Jump to content

Archived

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

noggin

General Climate Change Discussion.......

Recommended Posts

Can we have one yet, or do the "powers that be" want to wait a little longer for things to settle down? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we have one yet, or do the "powers that be" want to wait a little longer for things to settle down? :lol:

Yes. Feel free to continue the general discussion here.

I will say this though...... Should anyone decide to carry on as they did in the last thread, then we will be removing posting abilities for several weeks. No further warnings..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NCDC has June 2009 as, globally, the 2nd warmest on record:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/global.html

It is clear that the developing El Nino has had a large impact on the temperature anomaly, as the land masses came out close to what we've generally been seeing over recent months, but the oceans were warmest on record.

I don't expect 2009 to come out as the warmest year on record but we could see some monthly records tumble in the near future if El Nino takes hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NCDC has June 2009 as, globally, the 2nd warmest on record:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/global.html

It is clear that the developing El Nino has had a large impact on the temperature anomaly, as the land masses came out close to what we've generally been seeing over recent months, but the oceans were warmest on record.

I don't expect 2009 to come out as the warmest year on record but we could see some monthly records tumble in the near future if El Nino takes hold.

A very interesting read, Ian.

I do believe that the data are hinting at what a few us were expecting: that once El Nino conditions returned, so would warming? I may well be wrong, but I see no eveidence there for any sustained worldwide cooling. In fact, should El Nino conditions persist next year, I suspect a very warm 2010 may be in the offing? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with that Ian and Pete.

IF it does happen it will put the natural cooling factors into some kind of scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are individual days, weeks, months, seasons, even years irrelevant if they show a degree of cooling or colder than the trend, and yet a month of warming is somehow significant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are individual days, weeks, months, seasons, even years irrelevant if they show a degree of cooling or colder than the trend, and yet a month of warming is somehow significant?

I don't think anyone has said that - not in this thread?

I think people are saying we might well see warming, maybe exceptionally so, if EN carries on, but such months are no more significant to a trend that as many month of similar magnitude but cold would be. However, I do think record warm months are as significant (or not...) as record cold ones. I would certainly think it newsworthy if June had been a record cold month globally and I'll think the same if we see a record warm month sometime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the interesting thing though Jethro is that it's not just one month but since the start of 2008 when the warming started. As this Anomaly graph taken direct from NCDC shows.

As I said previously this is hardly a 2008-2009 cooling trend. If any natural cooling drivers are at play they are having no effect so far. Under consensus climate science the cooling, leveling off etc that occured in the middle of this decade was soley related to ENSO.

Pooh this new forum...! I try to insert an image and the boc appears off my screen with no way of getting to it, try to attach a file, press the button and nothing happens.

You'll have to trust me that the graph goes up and up with a very nice trend fit !.

Here's the data 2008 1 0.2108

2008 2 0.3684

2008 3 0.7310

2008 4 0.4389

2008 5 0.4450

2008 6 0.4856

2008 7 0.5117

2008 8 0.4758

2008 9 0.4528

2008 10 0.6216

2008 11 0.6038

2008 12 0.4982

2009 1 0.5459

2009 2 0.5036

2009 3 0.5254

2009 4 0.5985

2009 5 0.5219

2009 6 0.6192

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't keep up with your stance on ENSO Iceberg, one minute it accounts for warming and cooling, the next minute it doesn't. One minute there hasn't been any cooling/levelling off this decade, the underlying trend has been upwards, the next minute there has been cooling/levelling. You've argued elsewhere on here that "the climate varies and drops of the magnitude see in the last 18 months are part and parcel throughout" But now that seems to have changed?

I'm not being deliberately argumentative, you just seem to chop and change a bit. Any chance you can spell it out a bit more for thicko here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't keep up with your stance on ENSO Iceberg, one minute it accounts for warming and cooling, the next minute it doesn't. One minute there hasn't been any cooling/levelling off this decade, the underlying trend has been upwards, the next minute there has been cooling/levelling. You've argued elsewhere on here that "the climate varies and drops of the magnitude see in the last 18 months are part and parcel throughout" But now that seems to have changed?

I'm not being deliberately argumentative, you just seem to chop and change a bit. Any chance you can spell it out a bit more for thicko here.

Not really. I think my stance which I've tried to show in ENSO thread in the research section is that there is a general warming trend, that ENSO accounts for 90% of the short term i.e (less than 10 year) fluctuations of global temperature.

ENSO might lead to cooling or warming over a year. However if global temps reach the same temperature as they did in 98 but ENSO is less and ENSO accounts for 90% of the warming then the logical conclusion is that the base temperature trend has gone up between 98 and 2009.

Just like with the cooling La Nina in Jan 08 which lead to global temperatures well above the level we would expect.

On the otherside of the coin, If we again get record global temperatures in a year, but we have negative factors like low solar, negative PDO etc then these factors must either:

Not have very much effect

Have all of their effect on a time delay (I've seen that some of the effect might be time delayed but not most of it my a year or more.)

They have a large effect, but the effect of AGW is overwhelming them.

I'd be interest to see what the other possible reasons are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jethro,

I can understand your frustrations with some of the pro-AGW bias that gets circulated around in the mainstream but I think you are sometimes seeing things that aren't really there (e.g. with the confusion over Iceberg's views on ENSO, and prior to that, my views on the likelihood of 4-6C warming in the next century and the extent to which the oceans moderate the climate system).

The June 2009 data is the most notable piece of recent climate data so I thought it was worth posting it up, just like I thought it was worthwhile discussing the relative coolness of January 2008 which only just failed to produce a negative temperature anomaly. When January 2008 came along, people were speculating that this was the beginning of a long-term cooling trend. Now that we have June 2009 in, people are speculating that the arrival of El Nino might lead to a period of near-record global temperatures and an emphasis on the overall global trend still being upwards. I have consistently been of the view that the latter is the most likely but would be happy to be proved wrong.

To my mind the stats are still indicative of a long-term upward trend of 0.1-0.2C/decade, which may well be the result of AGW, though there are other modes of climate variability that may be adding to, or even detracting from, the warming from AGW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Feel free to continue the general discussion here.

I will say this though...... Should anyone decide to carry on as they did in the last thread, then we will be removing posting abilities for several weeks. No further warnings..

I must stand up and say that I am sorry for my previous posts, both by PM , and publically.

Sometimes (quite a few times, here, in fact) I get ahead of myself and my mere tiny brain; therefore, particularly to Dev, of whom I respect, I must apologise unreservedly.

Sorry guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

Unsurprisingly I agree with jethro regarding the selectivity issue. Unsurprisingly the AGW 'warmists' of the board will be quick to seize on some suspicious short term data. And yes, it is true that when an individually cooler month occurs (which like this dodgy June stat does not mean anything wrt to long terms climate trends) those same people will want to switch to long term analysis

However, putting those selective inconsistencies aside there is a big problem behind a lot of this current data anyway - especially wrt to the huge spread between satellite and GISS data. The SST warm-up of June is behind this 'well timed' statistical warm-up for sure, whilst the much cooler UAH data uses a greater global coverage. SST values for July are down from June - what will satellites show in July?

I'm afraid you are going to have to excuse my huge scepticism here, but how much political 'bend' is behind some of this, er, upwardly mobile temp data? Is there any, um, senate directive involved here wrt to upcoming calendar?? Also does Hansen have any involvement with GISS?

Whatever, I certainly smell a big rat at the huge spead in valuesdry.gif

Iceberg, to say once more, there has been NO warming since the end of the nineties!! That takes into account everything - alleged AGW, ENSO trends, continuing rises in CO2, the neutral and now only relatively recently increasingly negative PDO, solar which has yet to reflect the swing from long solar max to the deep solar min etc etc. You CANNOT factor in the negative switches in the PDO and Solar cycle because they have yet to feed through.

Lets not get too excited about an ordinary several month El nino event and try and pass it off as long term decadal climate warming hypothesis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with coverage If you just take the tropics then there is a big difference between UAH and the others and if you compare SST charts with the UAH tropics data for June, it shows really how far out UAH is compared to everything else.

Shall we see where Hadley comes out this week ?, surely there can't be the accusation that Hadley are changing their data for the US senate votes.

I would also add that the increase in Global temperatures, was very much predicted by alot of climate scientists and both myself and Android, so I don't think there is a big rat in the speed up as it was all as expected.

Finally are you saying that the negative drivers have had NO effect so far on global temperatures and ALL of the effect is time lagged ?.

If not then what percentage is time lagged ?, how much is the lag ? and where is there even the slightest thing to support this, I remember asking CB the same question and he pointed me in the direction of a few papers, however ALL of these said that it was only a percentage of the effect that was lagged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

It has nothing to do with coverage If you just take the tropics then there is a big difference between UAH and the others and if you compare SST charts with the UAH tropics data for June, it shows really how far out UAH is compared to everything else.

Shall we see where Hadley comes out this week ?, surely there can't be the accusation that Hadley are changing their data for the US senate votes.

I would also add that the increase in Global temperatures, was very much predicted by alot of climate scientists and both myself and Android, so I don't think there is a big rat in the speed up as it was all as expected.

Finally are you saying that the negative drivers have had NO effect so far on global temperatures and ALL of the effect is time lagged ?.

If not then what percentage is time lagged ?, how much is the lag ? and where is there even the slightest thing to support this, I remember asking CB the same question and he pointed me in the direction of a few papers, however ALL of these said that it was only a percentage of the effect that was lagged.

There is no immediate descent from a strong solar max into a deep solar min. Therefore a relative 'flatline'period is not to be unexpected. The temp trend of this decade mirrors that quite well in actual fact. The solar min cannot yet be determined - it is an ongoing phase. Potential lag from this is yet to appear. Regarding the PDO, similarly, there has not been an immediate dive from the positive conditions since the mid seventies which started trailing out early this decade and have only relatively recently gone negative. Furthermore there is GWO natural causes to bring into the equation as a large potential negative driver over the longer term.

All factors that will affect the jet stream trajectory and hence arctic ice etc, as well the consequences of the peterbation period switch that predisposes us to longer and deeper nina events and weaker and shorter nino events (such as 2009). Look how the atmosphere and global weather patterns have snapped back quickly to a more nina state despite the developing nino. Quite unexpectedly for them, I would suggest that one of the reasons that the Met Office summer forecast is not going as planned is because they have underestimated the greater propensity for the atmosphere to retain nina-esque qualities even during a nino period. No coincidence that any burst of warmth in June is being nipped in the bud - and it is not unreasonable to assume that global temps will correct as we go later through the year. How much of this is a factor in current 'spikes' and fluctuations to confound the data?

The 'rat' in truth probably covers ALL the current data. My suggestion would be that the truth lies somewhere in the middle and makes that alleged June second warmest stat something less noteworthy but reflects a sudden short term warming up of the ocean. Frankly the Hadley data will not prove much - and, lol!, the agenda there is much in allegience with the senate anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jethro,

I can understand your frustrations with some of the pro-AGW bias that gets circulated around in the mainstream but I think you are sometimes seeing things that aren't really there (e.g. with the confusion over Iceberg's views on ENSO, and prior to that, my views on the likelihood of 4-6C warming in the next century and the extent to which the oceans moderate the climate system).

The June 2009 data is the most notable piece of recent climate data so I thought it was worth posting it up, just like I thought it was worthwhile discussing the relative coolness of January 2008 which only just failed to produce a negative temperature anomaly. When January 2008 came along, people were speculating that this was the beginning of a long-term cooling trend. Now that we have June 2009 in, people are speculating that the arrival of El Nino might lead to a period of near-record global temperatures and an emphasis on the overall global trend still being upwards. I have consistently been of the view that the latter is the most likely but would be happy to be proved wrong.

To my mind the stats are still indicative of a long-term upward trend of 0.1-0.2C/decade, which may well be the result of AGW, though there are other modes of climate variability that may be adding to, or even detracting from, the warming from AGW.

No, I'm not. Really.

I do find it genuinely confusing. When the PDO was first mooted as being a large contributor to warming over the last few decades by us sceptics, Iceberg in particular was quick to dismiss it. Now I've asked for a clarification, the answer is, it was probably responsible for 90% of the warming - if memory serves me correctly, that's really quite a big step away from the previous discussions we've had.

If I've misunderstood either here or in the past, then I apologise but I find it hard to believe that I've remembered things so wide of the mark when the discussions have led to heated debate. No sceptic has ever said the PDO accounts for all the warming, so if Icebergs' pro stance had been 90%, I struggle to see why the debate ever got heated in the first place. I think that would have received widespread acceptance from us sceptics whose majority view is that AGW may have augmented temperatures.

I do find there is a large discrepancy in warm records being considered valid but cold ones not so. Yes, you are consistent in your views, but some are not.

I am puzzled where the 0.1-0.2 decade increase will come from when temperatures have levelled for some years now, a large ENSO spike cannot be considered. Also, as climate is not static, how is it possible to determine such a small variation is outside the bounds of natural variability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, the data are the data - or am I missing something?? If anything, I'd suggest that they show clear support for the hypothesis that 1998's excessive warmth was largely down to the strong El Nino??

So, what's the problem? The data lend support to the 'natural cycles' hypothesis...

Having said that, they don't point towards AGW theory being a scam!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If not then what percentage is time lagged ?, how much is the lag ? and where is there even the slightest thing to support this, I remember asking CB the same question and he pointed me in the direction of a few papers, however ALL of these said that it was only a percentage of the effect that was lagged.

I don't think I ever claimed that the full effect was time lagged. However, I did point you in the direction of a few papers, so there clearly is "the slightest thing to support this", to an extent at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the 0.1-0.2C/decade increase come from? Answer, it arises when you factor short-term variability caused by ENSO out of the equation. Crudely speaking a positive ENSO will raise global temperatures by up to 0.2C while a negative ENSO will reduce them by up to 0.2C. The state of ENSO was predominantly positive during the 1980s and 1990s and has been close to neutral during the 2000s. Therefore I would expect, on the basis of ENSO, a slight cooling in the 2000s relative to the 1990s, in the area of 0.1-0.2C. But in reality the temperature has flatlined.

Therefore my conclusion that the other influences on global temperature, when added together, probably contributed a warming of 0.1-0.2C over the last decade. Note that I stop short of attributing all of it to AGW though- other factors such as the PDO could well be contributing to that trend.

On the other question, as far as I can see Iceberg says he thinks ENSO causes 90% of short term variability and does not reference the PDO at all. I don't agree that the figure is necessarily as high as 90%, but it's certainly a large percentage.

Sorry North Sea Snow Convection but I have to take issue with your attack on those who quote the NCDC report. You say us 'warmists' are selectively quoting data but in fact you are no less guilty of this than anyone else- you claim the data is flawed when it shows warming, but remain silent on the potential flaws in the data when it shows cooling. With regards GISS being flawed, GISS is used by NASA, not by the NCDC, so to say GISS is flawed therefore the NCDC report is flawed would be a straw man argument.

I quote data because it is of interest, whether it shows warming or cooling, not to fulfil a pro-AGW agenda. By all means feel free to disagree with people's inferences from the report but let's have less of the "warmists vs sceptics" war please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I ever claimed that the full effect was time lagged. However, I did point you in the direction of a few papers, so there clearly is "the slightest thing to support this", to an extent at least.

Sorry for any misunderstand CB I know you didn't say it was all time lagged, I think the discussion was around how long the time lag was.

However the papers suggested that SOME of the heating and cooling of SOME drivers was time lagged, but nothing to suggest that anything near that needed to account for what is happening currently.

Again another Sorry I am not around much atm as I am starting up a new business, but I will be keeping an eye on a few things such as ENSO, Arctic ice, negative drivers and global temperatures as I think these are essential blocks and evidence around climate change science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for any misunderstand CB I know you didn't say it was all time lagged, I think the discussion was around how long the time lag was.

However the papers suggested that SOME of the heating and cooling of SOME drivers was time lagged, but nothing to suggest that anything near that needed to account for what is happening currently.

Again another Sorry I am not around much atm as I am starting up a new business, but I will be keeping an eye on a few things such as ENSO, Arctic ice, negative drivers and global temperatures as I think these are essential blocks and evidence around climate change science.

No problem :D

Good luck with the new business.

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

Where does the 0.1-0.2C/decade increase come from? Answer, it arises when you factor short-term variability caused by ENSO out of the equation. Crudely speaking a positive ENSO will raise global temperatures by up to 0.2C while a negative ENSO will reduce them by up to 0.2C. The state of ENSO was predominantly positive during the 1980s and 1990s and has been close to neutral during the 2000s. Therefore I would expect, on the basis of ENSO, a slight cooling in the 2000s relative to the 1990s, in the area of 0.1-0.2C. But in reality the temperature has flatlined.

Therefore my conclusion that the other influences on global temperature, when added together, probably contributed a warming of 0.1-0.2C over the last decade.

On the other question, as far as I can see Iceberg says he thinks ENSO causes 90% of short term variability and does not reference the PDO at all. I don't agree that the figure is necessarily as high as 90%, but it's certainly a large percentage.

Sorry North Sea Snow Convection but I have to take issue with your attack on those who quote the NCDC report. You say us 'warmists' are selectively quoting data but in fact you are no less guilty of this than anyone else- you claim the data is flawed when it shows warming, but remain silent on the potential flaws in the data when it shows cooling. With regards GISS being flawed, GISS is used by NASA, not by the NCDC, so to say GISS is flawed therefore the NCDC report is flawed would be a straw man argument.

If you read my last post I said that the truth may well lie somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, I have not remained silent regarding any potential flaws through a) suggesting the truth may lie in the middle and that, irrespective of my said profound distrust with leading AGW protagonsists, that any 'rat' may lie with ALL the data and, furthermore, I have given good reasons imo, and I think, analysis, in the overall picture for 2009 wrt to ENSO and influences on global weather and temp patterns and fluctuations. No straw men there.

Also quoting the NCDC report is not the same necessarily as agreeing with it. Just because one might state what it means it doesn't ALWAYS automatically follow on that you agree with it! Reporting something can be done from a neutral 'discussion' point of view.

But we all have to be prepared not to like any subsequent responses. All of us. And we shouldn't have to apologise for having sceptical views or for mistrusting motives within certain pressure groups. Therefore my own suggestions of politcal undertones within this context may or may not be true, but they are hardly anything new and controversial. And I wouldn't be the first to suggest them either by a long chalk. It is too bad if that is frowned on.

There IS selective use of data for making short/long terms trend arguements. It is nothing new - it frequently occurs on here and has done on both sides. So I'm not sure there should be any problem in me saying so here. Frankly, these days I will say though that it tends to occur more wrt to AGW analysis than sceptic. Speaking for myself, I have repeated more than once on these corridors the need for sceptical views not to take short term trends and events as proof of long term natural causational factors. That should work both ways

Wrt to your point about taking a neutral ENSO this decade and expecting a temp drop instead of flatline against the 1990s then you are cutting out all other climate drivers from the equation and therefore that makes the statement unrealistic. There is the lag from the positive PDO period from the mid seventies up till the start of this decade which has held temps up and there is also the ongoing effects of the large solar maximum. It could just as easily be said that against an ever rising C02 production supposedly feeding all these alleged hypothesised man made positive warming feedbacks, that a flatline is quite impressive against the expected and supposed trend, that has hardly followed the IPcc predictions to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe that's my problem: dad smoked, drove a car AND there was smoke pouring from a million chimneys...

There we go, that was my point to!!!......back to the pipe/van/valley.......;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...