The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Roo]

Entirely accepted, Barrie - by me at any rate...though we have been here before, and will doubtless come here again!?!

Um, no....JG has sadly been dead for eight years, and would be 104 if he wasn't. And it was the last (decent) role that was secretly gay, not me. I'm sure, too, that (unlike me) Sir John would have leapt at the chance of a ride on your bike, especially if you promised to wear your leathers.....

ANYWAY.....back to the matter in hand. Roo/Cap'n Bob/G-W, I am very much enjoying your current exchange. Interesting, educative and refreshingly respectful (yet still sparky). See, everybody? We can do it. Thank you!

Ossie

Yep, all forgotten by me too! After all, if Osmposm says so, then I should too as I believe he was just what a young man ought to be! B)

And back to climate change...

C-Bob: how would you explain the dramatic difference in the graph in the christmas pudding?

Also, re expected chaotic graphs: aren't they just that? But within the bounds of a regulated system (which I know sounds daft, but what the heck).

Edited November 12, 2008 by Roo

[Admiral_Bobski]

Yep, all forgotten by me too! After all, if Osmposm says so, then I should too as I believe he was just what a young man ought to be!

And back to climate change...

C-Bob: how would you explain the dramatic difference in the graph in the christmas pudding?

Also, re expected chaotic graphs: aren't they just that? But within the bounds of a regulated system (which I know sounds daft, but what the heck).

Hi Roo!

One of the big differences between ancient records and the christmas pudding graphics is that the former are constructed from proxies and the latter are made from direct measurement. While I appreciate that scientists are very good at determining information from proxies, I don't see that it is possible to make a direct like-for-like comparison with physically measured data. Granularity is an issue, as GW has intimated a little while ago - modern measurements (whether one accepts them as gospel or not - I know that Anthony Watts takes issue with them, but that is not relevant rigt now!) cover recent decades, years, months, days and even hours. Proxies paint a picture with rather broader brush strokes. GW has pointed out that a period of a hundred years is virtually invisible in a graph covering 450,000 years - how can we be certain that such a trend as is currently occurring has not happened within the past 10,000 years, or 50,000 years, or 100,000 years?

With regards to chaotic graphs, I grant that the graph is pretty chaotic as a whole, but I was suggesting that the straight lines of the large peaks should appear rather more chaotic than simple straight lines.

On that note I must go (almost time to take the little angels to school). I'll try to get back later on, if I get the chance!

CB

PS - Thanks to osmposm for the vote of confidence! I hate petty mud-slinging and unsubstantiated nonsense as much as the next guy (or gal)! B)

[jethro]

Apologies for interrupting the CO2 flow but here's a bit more on the record October temperatures from GISS:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/11/sor...guilty-yet.html

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/11/res...idt-part-2.html

[Thundery wintry showers]

http://news.alibaba.com/article/detail/fin...th-warmest.html

Some info on the global climate of 2008- a fair bit cooler than many recent years, assisted by the La Nina earlier in the year, but a long way from providing sufficient evidence to suggest that the underlying warming trend has stopped.

Phil Jones's assertions about La Nina, El Nino and warming were, if I remember rightly, supported by Iceberg's graphs comparing ENSO signals with global temperature anomalies, which still showed a slight upward trend over the last decade when El Nino/La Nina were factored out of the equation.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...cience/el-nino/

Thanks for that TWS!

The above is a link to real climates efforts to extrapolate el-nino/la-nina from the picture and ,as with icebergs efforts, it shows continued warming (with the last 3 volcanic 'biggies ' well picked out).

For all the 'hoo-haa' that the recent La-Nina has caused with regards 'global cooling'in the Contrarian camp I dispair!. Come the next 'Nino event' I imagine we will see only be a sad acceptance from those who see warming as a 'real' and human influenced event.

Ho Hum.

[Thundery wintry showers]

http://www.realclimate.org/images/enso_corr.jpg

It is clear from the variability that ENSO is not the only cause of variability- for instance the downward "spike" of 1992/93 caused by the Mt Pinatubo eruption.

From the graph it can safely be said that the underlying ENSO-corrected warming trend has not increased in magnitude since the early 1980s, but it is far from clear that it has started to level off over the last decade either- indeed if you drew an ENSO-corrected trend line for 1980-2008 with a smoothing filter it may end up being close to a straight line.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/enso_corr_mon.jpg

Monthly data does provide rather more compelling evidence for a levelling off over the last decade but the trend remains upward.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Thundery wintry showers

[jethro]

Here's a paper from Professor Easterbrook on the subject of ENSO/PDO and climate:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...articleId=10783

[Thundery wintry showers]

This paragraph is simply mind-boggling:

The ramifications of the global cooling cycle for the next 30 years are far reaching―e.g., failure of crops in critical agricultural areas (it’s already happening this year), increasing energy demands, transportation difficulties, and habitat change. All this during which global population will increase from six billion to about nine billion. The real danger in spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that little will be left to deal with the very real problems engendered by global cooling.

...considering that:

1. his projections of 21st century temperature are for a slight warming of around 0.5C. Since when did that equate to global cooling? He predicts a cooling over the next 30 years- but only back to the levels of the early 1990s, hardly a major cooling event.

2. if we don't take action to phase in sustainable living- that by necessity involves some reduction of CO2 emissions- we'll soon run out of non-renewable energy supplies, and then be forced to make drastic changes instead of a gradual, managed change. Like the current global economic situation, if we try to maintain maximum, non-sustainable economic growth now, it may lead to greater economic ruin in the long-term.

People who argue about "spending trillions" always conveniently try to ignore this point as much as possible...

He does reference some papers, but I note that a large majority of them are his own papers, which doesn't inspire confidence. The link between PDO and temperature is interesting, but a bit of a chicken or egg argument- does a high PDO cause rising global temperatures or is it caused by rising global temperatures? Any long-term trend in the Pacific temperatures, notably, gets factored out of the equation:

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/08/03/on-the-re...an-temperature/

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that our oceans will start to play an increasing role in 'ironing out' our past climate variability. We have always been told to expect a 'lag' in warming due to the oceans capacity to soak up the heat for at least 20yrs. Current 'warm water events' across the Arctic,Greenland and Antarctica have me wondering whether we are now starting to see the oceans impacts.

I would lean towards the PDO not being quite what it used to be and even go as far as seeing it as a new pattern of warming driven circulation. Of course this is in it's embryonic form and minor reversals will occur but I feel we will now see it's function as a near permanent heat redistribution engine.

The rapid changes across the Arctic reflect this 'new' function and the 'novel' weather patterns that drove 07's melt are a response to this. The fact that a larger area of ice was melted this year compared to the record breaking 07 season (due to ice extent being in excess of 07's start point) and ice volumes hitting an all time low would seem to hint at ocean temps, and not weather patterns, being the real driver behind this recent acceleration of ice loss. The fact that an 'average year' (this year) climate wise can still lead to such losses in both sea ice and ice shelfs ,and have the North of Greenland experiencing record melt, cannot merely be the result of a PDO 'flip-flop'.

Once again though we are in 'novel times' and so have no data to measure against but the 'old' systems and only a decent amount of time (and the disastrous impacts) will convince folk that this is the 'revised' climate system as it responds to the built up heat stored in the deep ocean. Of course ocean carbon sink failures and an increase in acidification would also hint at the same process occurring.

On a completely different note I see the first climate 'refugees' are being relocated from their flooded islands and the Maldives are buying 'dry land' ready for their relocation.................I'm sure I will be told that this has all happened before but I think I'll need reminding of the evidence......unless it's the Black sea inundation at the end of the younger Dryas that is

[The Eagle]

Some info on the global climate of 2008- a fair bit cooler than many recent years, assisted by the La Nina earlier in the year, but a long way from providing sufficient evidence to suggest that the underlying warming trend has stopped.

That's an oxymoron if ever I saw one. Clearly the underlying warming has stopped globally at least for an unspecified period of time unless next year suggests otherwise. Whether that is for 2 or 3 or 4 years or even just a few months we obviously dont know but the reality is that globally the world has not warmed very much at all, if even, since 2001. 2008 sees the brakes finally applied and perhaps indicates a reversal in the trend. As you say insufficient for the moment but always keep it at the back of the mind!

Edited November 12, 2008 by Darkman

[Thundery wintry showers]

It's not an oxymoron at all because I'm thinking of the underlying warming trend you get when factoring the temporary variability caused by ENSO out of the equation.

[laserguy]

Whilst I'm laying low waiting for the prescription drugs to kick in and tame my ire,here's a good read.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/...climate-control

[Thundery wintry showers]

Right, since I'm in a mood for checking articles:

The "science reality" part simply insists that the AGW theory is a way of trying to con people to a particular way of thinking, like Freudianism and Marxism, and keeps restating that belief with no evidence,

The "virtual reality" part does make a legitimate point, namely that climate models are by no means perfect, but it presents a gross exaggeration of the truth, such as through absurd statements like this:

GCMs used by the IPCC have not been able to make successful climate predictions, nor to match the observed pattern of global temperature change over the late twentieth century.

In the past few months alone I've read at least two-dozen papers that refute this assertion out of hand.

Not all scientists in the climate community have maintained the dispassionate, disinterested approach that is necessary for scientific research.

...wrong, in fact if you're a researcher and you aren't interested in your subject, you're not going to get very far.

“The science is settled”, or, there is a “consensus” on the issue.” In reality, science is about facts, experiments and testing hypotheses, not consensus; and science is never “settled”.

Talking of oxymorons, this is one of the most gaping wide examples you'll ever find. Either the AGW issue is settled or it isn't. If it isn't settled, how can we be so sure that it doesn't exist?

This article is exactly the kind of denialist twaddle that gives climate scepticism a bad name. There are plenty of well-founded criticisms out there of the AGW theory, but instead of using them, let's say "AGW doesn't exist, therefore AGW doesn't exist", it's much easier...

[Iceberg]

That's an oxymoron if ever I saw one. Clearly the underlying warming has stopped globally at least for an unspecified period of time unless next year suggests otherwise. Whether that is for 2 or 3 or 4 years or even just a few months we obviously dont know but the reality is that globally the world has not warmed very much at all, if even, since 2001. 2008 sees the brakes finally applied and perhaps indicates a reversal in the trend. As you say insufficient for the moment but always keep it at the back of the mind!

Please don't take this the wrong way as many people are doing it, but don't confuse the underlying warming trend of climate over short-medium term global cyclical variability.

Just because a racing car has to slow down for an expected chicane it doesn't mean it's on a slow lap.

GISS has updated with the correct figure now and October comes in as the 6th warmest on record.

[Yeti]

For goodness' sake, 137 pages later and we're still having to say exactly the same things.

Just because the climate is warming overall does not mean that every single consecutive year has to be warmer than the previous.

Global temperature fell slightly after 1940, but this did not mean it never rose again. Indeed, it soon picked up again.

Another one that always gets mentioned is:

"There has been no year warmer than 1998"

So what? 1998 could have had an anomaly of +3c, and all the following years 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7 etc. Does that mean we are no longer warming?

[Solar Cycles]

Please don't take this the wrong way as many people are doing it, but don't confuse the underlying warming trend of climate over short-medium term global cyclical variability.

Just because a racing car has to slow down for an expected chicane it doesn't mean it's on a slow lap.

GISS has updated with the correct figure now and October comes in as the 6th warmest on record.

Yes your right there! So maybe we should extend that theory for 20-30 years, after all that is also a very short time span!

[laserguy]

"AGW doesn't exist", it's much easier...

.... and 100% true. I knew you'd shed the cloak,eventually. I've seen it coming .

[Admiral_Bobski]

.... and 100% true. I knew you'd shed the cloak,eventually. I've seen it coming .

Putting up the good fight for us skeptics with some cherry-picked information, eh LG?!

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

.... and 100% true. I knew you'd shed the cloak,eventually. I've seen it coming .

A. 5=2+2, because 2+2=5.

TWS. You could try to provide proof that 5=2+2, but no, let's just say 2+2=5, it's much easier...

A. Aha! 100% correct! You agree that 2+2=5!

No wonder there's so much idiocy going on among environmental policymakers when "debate" on the issue gets to this low a level!

[pottyprof]

A. 5=2+2, because 2+2=5.

TWS. You could try to provide proof that 5=2+2, but no, let's just say 2+2=5, it's much easier...

A. Aha! 100% correct! You agree that 2+2=5!

No wonder there's so much idiocy going on among environmental policymakers when "debate" on the issue gets to this low a level!

2.4 + 2.2 = 4.6

or if you round it..

2 + 2 = 5

Curious world..

Its not really a low level Ian.. Its fact and it happens. I call that 4.6 but such a small amount of error wouldnt have any effect on calculations further down the line... or would it?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think you've misinterpreted my post, as I was referring to the fact that I made a sarcastic swipe at the deniers who resort to "AGW doesn't exist, therefore AGW doesn't exist" type reasoning, and Laserguy cherry-picked a bit of my post, totally out of context, so as to make out that I agreed that he was right.

That's at a much lower level than, for instance, the issue of 2.4+2.2=4.6 above. And on a similar note, Pottyprof's post involves some independent reasoning as to why someone could argue "2+2=5". It doesn't just say "2+2=5 because 2+2=5" or "because I said so" or not bother giving any reasoning at all. Interesting point on rounding btw, I have to admit I'd never thought of it that way before.

[Chris Knight]

2.4 + 2.2 = 4.6

or if you round it..

2 + 2 = 5

Curious world..

Its not really a low level Ian.. Its fact and it happens. I call that 4.6 but such a small amount of error wouldnt have any effect on calculations further down the line... or would it?

2+2=11

2+2=10

2+2=4

Integer mathematics, no rounding involved, just depends on which base you use; base3, base4, or base>4

[Yeti]

This is all so pathetic I don't know why the thread wasn't closed long ago. People keep making the same errors time and again.

[Paul]

Yep, actually I think the time has come to lock this thread for now at least, it's all very circular at the moment, so perhaps the discussion will benefit from a break.