Global Warming

[Methuselah]

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).

But the fact that the globe is currently warming is in the public domain?

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.

Proof of what? :blush:

[snowsure]

But the fact that the globe is currently warming is in the public domain?

Proof of what? :blush:

I posted in a hurry! Oops.

If a model is released today that predicts a 5 year rise of GMST by, say, 3 deg C then that is a hint toward GW. Proof of the pudding will occur 5 years later when the GMST is measured.

So what I would like to see is a model that predicted todays GMST and local climate patterns 5 years ago. The proof I wish to see is one model which predicted the last 5 years maxima and minima. That would then be a good model to use to predict the next 5 years climate change.

The model needs to be 100% (or as near as damn-it) accurate.

Too much to ask I imagine.

It works both ways though. How many time have we read "...the next 5 years will show that GC is here." I have been reading that for about, well, 5 years."The day after tomorrow" should be suffixed "Tomorrow never comes!"

SS

[drgl]

arhh but they would say 5 years is too shot a period-even though we are being told that the increase has accelerated in only the past 20 years! I agree with what you are saying though-were the climate models 5 years back showing what has actually happened in the 5 years since? What are the models predicting for the next 5 years? Surely if in the next 5 years the models are spot on that's a big wake up call? Not everyone is saying the Earth is cooling, this seems to be getting confused. What many on here have said is they have observed a cooling of our winters in the past few years-not eactly hard after the wet, mild & windy winters of the 90's!!

[Snowly does it]

Surely the GW/GC debate is moot as the trend is warming? As stated above however this fact does NOT preclude research into possible future cooling influences any more than the important quest to prove definitively what has caused the current GW.

Paul, you say it beggars belief that anyone can talk about an imminent cooling trend? Sure, there are false theories of this and some bad science but surely you don't believe that it is impossible for such a thing to occur? Such a belief is as wrongheaded as saying 'the increase in global temperatures prove the world is cooling'

If someone provides a watertight argument that imminent cooling is upon us then that is what will happen, thats a big step from hopecasting it or providing dodgy evidence of course but it remains a very low level % chance as opposed to the much higher % chance of continued warming. very low % is by no means 0 unless maths has changed in the years that have passsed me by since school. Summing that up, we could abandon all research into cooling influences but what will that achieve next time one is upon us? Not all science should be dedicated to the here and now, just a goodly proportion.

[Dawlish]

Surely the GW/GC debate is moot as the trend is warming? As stated above however this fact does NOT preclude research into possible future cooling influences any more than the important quest to prove definitively what has caused the current GW.

Paul, you say it beggars belief that anyone can talk about an imminent cooling trend? Sure, there are false theories of this and some bad science but surely you don't believe that it is impossible for such a thing to occur? Such a belief is as wrongheaded as saying 'the increase in global temperatures prove the world is cooling'

If someone provides a watertight argument that imminent cooling is upon us then that is what will happen, thats a big step from hopecasting it or providing dodgy evidence of course but it remains a very low level % chance as opposed to the much higher % chance of continued warming. very low % is by no means 0 unless maths has changed in the years that have passsed me by since school. Summing that up, we could abandon all research into cooling influences but what will that achieve next time one is upon us? Not all science should be dedicated to the here and now, just a goodly proportion.

Completely true, Snowmaiden. I would never rule out the possibility of a cooling trend suddenly happening, but I would also not back rank outsiders, umless I had a real edge - like the knowledge to back my judgement of the extreme heat of last week. We must never abandon research into predicting future climate conditions, but in 2006, with the proven and inescapable trends to show GW, it still beggars my belief that anyone can believe that a change is immiment. I can appreciate hope and I can appreciate theory, but belief is very different. It implies something approaching certainty in the believer.

I believe the world is warming. There are measurements and stats that show this to be true, at this very moment and that's why I believe it has occurred and that it will continue. Though the continuation of that trend is impossible to predict with certainty, I'd go 20/1 against a verifiable change in that trend happening in the next 5 years. That's as close to statistical certainty as would persuade me that it is not going to happen.

Paul

Edited July 22, 2006 by Dawlish

[Snowly does it]

Completely true, Snowmaiden. I would never rule out the possibility of a cooling trend suddenly happening, but I would also not back rank outsiders, umless I had a real edge - like the knowledge to back my judgement of the extreme heat of last week. We must never abandon research into predicting future climate conditions, but in 2006, with the proven and inescapable trends to show GW, it still beggars my belief that anyone can believe that a change is immiment. I can appreciate hope and I can appreciate theory, but belief is very different. It implies something approaching certainty in the believer.

I believe the world is warming. There are measurements and stats that show this to be true, at this very moment and that's why I believe it has occurred and that it will continue. Though the continuation of that trend is impossible to predict with certainty, I'd go 20/1 against a verifiable change in that trend happening in the next 5 years. That's as close to statistical certainty as would persuade me that it is not going to happen.

Paul

Fair comments, and I am doubtful myself that cooling will occur in the immediate term. Hopeful of course, but doubtful. Lets hope its a cold winter though, if only for the sound of beards being scratched and eyebrows raised, lol :blush:

[parmenides3]

Dawlish: I'd say that 20/1 might be a tad risky for you, the site's pro tem bookie. At such a relatively short timescale, 5 years, there are several opportunities for the trend to ease, (not reverse). We could have several la Nina years; the predictably inconstant oscillations could go into a more 'negative' phase, and, last but not least, I haven't yet seen (I'm sure it's out there somewhere) much discussion of the possible short-term GC consequences of the current Greenland ice-melt situation, for example, the Jakobshavn outflow rate.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm no GC fan! Quite the opposite: at the moment, my personal intuition is that we are probably still underestimating the effects of AGW. But I'm tempted to take you up at 20/1... :blush:

[Dawlish]

Dawlish: I'd say that 20/1 might be a tad risky for you, the site's pro tem bookie. At such a relatively short timescale, 5 years, there are several opportunities for the trend to ease, (not reverse). We could have several la Nina years; the predictably inconstant oscillations could go into a more 'negative' phase, and, last but not least, I haven't yet seen (I'm sure it's out there somewhere) much discussion of the possible short-term GC consequences of the current Greenland ice-melt situation, for example, the Jakobshavn outflow rate.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm no GC fan! Quite the opposite: at the moment, my personal intuition is that we are probably still underestimating the effects of AGW. But I'm tempted to take you up at 20/1...

20/1 is safe parmenides. It would take much longer than 5 years for any verifiable trend to be identified!

Regards, Paul.

[parmenides3]

Re-reading your original comment, I'd agree: your wording was misunderstood (my fault). I thought you had meant a short-term 'trend', whereas you were, of course, referring to GW overall. Perhaps 20/1 against evidence of a reversal of GW in the next 100 years is even conservative!

Any idea whether the Greenland melt might plausibly temporarily reduce the SSTA & thereby produce a cooling phase?

[Dawlish]

Re-reading your original comment, I'd agree: your wording was misunderstood (my fault). I thought you had meant a short-term 'trend', whereas you were, of course, referring to GW overall. Perhaps 20/1 against evidence of a reversal of GW in the next 100 years is even conservative!

Any idea whether the Greenland melt might plausibly temporarily reduce the SSTA & thereby produce a cooling phase?

Probably not in our lifetime, parmenides, or our children's, or theirs, or theirs......etc. I really wish that the current obsession with this would just grind to a halt and then we could forget it for our generation. Unfortunately there is a wish to believe in something other, or extraordinary - it is the human condition, because we are aware - whereas, fortunately, those kind of events are massive, mass-life threatening and, this time fortunately, as rare as a hen's tooth buried in steak tartare.......but not, of course, impossible - and I've bought, yet another, lottery ticket tonight!!!

Paul

[parmenides3]

I tend to agree. Strange, isn't it, that we (collective) seek apocalytic disaster as a means of adding significance to our own lives. Of course we do: it's a rollover.

[Dawlish]

I tend to agree. Strange, isn't it, that we (collective) seek apocalytic disaster as a means of adding significance to our own lives. Of course we do: it's a rollover.

I know and this one has my name on it!!!

[Nick H]

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

Well there aren't more weather stations on the official network today anyway: the number of stations has decreased from c. 700 to c. 500 over the last four decades or so. Mainly due to the closure of RAF stations that have become superfluous since the end of the war. Coltishall in Norfolk being the most recent example I believe.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Nick H

[Gray-Wolf]

How dare we compare, in the same breath , data culled from 250yr old, thermometer based, screened temperatures from fixed stations ( within their own micro climates) with instantaneous Global monitoring?

Surely we draw a line under the 'pre-digital ' age as we do the 'stone age' or ,in the least, allow for the errors that must have occurred whilst recording data in so far as our global understanding of temperatures (max/min etc.) are concerned?

Edited July 24, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[Snowly does it]

How dare we compare, in the same breath , data culled from 250yr old, thermometer based, screened temperatures from fixed stations ( within their own micro climates) with instantaneous Global monitoring?

Surely we draw a line under the 'pre-digital ' age as we do the 'stone age' or ,in the least, allow for the errors that must have occurred whilst recording data in so far as our global understanding of temperatures (max/min etc.) are concerned?

The danger of that is it leaves precious little historical data from which to indentify where we stand in comparison to period of our past, surely?

Temperature monitoring 250 years ago was as accurate as the equipment allowed, not that innaccurate I would think, the Stewart/Jacobean era through to Victorian times was the age of great scientific advancement (as this is the age of technological advancement). It remains a useful reference point if nothing else.

To me, it is no more flawed than using the CET as a reference for an island climate.

[Stratos Ferric]

sensible post there Dawlish.

One has to look at the long term trends not just pick periods that suit a case for global warming or cooling. On almost every shred of evidence there is the change in temperature over the period in which we have reasonably reliable temperature records is UP not down. Sure there will, as you posted, be variability, but the overall trend is up. Just why is the really big question. Is it due mainly/entirely to 'man' or is it just a natural occurrence in which 'man' has had no part? As a meteorologist with many years experience I find it fascinating to listen to acknowledged expert climatologists from around the world. Most agree its largely man made but certainly not all.

Yet another fascinating aspect of the weather, this time climatology not meteorology.

John

Oh I don't know John. It always amuses me for about ten seconds whenever a cold day in winter (rare as they are) is invariably followed by comments here, and widely in the popular media, to the effect of "so what do the global warming fraternity have to say about that then?".

As I have said elsewhere today, presumably these same people if offered a game of "double or quits" on the toss of a coin, would still be calling "heads" after the coin had just landed on "tails" for about the 98th time in 100 throws, without ever starting to query whether, just perhaps, the coin is biased somehow.

[VillagePlank]

As I have said elsewhere today, presumably these same people if offered a game of "double or quits" on the toss of a coin, would still be calling "heads" after the coin had just landed on "tails" for about the 98th time in 100 throws, without ever starting to query whether, just perhaps, the coin is biased somehow.

As I am sure you are aware 98/100 is just as probable as 1/100. A random series always contains 'clusters' that do not describe an infinite series.

[edit]OK, I'm being a touch pedantic[/edit]

Edited August 1, 2006 by Wilson

[Dawlish]

As I am sure you are aware 98/100 is just as probable as 1/100. A random series always contains 'clusters' that do not describe an infinite series.

[edit]OK, I'm being a touch pedantic[/edit]

You aren't being pedantic Wilson, just slightly fat fingered. To get 1/100 has the same probability of getting 99/100, as long as the population is normally distributed around the mean (not 98!). Absolutely correct about clusters.

For me, assuming GW is happening at the same rate as it has since 1990 and assuming it will not be linear; in a small area, like the UK CET area, I would always go for: the next year (month, season) will have a 70% chance of being warmer than average; a 10% change of it being close to average (within 0.25C of the CET); and a 20% chance of it being cooler than average. If we have a mean for another area of the UK, the same principle would apply.

Globally, the situation is an aggregate and therefore less susceptible to chaotic influence, though the trend will still not be linear, I'd go for an 80% chance of a year (season, month) being warmer than the NOAA global average, 10% that it will be within 0.25C of the average and a 10% chance of it being a colder than average year.

Both of these could well be conservative, especially if GW accelerates.

Paul

[Gray-Wolf]

As has been posted (in one of these threads) recently the Pinatubo eruption 'queered' things in the early 90's so the linear trend of warming (if linear and not more logarithmic as I suspect it is) will reflect this period of arrested warming/cooling.

I would personally tend toward the classic 'hockey stick' graph (more logarithmic than linear) for warming trends as various 'environmental balance' features become eroded (ice fields/sheets ablating) leading to accelerated warming.

[VillagePlank]

I would personally tend toward the classic 'hockey stick' graph (more logarithmic than linear) for warming trends as various 'environmental balance' features become eroded (ice fields/sheets ablating) leading to accelerated warming.

It is therefore unfortunate that the 'hockey stick' graph has been shown to be the result of bad handling of data by Mann. The 'corrected' version still contains the apparent warming period late last century but shows it to be neither here nor there when compared to recent geological history.

Even worse Mann and his associates used a rather odd alogorithm to analyse his data, and this algorithm will turn anything into a hockey stick; including, apparently, trendless data generated by a computer.

This is no attempt to discredit work done by scientists in the quest for truth; even strong advocates of global warming remain shocked and dismayed at such abuse of scientific principles.

Now where's that IPCC report . . .

Edited August 2, 2006 by Wilson

[Dawlish]

It is therefore unfortunate that the 'hockey stick' graph has been shown to be the result of bad handling of data by Mann. The 'corrected' version still contains the apparent warming period late last century but shows it to be neither here nor there when compared to recent geological history.

Even worse Mann and his associates used a rather odd alogorithm to analyse his data, and this algorithm will turn anything into a hockey stick; including, apparently, trendless data generated by computer.

This is no attempt to discredit work done by scientists in the quest for truth; even strong advocates of global warming remain shocked and dismayed at such abuse of scientific principles.

Now where's that IPCC report . . .

True, Wilson; I feel it is best not to refer to the hockey stick graph - just a "warming trend".

Paul

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Wilson, I've enjoyed your input on the boards since I noticed you and hope this is set to continue!

My 'hockey stick' analogy was not an attempt to reinforce Mann's work but more a product of my own feelings on the subject.

I think that the planets temps through the 20th century will be found to have been moderated by various 'inbuilt' functions of the atmosphere/surface/oceans which are being pushed slowly and inexorably towards compromise and breakdown (man made Global dimming being an example of how these features work). As the 'functions' reach breaking point those moderating functions will cease to occur and the temperature graph will start to accelerate up wards. Each 'compromise' will add further strains to the remaining systems which, in turn, will fail (like a domino effect). The resulting trend will be a steep rise in temperature producing the 'hockey stick' plot. Sadly many of these feature will only be understood retrospectively (which seems common in this area of research as to have 'functions' accepted and understood in the increasingly muddied waters of climate change seems nigh on impossible).

Edited August 2, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

What's wrong with the 'hockey stick'? I've been reading 'Myth vs. Fact regarding the 'hockey stick' on Realclimate.org, and, according to that: a) Mann's work is not the only place the hockey stick appears by any means, there are dozens of comparable studies and There's nothing wrong with Mann's work.

The more I read (and it's not just Realclimate, or only 'pro-AGW'), the more I am convinced that the science and research continues to support the AGW hypothesis, and that the 'anti's' have yet to offer a convincing, scientific, counter-hypothesis.

[VillagePlank]

What's wrong with the 'hockey stick'? I've been reading ... on Realclimate.org, and . . . there's nothing wrong with Mann's work.

"Last year Mann and some colleagues set up a Web site, www.RealClimate.org . . ." from here about half-way down. Edited August 2, 2006 by Wilson

[parmenides3]

"Last year Mann and some colleagues set up a Web site, www.RealClimate.org . . ." from here about half-way down.

I can't see anything in the article which says that there is anything wrong with the 'hockey stick', or with Mann. I realise that Realclimate is a pro-AGW site; it wears its heart on its sleeve, so to speak. Do you feel that the material on Realclimate is unscientific, or unbalanced? Do you subscribe to the view that the 'hockey stick' is a false, or flawed result? Can you offer a rebuttal of the article I cited? These are important questions; I could do with some cheering up.