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

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

To answer your question, no.

For they can not see what their minds do not wish to accept.

Regardless of the reason for the climate warming, only an idiot would deny the trend. Yes, only an idiot.

Calrissian: onwards...and forwards !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For they can not see what their minds do not wish to accept.

Regardless of the reason for the climate warming, only an idiot would deny the trend. Yes, only an idiot.

Calrissian: onwards...and forwards !

I do not think anyone is denying the trend, only the causes and the future trend are in debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Rajendra Pachauri (chairman of the IPCC) has something to say re global temperatures.......

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...n_recent_c.html

I'll see if I can find something more "robust" than this reportage, seeing as some people like it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. (No offence to the good Dr Pachauri.)

PS It's a shame, but the link to the Guardian article is no longer available. I'll have to dig around to see if there is any other reference to what he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Noggin,

Absolutely agree with your 1st post.

We just happen to be in the wrong place with regards to the synoptics.

Our recent mildish winter temperatures have nothing to do with AWG, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Noggin,

Absolutely agree with your 1st post.

We just happen to be in the wrong place with regards to the synoptics.

Our recent mildish winter temperatures have nothing to do with AWG, I believe.

Hi John,

....and I agree with what you say as well! I think the next few years will be very interesting. I am as sure as I can be that the "cold of old" will return to our shores before too many years are out.

I hope you get lots of snow to enjoy over the weekend! :D:)

regards

noggin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have warmed more than the global average, so synoptics are bound to be a significant factor in our warmer weather.

But if there is no global warming, why is the globe about 0.5C warmer than it was 30 years ago?

You could argue that it's all natural, which takes us back to the argument over the "A" part of "AGW". The article doesn't say that Dr Pachauri believes that global warming is ending or that none of it can be attributed to human activity, merely that he's prepared to give the plateau over the last 8 years further investigation.

I reckon, though, that the exceptional El Nino of 1998 had a lot to do with it. Natural factors causing variations, yes, but probably on top of an underlying upwards trend. If global temperatures don't reach record levels when we next get a strong El Nino, then we can suggest with some confidence that the rise is being arrested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what bandwagon? there is no such thing as an AGW bandwagon, just AGW. points 1 -8 have been dealt with ad nauseam on other threads. point 9 needs some backing up, its news to me. which scientists are predicting a 'coming cooldown'?

so, to answer the tabloid style question, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi John,

....and I agree with what you say as well! I think the next few years will be very interesting. I am as sure as I can be that the "cold of old" will return to our shores before too many years are out.

I hope you get lots of snow to enjoy over the weekend! :o :)

regards

noggin

Why do I suspect that you'll still be here in ten years' time spouting the same "bad luck synoptics". It would be "bad luck synoptics" if the rest of the world were cooling whilst we, in our small corner of the NE Atlantic, were warming. When pretty much everywhere is warming it points more to "fundamental change" than "poor draw of the cards". Some people just wont give up on the cold it seems.

...If global temperatures don't reach record levels when we next get a strong El Nino, then we can suggest with some confidence that the rise is being arrested.

That's a very fair test. Of course - when that happens it will be "this year wouldn't have set a record without El Nino".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have warmed more than the global average, so synoptics are bound to be a significant factor in our warmer weather.

But if there is no global warming, why is the globe about 0.5C warmer than it was 30 years ago?

You could argue that it's all natural, which takes us back to the argument over the "A" part of "AGW". The article doesn't say that Dr Pachauri believes that global warming is ending or that none of it can be attributed to human activity, merely that he's prepared to give the plateau over the last 8 years further investigation.

I reckon, though, that the exceptional El Nino of 1998 had a lot to do with it. Natural factors causing variations, yes, but probably on top of an underlying upwards trend. If global temperatures don't reach record levels when we next get a strong El Nino, then we can suggest with some confidence that the rise is being arrested.

Just to clarify my POV B) ........

I haven't said that there is no global warming.

I haven't said that Dr Pachauri believes global warming is ending or that none of it can be attributed to human activity.

Why do I suspect that you'll still be here in ten years' time spouting the same "bad luck synoptics". It would be "bad luck synoptics" if the rest of the world were cooling whilst we, in our small corner of the NE Atlantic, were warming. When pretty much everywhere is warming it points more to "fundamental change" than "poor draw of the cards". Some people just wont give up on the cold it seems.

That's a very fair test. Of course - when that happens it will be "this year wouldn't have set a record without El Nino".

You can "suspect" all you like, Stratos. "bad luck synoptics" are your words, not mine, as are "poor draw of the cards".

What does your last sentence mean...it seems tinged with sarcasm and I hope it is not aimed at me?

What do you think about what Dr Pachauri was saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add my two pennoth worth....

There are trends in climate, recent years reveal a trend for warming but if you look at the graph in Calrissian's post you will see in the fairly recent past, there was a trend for cooling. This dip is similar in magnitude to today's change, but in the opposite direction, in 1910 temperature was on average 0.6c cooler than average. Today we're 0.6c warmer and yet we're told this is beyond the realms of natural variation, the steep climb is a clear indication of our impact. Er, hello, look at the steepness of the slope of recovery from that cool period, look at the incline of the slope towards that cooler period. And the difference today is? As far as I can see, the only difference is we know we've added CO2, we know in a lab theoretically this should make us warmer, what we do not know despite all the hoohah is whether or not CO2 has made us warmer. Or by how much. Let's not forget for the theory to replicate empirically, the Troposphere should register equal or greater warmth; it isn't.

There is absolutely no proof that CO2 has caused the recent warming, none, nada. Despite the billions of dollars being spent, despite the authoritative tones of all concerned, despite the consensus, all we have thus far is correlation. Correlation does not equal causation .

As for recent levelling off of temperature, it is dismissed with "oh that's weather, climate is a long term measure, we need more information before reaching conclusions"; damn right we do. Trouble with this argument is the AGW'ers have been using the same argument for the last few years but from the other side of the fence. How come back in the early nineties, right through to now it has been right and proper to look at a snap-shot of a few years of rising temperatures as proof of warming? If it was and is acceptable to take a few years of data to prove we were warming, why is it not acceptable to do the same with temperatures levelling off? You can't have it both ways folks.

Weather is short term, climate is long term, we all know this. The arbitrary selection of the past thirty years is non-nonsensical in climatic terms, it's such a small window, it tells us nothing. From 1910-1940's we warmed as much and as quickly as we have in the last thirty years, today therefore is not unprecedented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Why would you need to 'check' re hot spots do you really think if we had

1) The worst heat wave in China for 50 years.

2) Temperatures in parts of central Asia 5 degrees/even 10 degrees above average.

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

4) Record heat in Georgia (former USSR)

5) Temperatures way above normal in Mexico.

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

It would be on the front 15 pages of every newspaper ?

Maybe he was looking for an explanation rather then the 'a leaf has fallen one day early' it must be due to global warming

Given the experts cant predict the weather 24hrs ahead , if this is happen globally it deserves more of a ‘debate’ rather then a dismissive response from the Global warming brigade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm afraid that if you post an example of weather to try and question a theory about climate you're not going to have any impact on those who know what the three terms mean.

Well said.

I think the writing is on the wall now wrt to AGW. The only issue is to the degree that it will accelerate or increase (still debatable and often over-ramped by doom mongers) as well as the intensity of impacts. I do think things are getting worse tho, and we must act to mitigate them as soon as possible. Its very important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm afraid that if you post an example of weather to try and question a theory about climate you're not going to have any impact on those who know what the three terms mean.

Global warming (very small amount) and its cause (the jury is still out) is a bit like the theory of the big bang

Its going to take a lot of evidence to push the 'theory' aside.

When you get the EC trying to do this

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511236&in_page_id=1770

You get tunnel vision

In 1975 it was global cooling

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

My post was more about the bias

Well said.

I think the writing is on the wall now wrt to AGW. The only issue is to the degree that it will accelerate or increase (still debatable and often over-ramped by doom mongers) as well as the intensity of impacts. I do think things are getting worse tho, and we must act to mitigate them as soon as possible. Its very important.

For who ?

Last winter, thousands of older people died, simply because of the cold

A bit warmer you save lifes etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the link for theory, further down the page it says:

Description and prediction

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".

[edit] Assumptions to formulate a theory

This is a view shared by Isaac Asimov. In Understanding Physics, Asimov spoke of theories as "arguments" where one deduces a "scheme" or model. Arguments or theories always begin with some premises - "arbitrary elements" as Hawking calls them (see above), which are here described as "assumptions". An assumption according to Asimov is "something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality.... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible." (See Occam's Razor)

I'd have said we're still, at best, at the hypothesis stage myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Noggin,

No effects of GW here today in Ireland, some nice wintry showers. :wallbash:

I think the sarcasm may be aimed at me, but I dont mind.

GW, Yes

AWG, Nah, I dont think so. ( I have given my reasons before)

Global Warming is having different effects in different parts of the world. The UK and Ireland have warmer temps, much more than the +.5C Global warming and China e.g. may have much lower change of temps than -.5C. Its just that the balance of where the higher and lower temperatures have changed (and thats where we are not having much luck (just for you SF). My belief is that yes the synoptics have changed, as a results of GW, and this is what is making the temps higher in our region, not the +.5C change.

And as you say noggin, this could as easily go in the opposite direction and we may not have to wait 10 years.

Just to clarify my POV :) ........

I haven't said that there is no global warming.

I haven't said that Dr Pachauri believes global warming is ending or that none of it can be attributed to human activity.

You can "suspect" all you like, Stratos. "bad luck synoptics" are your words, not mine, as are "poor draw of the cards".

What does your last sentence mean...it seems tinged with sarcasm and I hope it is not aimed at me?

What do you think about what Dr Pachauri was saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Love the link for theory, further down the page it says:

Description and prediction

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".

[edit] Assumptions to formulate a theory

This is a view shared by Isaac Asimov. In Understanding Physics, Asimov spoke of theories as "arguments" where one deduces a "scheme" or model. Arguments or theories always begin with some premises - "arbitrary elements" as Hawking calls them (see above), which are here described as "assumptions". An assumption according to Asimov is "something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality.... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible." (See Occam's Razor)

I'd have said we're still, at best, at the hypothesis stage myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses

I think this is saying that probability does not equal fact, even the probability of 1 only shows past results and may not be confirmed the next time you run the test. If at any time in the future any other result is achieved then the argument is disproved?

An analogy mentioned before with reference to AGW was that AGW is 4-1 (I would argue its much closer than that) with 10 mins to play, the balance of probability says AGW will win. But as the remaining 10 mins is an unknown AGW cannot proclaim itself as the winner!

By its own admission it only states itself as 90% sure of an unstated or unknown percentage impact on global warming. The term 'significant' is not a quantity and could mean 20% or 80%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Love the link for theory

Me too!

'In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

<snip>

a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. '

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest diessoli
Just to add my two pennoth worth....

There are trends in climate, recent years reveal a trend for warming but if you look at the graph in Calrissian's post you will see in the fairly recent past, there was a trend for cooling. This dip is similar in magnitude to today's change, but in the opposite direction, in 1910 temperature was on average 0.6c cooler than average. Today we're 0.6c warmer and yet we're told this is beyond the realms of natural variation, the steep climb is a clear indication of our impact. Er, hello, look at the steepness of the slope of recovery from that cool period, look at the incline of the slope towards that cooler period. And the difference today is?

You are not told that the warming is "beyond the realms of natural variation". The IPCC says

"It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been

unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This rapid warming is consistent with the scientifi c understanding of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientifi c understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity."

It is not fair to present a much simplified version of the "opponents" argument to show that it is wrong.

As for the difference between the early 20th century and today:

what about differences in aerosol concentrations?

what about being in a different part of a natural cycle?

As far as I can see, the only difference is we know we've added CO2, we know in a lab theoretically this should make us warmer, what we do not know despite all the hoohah is whether or not CO2 has made us warmer. Or by how much. Let's not forget for the theory to replicate empirically, the Troposphere should register equal or greater warmth; it isn't.

Do you have a source for that? The latest information I have read is that the warming in the troposphere is indeed consistent with our understanding.

There is absolutely no proof that CO2 has caused the recent warming, none, nada. Despite the billions of dollars being spent, despite the authoritative tones of all concerned, despite the consensus, all we have thus far is correlation. Correlation does not equal causation .

No we do not just have correlations. We have physical models (I am not talking about climate models) that tell us how CO2 behaves.

We also have climate models and sophisticated statistical attribution techniques.

Why don't you go and read the scientific literature to see what your "billions" are spent on.

As for recent levelling off of temperature, it is dismissed with "oh that's weather, climate is a long term measure, we need more information before reaching conclusions"; damn right we do. Trouble with this argument is the AGW'ers have been using the same argument for the last few years but from the other side of the fence. How come back in the early nineties, right through to now it has been right and proper to look at a snap-shot of a few years of rising temperatures as proof of warming? If it was and is acceptable to take a few years of data to prove we were warming, why is it not acceptable to do the same with temperatures levelling off? You can't have it both ways folks.

I don't know if has been "right and proper". Certainly not in the scientific literature. Some people will have and still are using single events as proof for climate change. This is wrong regardless of the direction of change that is argued about.

Weather is short term, climate is long term, we all know this. The arbitrary selection of the past thirty years is non-nonsensical in climatic terms, it's such a small window, it tells us nothing. From 1910-1940's we warmed as much and as quickly as we have in the last thirty years, today therefore is not unprecedented.

The choice of thirty years is not arbitrary. It is based on knowledge about variations and timescales in the climate system.

And scientists do not just look at the last 30 years. But they point out the last thirty years have been special.

Difference in temperature between 1910 and 1940: about 0.42, between 1987 and today: about 0.53.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike W

I agree with you diessoli, but 1910 - 1940 is 30 yers and 1987 to 2007 is 20 years so it an unequal measurement, you need to make sure they are either both 30 years or both 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For who ?

Last winter, thousands of older people died, simply because of the cold

A bit warmer you save lifes etc

That's an over-simplistic assertion. Certainly, mild winters, relative to the recent average, tend to have reduced mortality rates. However, when the climatic average shifts so that milder winters become the norm, people tend to become less prepared for cold, snow and frost, meaning that it takes less cold, snow and frost to reach similar mortality rates. You need to look no further than how most Eastern European countries cope- mortality rates due to cold aren't extortionate because the locals are more prepared for the greater cold and snow that they receive.

Thus, if we're talking a climatic shift (winters getting milder), as opposed to individual milder-than-average winters, the reduced cold, snow and frost will tend to be offset by lower preparedness for such weather. That, incidentally, is my main argument against the "it's selfish and wrong to want cold and snow because you're wishing more elderly people to die" kind of arguments.

On the other hand, we might see a similar negative feedback come into play in summer, with excess mortality caused by more extreme heat being offset by people being more prepared for it as it becomes less abnormal.

The main negative effects of a warmer world are likely to arise in marginal areas, like the Arctic, much of Africa, equatorial regions etc, where the populace may not be able to cope with such climatic shifts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest diessoli
I agree with you diessoli, but 1910 - 1940 is 30 yers and 1987 to 2007 is 20 years so it an unequal measurement, you need to make sure they are either both 30 years or both 20 years.

Thanks for pointing that out, Mike. The figure I wrote down is for the 1977 to 2007 period but I made a typo when writing 1987.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an over-simplistic assertion. Certainly, mild winters, relative to the recent average, tend to have reduced mortality rates. However, when the climatic average shifts so that milder winters become the norm, people tend to become less prepared for cold, snow and frost, meaning that it takes less cold, snow and frost to reach similar mortality rates. You need to look no further than how most Eastern European countries cope- mortality rates due to cold aren't extortionate because the locals are more prepared for the greater cold and snow that they receive.

Thus, if we're talking a climatic shift (winters getting milder), as opposed to individual milder-than-average winters, the reduced cold, snow and frost will tend to be offset by lower preparedness for such weather. That, incidentally, is my main argument against the "it's selfish and wrong to want cold and snow because you're wishing more elderly people to die" kind of arguments.

On the other hand, we might see a similar negative feedback come into play in summer, with excess mortality caused by more extreme heat being offset by people being more prepared for it as it becomes less abnormal.

The main negative effects of a warmer world are likely to arise in marginal areas, like the Arctic, much of Africa, equatorial regions etc, where the populace may not be able to cope with such climatic shifts.

Actually its quite interesting that GW probably helps save lives in the UK and we are campaigning to negatively effect ourselves? Perverse I know but a lot more people used to die from the cold in the winters of old then they don't now, the more Mediterranean our climate becomes the more beneficial its overal effects on the UK??

I guess there will be many areas of the world benefiting in the same way, so the question does have to be asked!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...