General Climate Change Discussion.......

[jethro]

'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:

Give me the snow and who knows what will happen..... sadly haven't got any, haven't had any, unlikely to see any around here

I think it's impossible to determine how close the IPCC projections are without first knowing far more about the Sun and impacts and how sinks/natural variation reacts to warming.

The oceans take up roughly 75% of the surface, our knowledge is minuscule - how can we reach an informed opinion, let alone projections for the entire globe when we know so little about 75% of it?

Anyway, enough already! I'm off out into the glorious winter sunshine, have a great day folks.

[noggin]

Fwiw isn't it a little odd for people to argue a few weeks of cold weather says something about AGW

I have to say something here.

For a couple of years now this "argument" has been used by the "AGWarmers".

How long will it take for it to sink in that the "couple of weeks" have actually become a couple (or more) of YEARS?

[laserguy]

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

No,I understood it perfectly well first time around,but didn't know Science Daily was a sceptic blog !! To clarify once again,the guy says that atmospheric CO2 (of all origins) has not increased. I'm not contending that one way or the other because I basically couldn't give a monkeys. He also reckons plants are losing the ability to uptake CO2! What's the current level supposed to be,about 380ppm? Pity those poor buggers in commercial greenhouses which are forced to suffocate in levels of 1000ppm+,then! As diessoli also points out,no mention is made of climate in there. You gotta ask in this day and age - why's that then? The cynic in me (and boy there's a lot of it!) leaps to the immediate conclusion that CO2's imagined role and extent must be played down for now,while worldwide weather (the jigsaw pieces of our climate) just isn't playing the game. Expect much more of this trend as time goes on and the awful reality unfolds. Somewhere in the annals of NW I said the winter of 09/10 would toll the bell on this whole farce. See what's happening out there in the big wide world,away from the fantasy land of those who keep on telling us it's been the warmest since whenever? Altogether now.... "it's in the pipeline"!!

[MR EXTREMES]

Give me the snow and who knows what will happen..... sadly haven't got any, haven't had any, unlikely to see any around here

I think it's impossible to determine how close the IPCC projections are without first knowing far more about the Sun and impacts and how sinks/natural variation reacts to warming.

The oceans take up roughly 75% of the surface, our knowledge is minuscule - how can we reach an informed opinion, let alone projections for the entire globe when we know so little about 75% of it?

Anyway, enough already! I'm off out into the glorious winter sunshine, have a great day folks.

dont worry i can join the no snow club but its coming im sure of that.

anyway back on topic ish has anyone read joe b last blog maybe some would think its harsh but he shoots down meto,

i think i have some sympathy for the meto they use the computers to do some of there work,

and i really feel that some other factors are needed to produce a good lrf.

jh gp and others seem to have done well this winter and last if i remember rightly,

but is this telling a story how the computers are ruling the weather world and getting it wrong.

in the long run it could be a dangerous game to play.

I have to say something here.

For a couple of years now this "argument" has been used by the "AGWarmers".

How long will it take for it to sink in that the "couple of weeks" have actually become a couple (or more) of YEARS?

and the poor summers.

not just here but most of the northern hemisphere.

for like you said a couple or more years.

No,I understood it perfectly well first time around,but didn't know Science Daily was a sceptic blog !! To clarify once again,the guy says that atmospheric CO2 (of all origins) has not increased. I'm not contending that one way or the other because I basically couldn't give a monkeys. He also reckons plants are losing the ability to uptake CO2! What's the current level supposed to be,about 380ppm? Pity those poor buggers in commercial greenhouses which are forced to suffocate in levels of 1000ppm+,then! As diessoli also points out,no mention is made of climate in there. You gotta ask in this day and age - why's that then? The cynic in me (and boy there's a lot of it!) leaps to the immediate conclusion that CO2's imagined role and extent must be played down for now,while worldwide weather (the jigsaw pieces of our climate) just isn't playing the game. Expect much more of this trend as time goes on and the awful reality unfolds. Somewhere in the annals of NW I said the winter of 09/10 would toll the bell on this whole farce. See what's happening out there in the big wide world,away from the fantasy land of those who keep on telling us it's been the warmest since whenever? Altogether now.... "it's in the pipeline"!!

i cant argue with what your saying it makes perfect sense.

but for this to continue,

trends in other aspects ie the sun jet stream ocean cycles ect ect need to continue no one really knows when the sun will explode into life it may well be this is the start of a longterm trend but to be honest nobody really knows.

one thing that is evident is that the climate is and has been cooler over the last few years and remember its also el nino year its also said that global temps have flatlined since 98 well im skeptical about this but if it is correct then unless the something drastic happens then maybe temps will go down.

its also evident its not just us having a old skool winter look at america i know they have regular cold winters but there to its caught alot of long range forecasters by suprise.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm still looking at that big fat warm pool below the Nino' signature 'streak' of equatorial warm;

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2009/anomnight.12.31.2009.gif

The run of warm (land /ocean) temps over the past 3 months must have some relation to this (and let's not forget the growing Nino' itself) so what the global temps for dec will be interests me.

As we move into the northern hem.'s summer will the high temp anoms shift north too?

The thing with CO2 is it is the last link in the chain (so to speak) as it captures the heat radiated back out.If some freaky natural cycles are pumping up temps (what is causing that sst anom in the South Pacific?) then all the more for our greenhouse blanket to capture. As for the knock on impacts of this added heat? well I'm sure the guys looking at our 'natural cycles' can input here!

Let us also not forget what implications a 'warm' northern hemisphere summer will do to our fragile,thin polar ice this summer and the ramifications of all that 'dark water' over autumn/winter next year.

With the Meto pushing for a record warm year we could have an interesting 12 months in front of us!

[VillagePlank]

Have global temperatures started to fall?

I don't think so.

I take the measurement of 'normal' to be where a period of time has as many positive anomalies as negative anomalies and the extent of those anomalies add up in such a way that the median is no anomaly (or an anomaly = 0C) With the (unproved) LI as a guide, my guess is that we are likely to see a few record-breaking hot years in the very near future - 2010 being a prime target since the warmth generated by the current El Nino seems to be finding it difficult to transport to the polar regions via Hadley cells - I think, probably, the very southerly jet-stream, is the cause of this.

Once the PFJ 'corrects' all that temperature has to go somewhere, so whilst spatial averaging might well be cancelling out the El Nino effect for perhaps the last month or two, the lag created by jet-stream blocking of the Hadley cells, means that it will all come very quickly and at once.

I categorise this phenomena as weather, not climate - and as a piece of opinion.

Climatically speaking (and I go into this in more detail in the LI thread) I think that the only way is up - although I think that the differences between high and low anomalies will get larger and larger (so colder winters, warmer summers etc etc) and I think that the extremely active solar signature of the lat 60 years will take at least two solar cycles to leak out - so that's 20-odd years of a continuing warming trend, or, at best, a levelling off - unless a series of significant volcanic eruptions occur which, according to the LI, have a dampening affect on solar activity.

Oddly enough a rapid cooling within the next 5 years, say, destroys the LI hypothesis if it is unaccompanied by corroberating factors of ENSO, Volcanic Activity, or Sea-Ice extent.

Edited January 2, 2010 by VillagePlank

[paul tall]

The trouble with "global" figures is the climate change industry can fudge them no problem. So many stations, so much data, use the ones that fit, know what I mean? Ker-ching.

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

17 days lying snow now Pete. And it's snowing now.

[VillagePlank]

The trouble with "global" figures is the climate change industry can fudge them no problem. So many stations, so much data, use the ones that fit, know what I mean? Ker-ching.

Ooohh - that sounds like a challenge. Would you like to take the freely available Hadley set, and produce three graphs from it: one that shows warming, one that shows a flat trend, and one that shows cooling?

Should be an easy fudge?

[MR EXTREMES]

I'm still looking at that big fat warm pool below the Nino' signature 'streak' of equatorial warm;

http://www.osdpd.noa....12.31.2009.gif

The run of warm (land /ocean) temps over the past 3 months must have some relation to this (and let's not forget the growing Nino' itself) so what the global temps for dec will be interests me.

As we move into the northern hem.'s summer will the high temp anoms shift north too?

The thing with CO2 is it is the last link in the chain (so to speak) as it captures the heat radiated back out.If some freaky natural cycles are pumping up temps (what is causing that sst anom in the South Pacific?) then all the more for our greenhouse blanket to capture. As for the knock on impacts of this added heat? well I'm sure the guys looking at our 'natural cycles' can input here!

Let us also not forget what implications a 'warm' northern hemisphere summer will do to our fragile,thin polar ice this summer and the ramifications of all that 'dark water' over autumn/winter next year.

With the Meto pushing for a record warm year we could have an interesting 12 months in front of us!

what nino lol oh yeah this one the one which will start to weaken durning march april.

also not a super nino as some predicted also data has already been poven to be tampered with.

still i go with a cooling trend but lets wait and see because those so far that keep blowing there trumpets are not getting it totally right.

Ooohh - that sounds like a challenge. Would you like to take the freely available Hadley set, and produce three graphs from it: one that shows warming, one that shows a flat trend, and one that shows cooling?

Should be an easy fudge?

well if theres three showing 3 trends then sound bloody stupid to me,

great way to put confidence in the public add the meto lrfs then where on a roll lmfao.

[Devonian]

No,I understood it perfectly well first time around,but didn't know Science Daily was a sceptic blog !! To clarify once again,the guy says that atmospheric CO2 (of all origins) has not increased.

No, sorry, but you are wrong - he is not saying that.

The airborne fraction means that fraction of emissions that stays in the air - not the fraction of the air that is CO2. So, say we emit 1Gt of CO2 and 45% stays in the air then the airborne fraction is .45Gt. If emission increase (and emissions have and will increase)while the airborne fraction stays at 45% the amount of CO2 in the air increases. That is what we see.

I'm not contending that one way or the other because I basically couldn't give a monkeys. He also reckons plants are losing the ability to uptake CO2! What's the current level supposed to be,about 380ppm? Pity those poor buggers in commercial greenhouses which are forced to suffocate in levels of 1000ppm+,then! As diessoli also points out,no mention is made of climate in there. You gotta ask in this day and age - why's that then? The cynic in me (and boy there's a lot of it!) leaps to the immediate conclusion that CO2's imagined role and extent must be played down for now,while worldwide weather (the jigsaw pieces of our climate) just isn't playing the game. Expect much more of this trend as time goes on and the awful reality unfolds. Somewhere in the annals of NW I said the winter of 09/10 would toll the bell on this whole farce. See what's happening out there in the big wide world,away from the fantasy land of those who keep on telling us it's been the warmest since whenever? Altogether now.... "it's in the pipeline"!!

Jam tomorrow eh

Edited January 2, 2010 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

Well, if there's three showing three trends, then that sounds bloody stupid, to me. A great way to put confidence in the public. Add the MetO LRFs, then we're on a roll, LMFAO

You'd need to take that up with Paul who claimed that manipulation of such data-sets is an easy fudge.

[laserguy]

Jam tomorrow eh

As the 'warmista' know only too well.... or will it be 2025,2050,2100 etc. Chill - we'll all be out of the game by then,and stuff the grandkids !

[Methuselah]

The trouble with "global" figures is the climate change industry can fudge them no problem. So many stations, so much data, use the ones that fit, know what I mean? Ker-ching.

17 days lying snow now Pete. And it's snowing now.

I'm quite sceptical as to the degree of AGW, but far-less so about the fact the the globe has warmed. By all means, ask pertinent questions. But, please, don't just make accusations of nefarious practice - that you cannot substantiate...

And, you're right enough - 17 days!

[paul tall]

Ooohh - that sounds like a challenge. Would you like to take the freely available Hadley set, and produce three graphs from it: one that shows warming, one that shows a flat trend, and one that shows cooling?

Why would I want to do that? I do not work for the Climate Change Industry. It is up to the industry to keep on throwing the fish to the seals, not me.

Also, the Hadley set, is that not just the CET? We are talking about "global" figures aren't we? 250 countries, 250 opportunities to fook it up and accidentally miss the cooler figures then.

We are being conned, this became apparant last month and there is no defence for what happened. The Climate Change Industry, and its Warmalist cult followers are trying to ignore the incident...

[VillagePlank]

Why would I want to do that? I do not work for the Climate Change Industry. It is up to the industry to keep on throwing the fish to the seals, not me.

Also, the Hadley set, is that not just the CET? We are talking about "global" figures aren't we? 250 countries, 250 opportunities to fook it up and accidentally miss the cooler figures then.

We are being conned, this became apparant last month and there is no defence for what happened. The Climate Change Industry, and its Warmalist cult followers are trying to ignore the incident...

The reason why you would want to do that is to have absolute confirmation that these evil guys are manipulating data to try and pull the wool over your eyes. If it's up to the industry to keep on 'throwing fish to the seals' and you feel obliged to criticise them, perhaps you'd best figure out how it's done? Just a gentle suggestion ... you can't keep casting accusations, when it is clear, you would not have a Scooby-Doo, how to (i) do it yourself, (ii) judge whether or not something is scientifically valid. That's not an insult, it's an observation. Incidentally, I count myself amongst those who don't have a Scooby-Doo, as well - although I am trying to understand the vast complexity that we call 'Climate Science' ... still a long way to go, though

The CET is the Central England Temperature and is the longest instrumental record in the world - but, it only covers, well, central England, not the global record. Has anyone ever told you that it gets warm in Australia this time of year?

Lastly, what happened last month? On a global scale, of course ....

Edited January 2, 2010 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

Yes I know that the CET is only the Central England series, therefore pointless making three graphs off it like you asked me to as it is not the global temperature.

The Hadley set encompasses measurements from across the globe, not just England - they are not the same thing. Sorry for any confusion - I said that a chart should be constructed, since it is apparently easy to do, for three different trends: indifferent, falling, and climbing against the Hadley set - HadCru raw data etc, not the CET set. Again, I apologise for not being absolutely explicit.

My point is only that it is NOT easy to do, and, therefore, it is NOT easy to nullify the AGW hypothesis.

Edited January 2, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

Happy New Year V.P.!

There is also the info on the changes in the way the polar weather has changed? Tri-lobal polar to bi-lobal polar?with a faster route North/South for air masses so we now appear to get warmth into cold areas faster and cold into warmer areas faster (someone mentioned Baghdad snow?).

I agree we have been blighted by being on the wrong side of a lobe of the Jet these past two summers but Europe proper had the 'right side' as the Med. droughts/wildfires show us.

As for warm into cold areas folk should look at Greenland's airmass at present.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

Happy New Year V.P.!

Happy New Year GW! Hope you have a good 2010 ...

Anyway, don't get excited, I haven't traversed to the 'other' side. I just want people to stop making accusations that are, even if you are in the 'know' impossible to substatiate. Of course, I am not in the know, and I am as clueless as just about everyone else around here - there are exceptions, of course.

Besides, it makes my task of looking for the null hypothesis so much harder because there is a natural reaction to those who look for conspiracy every which way they turn. Personally, I hope those who have been in the media, and, worse, blogosphere dock, had a marvellous xmas. The criticisms they have endured are clearly not welcomed, not deserved, and normally levied by those who are, frankly, ignorant. I wish them all the best from the very bottom of my heart. Really.

Science is science is science - and that's what this, and everything else on this area, is all about ...

I agree we have been blighted by being on the wrong side of a lobe of the Jet these past two summers but Europe proper had the 'right side' as the Med. droughts/wildfires show us.

Yes, the JS has been latitude low, since the polar troposhere height is trending in such a manner; however, it's back to near average, and, of course, I am expected some god-awful stinking hot year, this year. El Nino says it, AGW says it, even the LI says it.

Sun-block is required for my baldness, that's for sure!

(actually, probably - a cold winter for 2010/2011, followed by another stinking hot summer. Look out for severe autumn UK windstorms, in 2010, I reckon, following a rapid, but temporary, recovery in sea-ice extent late summer)

Edited January 2, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Why would I want to do that? I do not work for the Climate Change Industry. It is up to the industry to keep on throwing the fish to the seals, not me.

Also, the Hadley set, is that not just the CET? We are talking about "global" figures aren't we? 250 countries, 250 opportunities to fook it up and accidentally miss the cooler figures then.

We are being conned, this became apparant last month and there is no defence for what happened. The Climate Change Industry, and its Warmalist cult followers are trying to ignore the incident...

Well, that's the mud throwing out of the way, have you anything to add not involving said soil and water?

[VillagePlank]

have you anything to add [to] said soil and water?

Nope. I've soiled and watered myself ... ....

All the very very best for the New Year, Dev - I know we have our disagreements and arguments, but hey, yin wouldn't be without yang, huh?

EDIT: I did think of a 'you are the arctic' and 'I am the antarctic' thing but thought better of it - on the basis of good wishes to all

Edited January 2, 2010 by VillagePlank

[paul tall]

The Hadley set encompasses measurements from across the globe, not just England - they are not the same thing. Sorry for any confusion - I said that a chart should be constructed, since it is apparently easy to do, for three different trends: indifferent, falling, and climbing against the Hadley set - HadCru raw data etc, not the CET set. Again, I apologise for not being absolutely explicit.

My point is only that it is NOT easy to do, and, therefore, it is NOT easy to nullify the AGW hypothesis.

Aye, you're damn right it is not easy to do, in fact almost impossible for you or I to do. Too much fudge in the way.

Well, that's the mud throwing out of the way, have you anything to add not involving said soil and water?

Nothing I added involved mud and water, it was you that mentioned mud.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think I understand your intervention V.P., no matter what the future brings us (AGW ,Natural, a bit of both) understanding 'the now' is nigh on impossible itself given the breadth/variability of the parameters we need to understand/model.

Hats off to all those folk blessed with passion enough to seek the answers via the appliance of science!

Even the 'soil and water' play major roles I believe..... differing potential of wet and drying soils to fix/leach CO2 and the uptake of CO2 by 'muddy waters' (as it feeds the micro organisms) or sink failures as water temps rise?...LOL

I do think that we are in for a different kind of summer this year......even if it is just me begging the weather Gods for a tan and some dry weather over the summer hols to give the kids more 'outdoor time'!!! (not that all this snow isn't doing that for em'!!! another 3" to scrape off my paths......costing me a bomb in Talisker.... by the end of tonight my breath will be a Chinook. )

Edited January 2, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

Aye, you're damn right it is not easy to do, in fact almost impossible for you or I to do. Too much fudge in the way.

Out of interest, then, how does that stand with you claim that the numbers are fudged? How do you know they are, and how did they do it?

[Gray-Wolf]

I always thought fudge making involved very good control over temps

[paul tall]

Out of interest, then, how does that stand with you claim that the numbers are fudged? How do you know they are, and how did they do it?

We know they have lied through what came out in the recent scandal. Or did you just choose to ignore that?

We know there is a lot of money in this and a lot of jobs created in this field. Come on mate, smell the coffee.