Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

Do the members think......

Recommended Posts

1) The worst snow in China for 50 years.

2) Temperatures in parts of central Asia 20 degrees/even 30 degrees below average.

3) Worst snow for decades in Tehran, Bahgdad, Saudi Arabia.

4) Record cold in Georgia (former USSR) with lake frozen for first time in 50 years.

5) Temperatures way below normal in Mexico.

6) Record cold in parts of Canada and North America.

7) No real increase in global temperature over the past 10 years.

8 ) Cooling of the North Atlantic ocean temperature. (not to mention our lucky contingent of Scots who are enjoying (I trust!) snow aplenty!)

9) Not to mention ( :) ) the increasing number of predictions from assorted scientists re a coming cooldown.

All of this happening whilst, presumably, we are emitting as much, if not more, Co2 than ever.

Question......why all of this coldest weather for 50 years/record cold (fairly dotted about the globe too) and how come it is happening?

Answer........it's natural cycles, cycles within cycles and upon cycles

Although 'tis still only January, I look forward to seeing how many (if any) "hot" records are broken this year and what the global temperature will be.

I am genuinely interested in hearing how anyone can say that the recent (and now finished, as far as I am concerned) warm period was "man-made" and what is the justification for saying that it is not at an end?

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real test of this hypothesis would be whether there are a similar number of cold records going as warm records, and particularly, whether this has been the case, on average, over the last few years. You will always get variation either side of the average caused by natural cycles etc.

The lack of global warming over the last 10 years can be explained by the exceptional El Nino of 1998, so it doesn't disprove the notion that the global baseline is moving upwards. We would need to see a similarly intense El Nino, and not see a higher mean global temperature, to be able to make a fair comparison. The trend line, as it happens, is still upward over the past 10 years.

The North Atlantic Ocean has cooled since the exceptionally warm period from June 2006 to April 2007. But that doesn't prove anything either, since it's cooled from a record-breaking warm high.

We can't say that this is definitely not a case of the warming trend ceasing- and indeed, if global temperature remains stable for the next 5 years, there will be a strong case for the argument that we aren't warming any more. However, at the moment, it's more likely to just be a blip. 2008 will most likely be a fairly cool year by recent standards because of the La Nina, rather like 1999 and 2000 were.

Re. man made warming, all I can say is, there is a lot of science suggesting that human activity can influence atmospheric dynamics and thus climate, and CO2 is by no means the only greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases are by no means the only way that human activity can impact climate. There is no 100% certainty that the warming is "man made", but there is a high likelihood that at least some of it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why have our winters changed so much? Either my memory is very poor or it is much milder now than say 1980? I get told we are such a small landmass that our temperatures don't matter-i disagree-we are on the receiving end of some very powerfull Earth mechanisms(Jet/Gulf steam). I wholy believe the whole CO2 thing is about tax but i can not accept that our winters have not become mild(VERY).Recent winters showed a return to some colder weather but we seem to be back to a raging Atlantic and mild again B) man made? Not sure but if i had to say i'd say natural variation....i think!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the CO2 thing, in itself, is about tax at all. The 'tax' thing arises where the Government struggles to think of ways of addressing the issue that fall within the 5-year election short-termist thing, and don't involve taking any risks with the economy, and the easiest option is to raise taxes. It could cynically be seen as the Government using a genuine issue as an excuse to raise taxes.

I work with a lot of climate scientists these days, I can assure you there's no tax agenda involved, that arises when it's passed to the politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope...AGW is here and likely to get worse. We have a climatic equivalent of a fever at the moment; with new extremes as the global circulations are disturbed by more energy in the oceans and toward the subpolar regions and more intense impacts and feedback mechanisms. What impacts AGW has; of course is still debatable but the more I read and learn about it; the worse it looks.

Lets face it; humanity deserves a good kick up the backside. Just worried that by the time we get the first 'wake-up call' it will be too late to act and mitigate it.

If politicians really do believe in mitigating climate change...why the HELL is Gordon Brown extending our airports to such a degree? What a hypocrite he is coming across as. It would help also that politicians took heed of the letters I send them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7) No real increase in global temperature over the past 10 years.

8 ) Cooling of the North Atlantic ocean temperature. (not to mention our lucky contingent of Scots who are enjoying (I trust!) snow aplenty!)

Noggin, I continue to be at a loss to understand the reasoning behind point 7) if you take a look at this...

global-blended-temp-pg.gif

As for point 8, North Atlantic SSTAs are still up, have a look in the Free Data centre if you don't believe me. And, as one of the lucky contingent of Scots, there seems to be a view that all of Scotland has been a frozen wasteland, home to many a happy polar bear, this winter. The ski centres have done well, yes, but much of the rest of the country has seen the odd snowy day but not much else. January temperatures currently running between +0.2 and +0.8 above normal for the various regions (courtesy of http://www.climate-uk.com/page2.html © Philip Eden).

To answer your question, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure what the wheels are attached too, the chances are it was made in China and the wheels won't need much encouragement to fall off B)

Seriously it should teach a lot (not all) of AGW proclaimers including governments not to go down the heres another hurricane because of global warming path! Its the wrong road will lead to tears and is counter productive to environmentalism full stop. It's fine when you get warm summers or droughts but as soon as you get a couple of below normal seasons you are in the firing line and deservedly so.

A lot of you are well educated with both an understanding and interest in the subject but Joe public only see whats on the news or in their newspapers and thats where the damage is done.

I subscribe to good environmental policies because its our duty to be clean and tidy, and this should not be focused on weather or climate control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest diessoli
1) The worst snow in China for 50 years.

2) Temperatures in parts of central Asia 20 degrees/even 30 degrees below average.

3) Worst snow for decades in Tehran, Bahgdad, Saudi Arabia.

4) Record cold in Georgia (former USSR) with lake frozen for first time in 50 years.

5) Temperatures way below normal in Mexico.

6) Record cold in parts of Canada and North America.

7) No real increase in global temperature over the past 10 years.

8 ) Cooling of the North Atlantic ocean temperature. (not to mention our lucky contingent of Scots who are enjoying (I trust!) snow aplenty!)

9) Not to mention ( :clap: ) the increasing number of predictions from assorted scientists re a coming cooldown.

All of this happening whilst, presumably, we are emitting as much, if not more, Co2 than ever.

Question......why all of this coldest weather for 50 years/record cold (fairly dotted about the globe too) and how come it is happening?

Answer........it's natural cycles, cycles within cycles and upon cycles

Although 'tis still only January, I look forward to seeing how many (if any) "hot" records are broken this year and what the global temperature will be.

I am genuinely interested in hearing how anyone can say that the recent (and now finished, as far as I am concerned) warm period was "man-made" and what is the justification for saying that it is not at an end?

B)

You're mistaking weather for climate. It doesn't matter if we had record colds last year. The long term temperature trend is still positive.

Maybe the warming period is over as far asyou are concerned, but it is not as far as a proper statistical analysis of the data is concerned.

If you are really "genuinely interested" why the warm period is thought be man-made, read chapter 9 of the IPCC report and the referenced primary sources.

In (7) you claim that there was no real increase in temperature over the last 10 year. Would you mind explaining what data you are looking at and what methodology you use to determine that there was no real increase? And maybe define what you mean by "real".

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

9) Not to mention ( :lol: ) the increasing number of predictions from assorted scientists re a coming cooldown.

All of this happening whilst, presumably, we are emitting as much, if not more, Co2 than ever.

Question......why all of this coldest weather for 50 years/record cold (fairly dotted about the globe too) and how come it is happening?

Answer........it's natural cycles, cycles within cycles and upon cycles

Although 'tis still only January, I look forward to seeing how many (if any) "hot" records are broken this year and what the global temperature will be.

I am genuinely interested in hearing how anyone can say that the recent (and now finished, as far as I am concerned) warm period was "man-made" and what is the justification for saying that it is not at an end?

:)

Noggin, your lack of mathematical sophistication continues to betray you. Your whole thesis around temperatures cooling seems to be based on the fact that the current peak of global temperature occurred in 1998. Furthermore, to select individual points in space and time, and to project from there that we are cooling, is either naive or stupid. Have you checked to see how many unusually warm events have occurred over the period? Finally, and we keep returning to this point in discussions with both you and Jethro, climate varies because weather varies, often in very short cycles. That is why long period averages matter - they smooth out the short term variation, and the long period mean, however you care to cut it, is still resolutely upwards.

Where and who are all these scientists talking about a cooldown. I haven't seen any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick answer to the question - No

Slightly longer answer - Back in 1992 when i finsihed my masters in climate change I concluded that the evidence was unclear both ways, but what was clear is that the human race was having an unprecedented effect on the world and it would be unwise to think that that effect would not bring about instability (or change in pattern) of the global climate.

My personal view, now and at the time, is that AGW would bring about the things we are seeing in China etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quick answer to the question - No

Slightly longer answer - Back in 1992 when i finsihed my masters in climate change I concluded that the evidence was unclear both ways, but what was clear is that the human race was having an unprecedented effect on the world and it would be unwise to think that that effect would not bring about instability (or change in pattern) of the global climate.

My personal view, now and at the time, is that AGW would bring about the things we are seeing in China etc.

As a layman on the subject i would have to agree with you R.R.

The extra energy in the system that a 'warmer planet' brings must lead to more and more dynamic exchanges of temperature in the mid -latitudes. You need only look at the Arctic this winter (and the warm anom.s that keep intruding up there) to see the 'flip side' of this coin.

If we look back over the last few winters in Europe you will see some very southerly placed countries being blasted with unseasonal weather (Greece/Spain) whist we basked in unseasonal warmth.

As you say this 'transitional period' was always expect to bring large regional variations to climate (even without 'natural cycles aumenting the local climates) and this is all we are now seeing.

Most plants have a 'final bloom' before croaking (they do it as a last ditch effort to produce seed before expiring) so maybe we are seeing our planets 'old climatic systems' having its 'final Bloom'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have studied climate and climate change for 30 years and have formal training in this area. I have yet to be convinced that AGW exists or that CO2 has the effect that the "Consensus" says that it does. I too worry about excuses for tax increases and excuses for scientific research grants. I also worry that there is an alternative political agenda to reduce energy usage as we have capacity shortages on the way. Yes temperatures have risen but equally they could fall - as I expect them to over the next 10 years. Winters have been warmer but I believe this results from natural variation in circulation due to El Nino, La Nina and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't myself. All signs to me point to the fact that the AGW effect is accelerating.

To say that there has been "no warming" since 1998 is seriously misrepresnting the data and is very misleading. SF said why it is so no need for me to repeat his post.

Besids, 1998 being the warmest year is just cherry picking the data from one dataset. NASA's GISS and NOAA have 2005 as the warmest year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have studied climate and climate change for 30 years and have formal training in this area. I have yet to be convinced that AGW exists or that CO2 has the effect that the "Consensus" says that it does.

You've studied this for thirty year and you not convinced AGW exists, or even that Co2 is a ghg! Wow.

AGW must (an anthropogenic global warming effect) exist? You can't add a ghg to the atmosphere and not have an warming effect. The magnitude of AGW is in question that it exists isn't? Or do you not accept that CO2 is a ghg or perhaps even the GH effect exists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes CO2 is a GHG in the lab and indeed in the atmosphere BUT it is the other interactions that need to be studied and in my view the whole feedback mechanisim that results. I do not know if CO2 directly raises temperature because any rise created may also create a cooling mechanisim. e.g. Warmer sea, more cloud, warmer nights, cooler days. IF the cooler days outweigh the warmer nights it could be said that CO2 is causing cooling. Last Summer was a good example of this in the UK.

For me the interesting part of climate change is the resulting changes in circulation patterns. In which area these occur either N,S,E or West or indeed whether effecting continental or maritime areas. This in can have short term wather effects or long climate effects.

You've studied this for thirty year and you not convinced AGW exists, or even that Co2 is a ghg! Wow.

AGW must (an anthropogenic global warming effect) exist? You can't add a ghg to the atmosphere and not have an warming effect. The magnitude of AGW is in question that it exists isn't? Or do you not accept that CO2 is a ghg or perhaps even the GH effect exists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't myself. All signs to me point to the fact that the AGW effect is accelerating.

To say that there has been "no warming" since 1998 is seriously misrepresnting the data and is very misleading. SF said why it is so no need for me to repeat his post.

Besids, 1998 being the warmest year is just cherry picking the data from one dataset. NASA's GISS and NOAA have 2005 as the warmest year.

I haven't checked the Hadley timeseries, but the natural tendency of Noggin and co is to focus on the TOP of the bars. Equally compelling is to look at the bottom of the bars. If we aren't warming then how come we never get a remotely cold year nowadays?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes CO2 is a GHG in the lab and indeed in the atmosphere BUT it is the other interactions that need to be studied and in my view the whole feedback mechanisim that results. I do not know if CO2 directly raises temperature because any rise created may also create a cooling mechanisim. e.g. Warmer sea, more cloud, warmer nights, cooler days. IF the cooler days outweigh the warmer nights it could be said that CO2 is causing cooling. Last Summer was a good example of this in the UK.

C'mon :) . We both know this planet would be ~30 C cooler without ghgs. Why would negative feedback offset the warming due to extra ghg only when we add to existing ghg levels? Or if there are these significant -ve feedbacks how come the planet warms at all due to ghgs?

For me the interesting part of climate change is the resulting changes in circulation patterns. In which area these occur either N,S,E or West or indeed whether effecting continental or maritime areas. This in can have short term wather effects or long climate effects.

Oh I think a change to climate forcings will effect weather and climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't checked the Hadley timeseries, but the natural tendency of Noggin and co is to focus on the TOP of the bars. Equally compelling is to look at the bottom of the bars. If we aren't warming then how come we never get a remotely cold year nowadays?

I don't think that any one has denied that temperatures have risen. Any debate is associated with why and what will happen next. My punt and this is just my view, is that a levelling off will be folowed by a decline. The bad new is that it will take 5 - 10 years to be proved wrong or right.

C'mon :) . We both know this planet would be ~30 C cooler without ghgs. Why would negative feedback offset the warming due to extra ghg only when we add to existing ghg levels? Or if there are these significant -ve feedbacks how come the planet warms at all due to ghgs?

Would be cooler still without other atmospheric gases or hotter! Depends if day or night. There is a tipping point (politically correct term) where additional GHC may have no effect due to negative feedback. The beauty of all this is no-one knows anything for certain, not even the IPCC. The biggest unknown is solar radiation and the part that this will play during the next cycle. The current debate is a blink of an eye in climate history. Great fun though if you not take the dire warnings too much to heart and look at things purely from a scientific point of view. (PS Don't know how I put this in your post - sorry)

Oh I think a change to climate forcings will effect weather and climate.

The great question is how!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK same old arguments same old differences of opinion but what is wrong with good environmental policy which seeks to cut our emissions whatever the cause of GW? It does not matter what Dev of SF say there simply is not 100% proof of AGW, so these arguments will go on forever! All I ask is we as human's look at our excesses our needs and aspirations. We accept that humans are greedy and that is not going to change and we also realise that politicians are only in it for themselves, they pursue a career like anyone else.

The case for AGW is not proven but nor is the case against!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would be cooler still without other atmospheric gases or hotter! Depends if day or night. There is a tipping point (politically correct term) where additional GHC may have no effect due to negative feedback.

Is there? News to me.

The beauty of all this is no-one knows anything for certain, not even the IPCC.

You seem pretty certain about your tipping point...

The biggest unknown is solar radiation and the part that this will play during the next cycle. The current debate is a blink of an eye in climate history. Great fun though if you not take the dire warnings too much to heart and look at things purely from a scientific point of view. (PS Don't know how I put this in your post - sorry)

Oh, the old 'I look at things from a scientific point of view' - the implications being others (like me) don't. That's baloney of course, but it's a tactic that has impact - in that I/we go on the defensive and have to say I/we are actually interested in both the science and the truth (and that I've not said you arent...) but that probably wont convince you otherwise? Still it's better than being called 'headless chickens' - maybe that'll be next :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK same old arguments same old differences of opinion but what is wrong with good environmental policy which seeks to cut our emissions whatever the cause of GW? It does not matter what Dev of SF say there simply is not 100% proof of AGW, so these arguments will go on forever! All I ask is we as human's look at our excesses our needs and aspirations. We accept that humans are greedy and that is not going to change and we also realise that politicians are only in it for themselves, they pursue a career like anyone else.

The case for AGW is not proven but nor is the case against!

I think you are bang on both in that there is no 100% evidence either way and in spite of my leaning to non AGW I agree totally that the environment should be protected as far as possible given the world that we live in.

Is there? News to me.

You seem pretty certain about your tipping point...

Oh, the old 'I look at things from a scientific point of view' - the implications being others (like me) don't. That's baloney of course, but it's a tactic that has impact - in that I/we go on the defensive and have to say I/we are actually interested in both the science and the truth (and that I've not said you arent...) but that probably wont convince you otherwise? Still it's better than being called 'headless chickens' - maybe that'll be next :)

The issue is that some people get carried away with the sheep, mainly governments and the press. I am not saying that you do. All that I am saying is that there is a lot more to learn before we all get carried away. If we learn that you are correct then I will accept that. At the moment my personal opinion is that there is not enough evidence.

Let me give you an example, it was expected that due to AGW there would be more hurricane land falls in the USA last year. There were none. A paper has now come out saying that less landfalls are expected as a result of AGW. These people have far more knowledge than me, and I assume you but have a complete about turn in 12 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are bang on both in that there is no 100% evidence either way and in spite of my leaning to non AGW I agree totally that the environment should be protected as far as possible given the world that we live in.

The issue is that some people get carried away with the sheep, mainly governments and the press. I am not saying that you do. All that I am saying is that there is a lot more to learn before we all get carried away. If we learn that you are correct then I will accept that. At the moment my personal opinion is that there is not enough evidence.

I think you're entitled to your opinion. I think the case is stronger, I don't dismiss your pov but I do find it hard to accept, not least because questions like the ones I asked quickly come to mind.

Let me give you an example, it was expected that due to AGW there would be more hurricane land falls in the USA last year. There were none. A paper has now come out saying that less landfalls are expected as a result of AGW. These people have far more knowledge than me, and I assume you but have a complete about turn in 12 months.

I think this about the difference between weather and climate.

AGW is, of course, about climate, it's not really about individual years. So, no one worth noting, as far as I know, has made individual year predictions for hurricane numbers giving the change each year due to AGW. I've seen the changes in hurricane number trends over time due to anthro forcings offered but, again, not predictions for individual years.

I think that warming oceans might well provide the conditions for hurricane development more often, but other factors (like Saharan dust, or changes to 'shear' I believe) also seem to have an influence - but I'm also no expert.

Anyway, who made these predictions for the effect of AGW on 2007 hurricane numbers and who the revision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're entitled to your opinion. I think the case is stronger, I don't dismiss your pov but I do find it hard to accept, not least because questions like the ones I asked quickly come to mind.

I think this about the difference between weather and climate.

AGW is, of course, about climate, it's not really about individual years. So, no one worth noting, as far as I know, has made individual year predictions for hurricane numbers giving the change each year due to AGW. I've seen the changes in hurricane number trends over time due to anthro forcings offered but, again, not predictions for individual years.

I think that warming oceans might well provide the conditions for hurricane development more often, but other factors (like Saharan dust, or changes to 'shear' I believe) also seem to have an influence - but I'm also no expert.

Anyway, who made these predictions for the effect of AGW on 2007 hurricane numbers and who the revision?

Will try to find but off to a meeting now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will try to find but off to a meeting now

I know its a slight subject change, but I believe that ozone depletion plays a role in hurricane occurrences as it does ocean currents and maybe found to be playing a significant role in the failure of our ocean sinks. I think you can draw a correlation between the size and depth of the ozone hole with the numbers of hurricanes seen in that year?

Although it does not let CO2 off the hook I do think we are looking for a source of CO2 take up hindrance too. This is one of the genuine reasons I think that purely chasing reduced CO2 emission could result in very little change to global temps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...