General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Gray-Wolf]

LOL, it's all rubbish. We have been conned. Wake up man!

And "they" are realising on that we have cottoned on.

Did you see about the Asteroid threat in the news yesterday? Straight after Copenhagen, co-incidence?

The thing is, we have known about this asteroid for a long time, nothing has changed, it is still progged to come within 18,000 miles of us in 2036. But now the Russians are suggesting that the world should "spend a few hundred million" on developin a prevention system. Well whaddya know?

As the Climate Change Industry enters administration, the Asteroid Research and Impact Prevention Industry is set up....

Beautiful.

Paul , check out the humongous positive SST anom that is currently filling the southern Pacific (dwarfing the El-Nino strip of heat) and tell me how you reckon this will translate as it inputs that heat into the atmosphere?

I've looked back and not been able to source a comparable anom in the records.

We know El-Nino sheds ocean heat into the atmosphere leading to 'hot' years globally (like the 97/8 Nino) so WTF will that anom do to temps this year coming? I do not think any of us disagree that we have elevated the atmospheres GHG concentrations .I don't think any of us would argue that our atmosphere can now hold onto radiated heat better than it could 50 or 100 years ago because of the higher concentration.

So 2010 will be blessed with a strong El-Nino and this huge heat source across the south Pacific. How do you expect global temps to be in 2010? Will Meto's predictions for a record warm year be proved true? Is this new feature going to be as frequent a visitor as the Nino? (2004 shows a 'mini' version of it so this gives it a 5 year cycle). Meanwhile our atmosphere captures it's portion of this 'new heat' due to it's GHG concentrations.

What teleconnections can we expect from this anom? we know what to expect of an El-Nino but this is comparable with the heat signature of the super-Nino of 97/8 and more and then has a 'strong' Nino sat over the top of it as well.

All the folk who are sitting back comfortably saying "AGW is nothing more than a scam" had better have a looksee and find a reasonable 'natural' way this feature has started to arise and also an explanation why we will not see global temps starting to skyrocket again from this point.

Folk will look pretty daft saying AGW is dead with record global temps being posted and ice volumes plummeting both North and south.

[jethro]

Pertinent to the gist of this current conversation:

http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&blog=Clark&pgurl=/mtweb/content/Clark/archives/2009/12/facts_myths_and_misconceptions_about_the_current_el_nino_1.asp

On a completely different note, I won't be around later so Happy New Year everyone!

[Iceberg]

He should really know better with these two statements.

Myth-We are in a strong El Nino. As defined by the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) we are currently in a moderate El Nino with a three-month period of greater than 1 degree C above average SST.

Myth-This is the strongest El Nino has been since 1997 and the second strongest since 1992. To put the current El Nino in comparison with others historically we use the ONI index (Oceanic Nino Index). This is defined as the three-month running-mean SST departures in the Nino 3.4 region. The following is a chart provided by CPC on other El Nino events in the past and their highest ONI index.

If he's following the development of El Nino he would have noticed that the last 8 weeks now have been above 1.5 (currently 1.9 and still rising), therefore when the figures come out in the first week in Jan, we will be in the strong El Nino zone. (due to the lag the figures quoted cover sep/oct/nov and so are a little out of date).

As to being the the second strongest El Nino since the big one 97-98, Again yes we will certainty break the 2002 El Nino, this is virtually a given.

It's a bit like wathcing a football match 80 mins in being 5-0 down and saying it's a myth you've lost the game. Nobody is seriously saying this this won't be a strong El Nino and that it won't be the strongest since 97.

Although I've picked up on these two things, alot of what he says makes sense, El Nino doesn't give a guarantee of anything re synoptic trends, the last 3 El Nino's before this one have all had different trends and this one looks to be following in the same footsteps.

Cheers

[Gray-Wolf]

I do tend to agree that many factors are involved in the teleconnections so some Nino's produce more impacts than others. Again I'm tempted to wonder what this other high temp anom will bring along with it.

We could be in for a very eventful 2010 if I can convert this excess temperature into excess energy in the system.

[laserguy]

I do tend to agree that many factors are involved in the teleconnections so some Nino's produce more impacts than others. Again I'm tempted to wonder what this other high temp anom will bring along with it.

We could be in for a very eventful 2010 if I can convert this excess temperature into excess energy in the system.

Believing that humanity as a whole can change global climate is one thing,believing that you can do it all by yourself is another,GW. Still,there's so much atmospheric cold around right now it's got a job on just to restore things to an even keel. Watch out for someone somewhere saying it's been the warmest December in the US,Europe etc since .

[paul tall]

Paul , check out the humongous positive SST anom that is currently filling the southern Pacific (dwarfing the El-Nino strip of heat) and tell me how you reckon this will translate as it inputs that heat into the atmosphere?

I've looked back and not been able to source a comparable anom in the records.

We know El-Nino sheds ocean heat into the atmosphere leading to 'hot' years globally (like the 97/8 Nino) so WTF will that anom do to temps this year coming? I do not think any of us disagree that we have elevated the atmospheres GHG concentrations .I don't think any of us would argue that our atmosphere can now hold onto radiated heat better than it could 50 or 100 years ago because of the higher concentration.

So 2010 will be blessed with a strong El-Nino and this huge heat source across the south Pacific. How do you expect global temps to be in 2010? Will Meto's predictions for a record warm year be proved true? Is this new feature going to be as frequent a visitor as the Nino? (2004 shows a 'mini' version of it so this gives it a 5 year cycle). Meanwhile our atmosphere captures it's portion of this 'new heat' due to it's GHG concentrations.

What teleconnections can we expect from this anom? we know what to expect of an El-Nino but this is comparable with the heat signature of the super-Nino of 97/8 and more and then has a 'strong' Nino sat over the top of it as well.

All the folk who are sitting back comfortably saying "AGW is nothing more than a scam" had better have a looksee and find a reasonable 'natural' way this feature has started to arise and also an explanation why we will not see global temps starting to skyrocket again from this point.

Folk will look pretty daft saying AGW is dead with record global temps being posted and ice volumes plummeting both North and south.

And will you look daft if we have a pretty normal year?

Mind you, I'm sure the climate change industry will fudge the global data to make sure that doesn't happen.

Do you work in the climate change industry by the way, as you seem to be its biggest fan.

[laserguy]

Do you work in the climate change industry by the way, as you seem to be its biggest fan.

Those who 'advocate' global warming seem to be the ones who can't bear the thought that things might actually be getting back to normal (huh?) and that there is in fact no grounds whatsoever for concern,let alone that we could 'tackle' the situation if it existed. I find that worrying. Anyways,signing off for a while - A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERY ONE OF YOU. I'm off to vent some CO2 from me homebrew !

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230183204.htm

[paul tall]

I didn't even bother opening the link because no doubt it will be fudged, biased, pseudo science saying that we are going to boil.

16 days lying snow in a row here. When did that last happen? 1963. See ya!

[laserguy]

http://www.scienceda...91230183204.htm

And from the very same organ....

http://www.scienceda...91230184221.htm

With the last two paragraphs being particularly salient here. That is of course if anyone can believe anything at all,these days. Ya takes ya pick.....

[rob48]

http://www.scienceda...91230183204.htm

I'd guess quite a few people would laugh at the preposterous nature of this article.

Talk about having your cake and eating it!

There's still doubt about the "scientific consensus" besides all the rest of it.

Looks like more desperation is creeping in.

[Devonian]

And from the very same organ....

http://www.scienceda...91230184221.htm

With the last two paragraphs being particularly salient here. That is of course if anyone can believe anything at all,these days. Ya takes ya pick.....

"In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere."

And if 45% of an amount that increases each years stays in the atmosphere what happens? The answer is not difficult

I'd guess quite a few people would laugh at the preposterous nature of this article.

Talk about having your cake and eating it!

There's still doubt about the "scientific consensus" besides all the rest of it.

Looks like more desperation is creeping in.

I can see nothing preposterous about it. What of it is IYO?

[laserguy]

"In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere."

And if 45% of an amount that increases each years stays in the atmosphere what happens? The answer is not difficult

The guy states quite clearly that the atmospheric fraction of CO2 has not increased over the last 150 years,nor the last five decades. I did draw particular attention to the paragraph containing that. And I'm not saying that the guy is right or wrong either way,merely highlighting the conflict of opinion even when coming from the same mouthpiece. 100% of anthro CO2 could stay in the atmosphere for all I'm concerned - it does not,can not and will not sway global temps one way or the other - that's what I'm saying.

[rob48]

"In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere."

And if 45% of an amount that increases each years stays in the atmosphere what happens? The answer is not difficult

I can see nothing preposterous about it. What of it is IYO?

The selective use of data and the manipulation of same, IMO.

ie: if the results show warming it's due to man's behaviour.

If the results show cooling it's nothing to do with man.

I also find the condescending manner of the argument quite insulting.

IMO.

[Guest diessoli]

The selective use of data and the manipulation of same, IMO.

ie: if the results show warming it's due to man's behaviour.

If the results show cooling it's nothing to do with man.

I also find the condescending manner of the argument quite insulting.

IMO.

The article in question makes no reference whatsoever to warming or cooling. As has been pointed out, it is a study about the fraction of anthropogenic CO2 staying in the atmosphere, not the CO2 concentration as such.

Some recent studies have shown a decrease of that fraction, which would tell us something about the behaviour of carbon sinks. This study has shown no change in the fraction.

Since humans are still emitting CO2, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is still increasing.

This is a brand-new study. Other scientists will look at the methodology and the data and try to reproduce the results. Over time we will see which result is more likely to be correct.

D.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

I didn't even bother opening the link because no doubt it will be fudged, biased, pseudo science saying that we are going to boil.

16 days lying snow in a row here. When did that last happen? 1963. See ya!

LOL - 2 bad winters and 3 grim summers in a row !!

GW - the Emperor's new clothes more like !!!

[Methuselah]

I didn't even bother opening the link because no doubt it will be fudged, biased, pseudo science saying that we are going to boil.

16 days lying snow in a row here. When did that last happen? 1963. See ya!

And "16 days of lying snow in a row..." says what exactly about global climate?

[VillagePlank]

A winter here, a summer there, does not nullify the AGW hypothesis. Besides, and this is a little naughty (using local weather) - with two consecutive cold winters, and, say, three, drab summers, why is it that the CET still hasn't fallen below 10C? The UK December, whilst cold, still hasn't offset the remarkably warm November ...

I have an idea why this is the case (hunt out and find the LI thread) and it's nothing to do with AGW, but observational evidence is observational evidence. The temperature anomaly is still way above the climatic norm (1970-2000) What you are seeing, perhaps (I haven't done the work so can't be sure) is that the weather we are experiencing has dipped below the 30 year moving climate average.

Edited January 2, 2010 by VillagePlank

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

A winter here, a summer there, does not nullify the AGW hypothesis. Besides, and this is a little naughty (using local weather) - with two consecutive cold winters, and, say, three, drab summers, why is it that the CET still hasn't fallen below 10C? The UK December, whilst cold, still hasn't offset the remarkably warm November ...

I have an idea why this is the case (hunt out and find the LI thread) and it's nothing to do with AGW, but observational evidence is observational evidence. The temperature anomaly is still way above the climatic norm (1970-2000) What you are seeing, perhaps (I haven't done the work so can't be sure) is that the weather we are experiencing has dipped below the 30 year moving climate average.

Nothing climactically happens overnight. A shift is occurring, where this shifts leads us to is yet to be seen...but it isn't upwards.

Re the CO2 latest research, very interesting read. So many 'natural' influences have been overlooked IMO and with all the empirical evidence continued warming to meltdown does not and never has appeared logical.

BFTP

[Devonian]

The guy states quite clearly that the atmospheric fraction of CO2 has not increased over the last 150 years,nor the last five decades. I did draw particular attention to the paragraph containing that. And I'm not saying that the guy is right or wrong either way,merely highlighting the conflict of opinion even when coming from the same mouthpiece. 100% of anthro CO2 could stay in the atmosphere for all I'm concerned - it does not,can not and will not sway global temps one way or the other - that's what I'm saying.

There is a tremendous lot of confusion about this.

The atmosphere fraction refers (as Diessoli points out) the fraction of the emissions of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere NOT the amount (fraction) of CO2 in the atmosphere. But, don't expect any of the sceptic blogs to explain that

The selective use of data and the manipulation of same, IMO.

ie: if the results show warming it's due to man's behaviour.

If the results show cooling it's nothing to do with man.

I also find the condescending manner of the argument quite insulting.

IMO.

So, it's wrong because you find it condescendingly argued? I think that's unlikely to change reality

Fwiw isn't it a little odd for people to argue a few weeks of cold weather says something about AGW but umpteen warm spells over the past few years don't?

Edited January 2, 2010 by Devonian

[MR EXTREMES]

Nothing climactically happens overnight. A shift is occurring, where this shifts leads us to is yet to be seen...but it isn't upwards.

Re the CO2 latest research, very interesting read. So many 'natural' influences have been overlooked IMO and with all the empirical evidence continued warming to meltdown does not and never has appeared logical.

BFTP

ive never seen a year like 2009 for climate warming stories it hit the headlines nearly every week,

it was like they know theres a shift in patterns but yet they still tell the story that a blank sun wont have much effect on our climate,

i know its only been a couple of winters here in the uk where its been cold but if you add the records that have been broken for cold in the usa in china and this year europe is very cold along with most of the usa its also not a regular feature for cold to have such an effect in places like texas ect ect.

a couple of years ago we were reading how bagdad had its first snowfall in 100years along with other places like vegas ect ect.

thease important factors in our global climate often take back seat if you have a thousand scientist screaming the same old warming story your expected to listen.

i myself am very skeptical i think our sun is,

and has over millions of years had more of a impact than some scientist want us to think.

but still a couple more years and we will know for sure,

the sun is still very low in activity and although up on 08/09 still very low,

if you put cycle 22/23 in perspective so lets wait and see.

at some point in the future a climate shift will happen either way it goes it will have

Catastrophic effects.

Edited January 2, 2010 by badboy657

[MR EXTREMES]

There is a tremendous lot of confusion about this.

The atmosphere fraction refers (as Diessoli points out) the fraction of the emissions of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere NOT the amount (fraction) of CO2 in the atmosphere. But, don't expect any of the sceptic blogs to explain that

So, it's wrong because you find it condescendingly argued? I think that's unlikely to change reality

Fwiw isn't it a little odd for people to argue a few weeks of cold weather says something about AGW but umpteen warm spells over the past few years don't?

i honestly cant argue with the fact that warming has happened the main point is why it happened?

was is high solar activity?

the 80s was cold but solar influence was not a factor then because cycles where lower back then 22/23 were pretty powerfull cycles.

also remember we were coming out of a mini ice age and perhapes we still are.

but one thing i do notice is that the pressure of global warming is absolutely wrong,

but keeping our planet clean and healthy is right.

sod putting money into something thats only had a few decades of research when the earth is millions or billions of year old when climate has been up and down through out history co2 has been higher lower aswell,

put the money into the nhs looking after the people that need it and better cleaner energy not because of global warming because its the right thing to do,

but instead of using fabricated idears then how about being honest political bodies are not honest there fake and i dont trust a single one of them.

Edited January 2, 2010 by badboy657

[Methuselah]

Nothing climactically happens overnight. A shift is occurring, where this shifts leads us to is yet to be seen...but it isn't upwards.

Re the CO2 latest research, very interesting read. So many 'natural' influences have been overlooked IMO and with all the empirical evidence continued warming to meltdown does not and never has appeared logical.

BFTP

Does this 'shift' idea have any supporting evidence, Fred - or is it just wishful thinking?? Have global temperatures started to fall? :unsure:

Happy New Year, mate!

[jethro]

So the sinks are healthier than we've been led to believe.

I've always maintained that an increase in CO2 is not, can not and will not over-ride natural cycles quite so easily as portrayed. If it were as simple as that hypothesis, the climate over the historical record would have been far, far more erratic than it has been.

This also indicates that warming in recent decades is far more likely to have been of natural origin, with at the most, a tiny percentage of extra warming being due to CO2.

This study also demonstrates why taking small chunks of time and expecting them to give a clear picture of the future is open to all sorts of problems - 30 years is way too short IMO.

[Methuselah]

So the sinks are healthier than we've been led to believe.

I've always maintained that an increase in CO2 is not, can not and will not over-ride natural cycles quite so easily as portrayed. If it were as simple as that hypothesis, the climate over the historical record would have been far, far more erratic than it has been.

This also indicates that warming in recent decades is far more likely to have been of natural origin, with at the most, a tiny percentage of extra warming being due to CO2.

'Morning Dawn. No streaking today?

I mostly agree with you, there...I'm not quite so sure about the extent of AGW, however; it could be greater or less than IPPC projections; then again, the IPPC might have it about right...Who knows? :blink: :unsure: