose 8114 test runs give hime pride of place in Yorkshire test batting annals and put him up there with the best England has ever produced. It is his test average of 47.73 that marks him as a world class batsman though, as far more tests are played nowadays and it is easier to surpass 8114.

My point is the same as yours, that we cannot ignore statistics. No one record shows GW, either date, monthly, seasonally, or annual record, but when these happen more regularly and the opposite, the cold records, stop hapenning, then you have to take notice. When almost every year that passes in the UK now gets in to the top 10 warmest ever, what else can it be showing except a warming trend?

The belief (well, it can't be a belief, it is a hope; because it hasn't happened yet, so you can't believe in it....can you?) in global cooling is based on a hope, or more usually a wish. People seem to either not want to believe in what they see in front of their face, or they want the climate to cool again, for their own personal reasons. Both cause people to look for things that may show what they hope for, or wish for and they become terribly blinkered and comments go along the lines of; "ah, we may have had a warmer summer, the 2nd warmest June globally, last year may have been the warmest since 1880 and we've had a few date records set.....but wait until this winter!"

In other words the GC people have to ignore the present evidence and look to the future, or they have no argument.

The other thing that the GC Camp (fringe, hallway?) do is to confuse GW with people-made GW (anthropomorphic GW). This allows them an argument in the present, as the cause of GW is not settled at all. It is a seperate issue, completely from GW, but it is not settled. If they can obfuscate the GW argument by subtly and constantly linking it to saying that we are not the cause, then it is possible to confuse and convince. I for one will try to not let that happen. When I see that link - and it is either quite deliberate, or it is done through ignorance and that is not a common characteristic of writers on here, I will try to point it out and correct the mistake.

The other way that the GC people try to convince others is by pointing to local areas which are cooler than surrounding areas, for a short time. eg, Western Europe had a cooler winter than average, in 2005-6 and if you use the 1970-2006 Manley series (a strange timescale to choose, when the series stretches back 350 years!), the winter in the UK was slightly cooler than average. I know of one particular poster elsewhere, who shall remain nameless, who constantly monitors world temperatures and posts areas which are much colder than the average, trying to convince people that the world is cooling. he did it all through last year, then simply would not accept that he hedn't shown GC, even when 2005 was the equal warmest year in the last 130!!

The last point illustrtates how the GC people people are capable of convincing themselves that black is white. It is a human characteristic that is amazing, but it flies in the face of science and statistics helps to fight it. You can only hold out, believing in something that is not correct, for so long, before you begin to ask yourself questions...but changing one's mind is impossible for many, because it involves backing down and acknowledging that someone else was right all along.

Paul

Edited July 20, 2006 by Dawlish

[West is Best]

Brilliant post Paul. I suspect Stratos Ferric will also thoroughly approve. Balanced and yet 'on the money'!

[Methuselah]

Brilliant post Paul. I suspect Stratos Ferric will also thoroughly approve. Balanced and yet 'on the money'!

Seconded!

A brilliant exposition of the validity of statistically-backed reasoning as opposed to wishful thinking...The World just isn't cooling. Period!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Dawlish

Interesting post, comes across in a certain manner shall I say...is it intended to get people's backs up?

Your lectures would be interesting to sit in on

West, I responded to your post in the thread you placed it in...it was written with tongue firmly in cheek

BFTP

Edited July 20, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Gray-Wolf]

I would also like to add my pennies worth. Paul ( Dawlish) has obviously found an acceptable way of wording his understanding of our predicament as there is a lack of rebuttals from the GC crew.

I am mindful of a little joke in Butch Cassidy & the Sundance kid about the chap falling off a building......7 th floor and still ok.....or some such thing! and I feel that this encapsulates majority of the developed worlds attitudes to (A) GW, so long as the Sh*t is only approaching the fan all is cool, when it finally hits the fan then they'll (the procrastinators) be moaning as to why nobody took any action to mitigate our situation.

I was fully aware of Boycotts career but being from the Red Rose county I preffered to watch paint dry (far more stimulating!!!)

Edited July 21, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

I would also like to add my pennies worth. Paul ( Dawlish) has obviously found an acceptable way of wording his understanding of our predicament as there is a lack of rebuttals from the GC crew.

I quite agree G-W...ad hominem attacks simply will not do!

[acbrixton]

Brilliant post Paul. I suspect Stratos Ferric will also thoroughly approve. Balanced and yet 'on the money'!

Yes indeed Richard: a post worthy of the redoubtable SF himself. Paul's realism and use of risk/probability in forecasting will be welcome once the rampedes start here (traditionally when the 528 dam line approaches Shetland in about 4-4 1/2 months time)

Kind regards

Andrew

[Dawlish]

I was fully aware of Boycotts career but being from the Red Rose county I preffered to watch paint dry (far more stimulating!!!)

Oi!

Paul

[Snowly does it]

Some excellent posts indeed.

I will just throw this out as a thought however. Anyone who says the world is cooling right now is barking up a very wrong tree, however, this is due to the fact that currently the world is warming. This much most right-minded folks will agree. The debate about cause is a sideshow (and not the kind full of freaks!).

All that being said, nothing about a current warming trend precludes scientific or speculative research into possible future cooling factors and it would be a very foolish sand-builder that mocked any such research (as long as it is not providing evidence contrary to reality).

I think a line needs to be drawn very clearly between erroneous propositions and serious possibilities and intrigues and there is a severe danger that all things 'cool' certinly are not in the popular view. The best way to fight error is to show why it is wrong, belittling the proposer just shows weakness in the belittler and fails to convert the proposer to the ways of righteousness. Human beings in general however are fairly poor debators or fairly poor winners. And thus the world stands still (A La Geoffrey of the corridor of uncertainty)

[BARRY]

i would like to add my two pennies worth

after living and working next to and on the sea for the last 36 years, i can honestly say that the tides are getting higher, weather this is due to GW or not, is open to debate?

Edited July 21, 2006 by BARRY

[Dawlish]

Paul Simons, in "The Tombs" today, scotches two arguments that I've heard before, from the global coolers:

1. That there are more weather station today, therefore it is easier to find areas that are setting records - but if that were so, there should also be more cold ones (which there aren't - Mr. Data; do you know when the last cold date record was set in the UK?).

2. That a Global Warming "conspiracy" (the words of Ross Clark, who doesn't feel that GW is happening) has removed the old Tonbridge record of today in 1868 (which a typo of Grauniad standards has put at 110.6F - it was, of course 100.6F). The equipment and the site used to record this record was just not good enough, even for 1868.

Paul finally goes on to say exactly what I put in my argument above; that record highs are being beaten with increasing frequency and the trend is still continuing. To believe that a change to a cooling trend is suddenly (and always) about to occur, takes a degree of belief that I find staggering.

Paul

PS To try to answer my own question; it could have been in December 1995, 10 years ago, that the UK December minimum went, but there may be one, or two, more recent, that Torro doesn't have on the site; wheras there have been at least 5 max date records in the last 12 months, (2 in Oct 2005 and the 3 last week) and a monthly record max last week.

Would any Global Cooler like to try to defend their belief that the world is cooling, or is just about to, against that kind of evidence?

Edited July 22, 2006 by Dawlish

[snowsure]

Paul Simons, in "The Tombs" today, scotches two arguments that I've heard before, from the global coolers:

1. That there are more weather station today, therefore it is easier to find areas that are setting records - but if that were so, there should also be more cold ones (which there aren't - Mr. Data; do you know when the last cold date record was set in the UK?).

2. That a Global Warming "conspiracy" (the words of Ross Clark, who doesn't feel that GW is happening) has removed the old Tonbridge record of today in 1868 (which a typo of Grauniad standards has put at 110.6F - it was, of course 100.6F). The equipment and the site used to record this record was just not good enough, even for 1868.

Paul finally goes on to say exactly what I put in my argument above; that record highs are being beaten with increasing frequency and the trend is still continuing. To believe that a change to a cooling trend is suddenly (and always) about to occur, takes a degree of belief that I find staggering.

Paul

PS To try to answer my own question; it could have been in December 1995, 10 years ago, that the UK December minimum went, but there may be one, or two, more recent, that Torro doesn't have on the site; wheras there have been at least 5 max date records in the last 12 months, (2 in Oct 2005 and the 3 last week) and a monthly record max last week.

Would any Global Cooler like to try to defend their belief that the world is cooling, or is just about to, against that kind of evidence?

As I may have mentioned on one of my other posts, there is current peer-reviewed research regarding global cooling however it is not yet public-domain stuff so the laymen of this world do not know what they do not know (Courtesy of D.Rumsfeld).

I still think that many people lack a degree of relativity regarding climate change. It is such a highly subjective concept that it will never be agreed upon. Pretty much like when the weather presenters say "It is going to be horrible tomorrow" and then preceed to show frost and fog (a very nice weather type for some people.)

Show me a model from 5 years ago that predicted the last 5 years weather patterns with 100% accuracy and then I will assume that it will be accurate for the next few years. I await the proof.

On a slightly different note, can we not precipitate the CO2 out of the atmosphere with some sort of chemical bomb? Any advances on that are appreciated.

SS