Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

General Climate Change Discussion Continued:


Methuselah

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

The output of the Sun (and no one denies that either Pit ...

As far as I understand it the output of the sun, which is measured as insolation, is, for all intents and purposes, considered a constant for current thinking with respect to climate modelling purposes. That would then lead to the negation of the claim that 'no one denies that'

Whilst it is accepted that insolation does fluctuate, in a general sense, the average is used; I think that the angle of insolation is included in day-to-day weather models, though, but, for instance, ten years ago - even day-length wasn't included (and I asked, too) - which is fair enough, since most modelling of the atmosphere goes on at 850hPa or higher, which keeps well out of the diurnal range.

Of course, anyone who has suggested that the activity of the sun should not solely be measured as insolation, but hitherto other much less understood aspects, have always been roundly criticised (Svensmark etc)

Indeed, the LI which presupposes that there is some hithero unexplained effect that is linearly congruent to sunspot count (as a proxy for solar activity) has met with such criticisms, even going as far to suggest that if that were the case, then the LI must be creating energy, since it would break some law or other (not true, btw) on the supposition that insolation is known to be more-or-less constant.

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

As far as I understand it the output of the sun, which is measured as insolation, is, for all intents and purposes, considered a constant for current thinking with respect to climate modelling purposes. That would then lead to the negation of the claim that 'no one denies that'

Whilst it is accepted that insolation does fluctuate, in a general sense, the average is used; I think that the angle of insolation is included in day-to-day weather models, though, but, for instance, ten years ago - even day-length wasn't included (and I asked, too) - which is fair enough, since most modelling of the atmosphere goes on at 850hPa or higher, which keeps well out of the diurnal range.

Well, averaged over a cycle the Sun hasn't changed very much - but I think it's accepted it has become rather more active up until the crrent cycle (though I've also seen Dr Hansen accpet the short term cooling effect of the recent prolonged solar cycle minimum).

Of course, anyone who has suggested that the activity of the sun should not solely be measured as insolation, but hitherto other much less understood aspects, have always been roundly criticised (Svensmark etc)

I think he's been criticed because his sceince doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Indeed, the LI which presupposes that there is some hithero unexplained effect that is linearly congruent to sunspot count (as a proxy for solar activity) has met with such criticisms, even going as far to suggest that if that were the case, then the LI must be creating energy, since it would break some law or other (not true, btw) on the supposition that insolation is known to be more-or-less constant.

Indeed, more or less constant. Any other effect are yet to be found let alone shown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

Indeed, more or less constant.

... and if it is more or less constant, then the sun can do what it wants and there will be no effect of the climate, or very little, here on Earth.

It's pretty obvious that I don't subscribe to that; for two reasons: firstly, gut feeling. It does get warmer when the sun is out, and it does get cooler when it isn't. For sure, that's weather, but, still, climate is the long term average of weather. Secondly, it is a defacto standard that very small changes in the initial conditions vastly affect the outcome over time- this leads, naturally, into the conclusion that the sun might only have to change very little to have a very pronounced effect on climate.

That you say other physical phenomena are yet to be qualified, let alone quantified, is entirely correct. But, in my opinon, it is far too early to write off solar influences with a conclusion that it is 'more or less constant' And, for instance, papers by Solanski (to name one) that negates solar influence post 1970 only do so on the basis of insolation.

I think that there is much room for further research.

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

... and if it is more or less constant, then the sun can do what it wants and there will be no effect of the climate, or very little, here on Earth.

I'm not saying the Sun can't vary, only that the evidence it has and is and will isn't available. Though see my *...

It's pretty obvious that I don't subscribe to that; for two reasons: firstly, gut feeling. It does get warmer when the sun is out, and it does get cooler when it isn't. For sure, that's weather, but, still, climate is the long term average of weather. Secondly, it is a defacto standard that very small changes in the initial conditions vastly affect the outcome over time- this leads, naturally, into the conclusion that the sun might only have to change very little to have a very pronounced effect on climate.

Which surely also mean a very small change in ghg conc etc etc (let alone a big change...).

That you say other physical phenomena are yet to be qualified, let alone quantified, is entirely correct. But, in my opinon, it is far too early to write off solar influences with a conclusion that it is 'more or less constant' And, for instance, papers by Solanski (to name one) that negates solar influence post 1970 only do so on the basis of insolation.

I think that there is much room for further research.

Plenty of people study the Sun, but I think the evidence is the Sun is more or less constant*. Indeed, it a very large round ball of gas (well, plasma?). Why would it vary over the short term? It's only a star because it's of a specific size and density and it's clearly not either gone out or exploded - it's been stable for bilions of years. No, I can't see a good reason why the Sun would vary more than it's 'constant' amount?

*Define constant :rofl: ...OK, varys around a watt per cycle and only changes long term as per stellar evolution?

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

There is mounting evidence that atmospheric pressure patterns are changing in mid-latitudes and in the Arctic, that atmospheric circulation -- the large scale movement of air -- is changing, and that these changes are related to the rapid buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and to the associated decline in Arctic sea ice. While some are using the recent frigid conditions in the U.S. and other regions to raise doubts about climate change science, a wider perspective instead reinforces the science and the need to seriously address climate change by reducing emissions and preparing for the impacts that are increasingly evident.

Looking through the article Gray-Wolf refers to, I think while it makes some good points, it does overstate the likely influences of AGW somewhat.

Taking the quote above, one common theory is that AGW has caused the atmospheric circulation to change via a stronger and more northerly tracking jet. Now that we're seeing the opposite of that this winter, they blame AGW- this is flawed in the same way as blaming individual extreme weather events on AGW.

If we have a long term trend in atmospheric circulation that moves outside the range of pre-AGW natural variability then it is reasonable to point the finger at AGW, but not because the atmospheric circulation is unusual in a particular winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

I'm not saying the Sun can't vary, only that the evidence it has and is and will isn't available.

Well, if sunspots are a proxy to solar activity, and they are, then the sun varies. Perhaps, you meant insolation reaching earth?

Which surely also mean a very small change in ghg conc etc etc (let alone a big change...).

Certainly does.

Plenty of people study the Sun, but I think the evidence is the Sun is more or less constant*. Indeed, it a very large round ball of gas (well, plasma?). Why would it vary over the short term? It's only a star because it's of a specific size and density and it's clearly not either gone out or exploded - it's been stable for bilions of years. No, I can't see a good reason why the Sun would vary more than it's 'constant' amount?

Hmmmm ... :nea:

*Define constant :nea:

My first, probably incorrect, guess, is a function that operates on a set, C where the set C always has a cardinality of one. If this is the case then the f(x) operating on C always returns the same value regardless of x, and is therefore constant such that a constant can be defined as ...

f(x) = C1

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Newton Aycliffe, County Durham
  • Location: Newton Aycliffe, County Durham

The sun will die in about 5 billion years after becoming a red giant.

Also, planet Earth will be uninhabitable within 1 billion years as the sun grows hotter. Oceans will boil away and life will cease to exist. Earth is already 4.5 billion years old so we could say we are already approx 4/5ths through the planets life cycle. Now like I said, in approx <1 billion years this planet will be uninhabitable, this will not happen overnight but will be an ongoing period of heating over (who knows?) what length of time?

I've often wondered, is the last 30 year warming to do with the sun, it is indisputable that the sun will get hotter over time, perhaps now is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

V.P. , and I'm trying my best not in any way to be antagonistic here, if the variance of the sun (which we have figures for) can have such a cumulative large impact on climate what of the GHG's we have introduced over the past 70yrs?

As far As my simple mind can observe CO2 trailed temps in the past and the only time it didn't was 55 million years ago when Gaia conspired , via fissure eruption and rock weathering, to push CO2 through the ceiling. In that instance we ended up with ice free pole (over winter) and sea levels a Shiite load higher than today.

We have to be patient but open to the possibility that our current 'blanket' WILL trap heat and so ,whilst in a period of natural cooling, we still must be vigilant for the signals of change.

Environmental lag seems to be carrying through previous warmth (via ocean temps) into the polar region interfering with the normal sequence of ice build. Dr Barber's paper on his exploits and explanation as to the similarity in signal from "rotten ice" and " old perennial" must have us all wondering how far beyond the Beaufort sea this anomaly exists.

Are we now at a point of seasonal ice in the arctic? (with no more 'thick ice' to weather through a summer?) we are soon (7 months) to find out and ,what does this imply for the rest of the climate system?

If a teeny variance in solar output can amount to such massive impacts what of a massive GHG impact once we have a 'warm year' (current ENSO/Massive souther pacific warm anom) mean?

Questions, always questions and always in the same direction eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

V.P. , and I'm trying my best not in any way to be antagonistic here, if the variance of the sun (which we have figures for) can have such a cumulative large impact on climate what of the GHG's we have introduced over the past 70yrs?

That is the question, isn't it :D

As far As my simple mind can observe CO2 trailed temps in the past and the only time it didn't was 55 million years ago when Gaia conspired , via fissure eruption and rock weathering, to push CO2 through the ceiling. In that instance we ended up with ice free pole (over winter) and sea levels a Shiite load higher than today.

Yes, the evidence presented does show this. However, the error rate on this is tens of kiloyears. The original papers that show this are excellent pieces of scientific work (Petite et al) but to take their work, with a known and published error rate, and map the findings to a period of time of approximately 200 years seems a little odd.

Environmental lag seems to be carrying through previous warmth ...

Are you sure that's the case? Now, where have I heard that idea, before .... :D

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Location: Edinburgh

http://www.dailymail...tarts-here.html

Now whatlaugh.gif ? Go on lads,jump the good ship AGW before it's too late.

Don't trawl that piece of egregious rubbish out - it's the Mail for goodness sake! Talk about them taking things horrendously out of context and using false arguments, as stewfox pointed out on another thread. The example of using increased sea ice from 2007 being but an example (and of course no acknowledgement of what sea ice is doing at present...). It trawls out the old mis-informed shocker of "they can't predict the weather and they're using the same models for telling us what happens decades from now", which is simply not true.

Pit, you sound like a geology undergrad who's just done Earth history (and I don't mean that as an insult btw, it just changes your reference point) - the point for here is whether we are changing the climate in a way that will then come back and damage us, or the wider environment (particularly due to the rapidity of change. Dev, GW and I among others here have seen enough evidence to be sure that is just what we are doing to the climate.

I can't agree with Dev on the Sun not being variable - I have enough astronomy to understand that the Sun is indeed a varable star on a variety of scales, just not by very much. Whoever suggested the sun might be showing signs of being on the way out... wait a few billion years! It is interesting, as Gray Wolf points out, that amplification of a solar signal into a climatic one seems rather more easily accepted than amplification of a GHG one (even though the mechanism is well understood for the latter but not for the former).

Great charts VP - I too wonder what some of those patterns mean. I'd like to have a closer looks sometime, as you say they are definitely not random! It's also a very important point that cold weather is still perfectly well expected in a warming climate (whatever the cause)!

I think the most interesting article is the one posted by GW: "Looking for Above Normal Temperatures? They are in the Arctic." [They're also in the tropics too btw]. But the issue about changing weather patterns in the Arctic, and indeed the possibility that it might lead to new, hitherto unobserved, patterns. A lot of talk 10 years ago was about the enhanced jetstream, based on what was being observed. Now we're seeing other effects (maybe in part due to -ve phases of multidecadal oscillations), which on a global scale have slowed the temperature rise but on a local scale may mean colder winters in the UK for a bit? But something that may genuinely be attributal to AGW??? [ONLY if the mechanism can be shown]. One thing is for sure, UK weather patterns have been unusual recently.

right, enough for now, too many interesting topics here!

sss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

Dismissing something doesn't make it wrong does it?

Please refute what I say with your own map or data please or I'll remain distinctly unimpressed by your 'argument'.

This one will do nicely

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/42000/42260/NorthHemLSTanom_TMO_200912.jpg

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

Lets pretend the actual details that make up that image have been left off by accident.

So here they are.

It's not an anomaly against the 70's 80's, 90's (any 20 year period at all tbh), it's an anomaly against the warmest 8 year period in recent history.).

It is only a land anomaly, (seas for the N.Hemisphere where warmer than average in December), Indeed even Christy admits that the n.Hemisphere was considerably warmer than average in December than the normal 79-00 period.

It always pays to understand what your looking at, it's an example of a negative AO and the effects on temperature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Yes, Fred. Of course the globe's cooling! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Location: Edinburgh

Wow,cool your boots... and see my post under 'Global Cooling'smile.gif .

Hey BFTP... I take it that's before 'adjustments'whistling.gif ?

Hi lg, I'm cool cold.gif just made some observations there. Well, actually warming up here and the snow is melting... must be Global Warming biggrin.gif. Am not going to give the Daily Mail article any more attention than it deserves, and am afraid nor the denier-esque blog you linked me to, where the blogger even admits he doesn't know anything about climate science, yet is quite happy to blog about it!! There is a serious issue about media reporting on this subject as they clearly have no concept of the difference between weather and climate, and you cannot connect climate to one single weather event. Reporters get latched onto one aspect without understanding the bigger concepts and end up misleading their readers... which of course some of them are happy to do anyway!

For example - big floods / extreme temperatures happen... media reports that it's all to do with AGW, yet it's a 1 in 200 year event that should happen sometime. Is it any more valid to do this with a story like that, rather than our recent cold spell? No, of course not, but the floods / extreme temps may be the more remarkable event. It's all about means and departures from the mean - particularly if the mean is headed into uncharted territory, resulting in the corresponding departure from the mean being perhaps more remarkable, or in more uncharted territory.

BFTP, see Iceberg's comments re the baseline, additionally remember that this projection is not equal-area and so is not so appropriate for visual inspection (And I mean that it may even exaggerate the warm areas!). Either way, it's weather, just as November was. I doubt very much that it will be very remarkable for the NH based on recent years (we'll be able to tell from the GISS data soon enough).

Actually my favourite thing of the week is a Facebook group started by some Icelanders. Something along the lines of "Surrender Britain and Holland and we'll take our freezing cold weather back!" Very apt!

sss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

On the other hand, we are measuring anomalies against an arbitrary background figure - so the extent of how much warmer it is (and it is warmer) is arbitrary and imposed - ie someone, somewhere has decided that either this thirty year period is the idealised climate, and thus we should measure against it, or it's simply convention. For sure, we need to measure against something, but the choice of selection of the period, as far as I can ascertain, is opaque, and therefore it appears arbitrary.

To emphasise this point, let's look at two different CET climate averages 1970-2000, and 1979-2009.

post-5986-12632221917828_thumb.png

I've left the labels off, on purpose.

Can you guess which one shows the less extensive warming - by some 0.25C? Which one is right? Did you realise the climate, according to one,reported no anomaly in 2008, and cooled slightly in 2000?

Are we going to increment forward, the climate average base by 10 years after this year is out, like we did ten years ago? Or just stick to what we've done previously? If the latter, why did we increment the climate average base by ten years last time around?

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Location: Edinburgh

To emphasise this point, let's look at two different CET climate averages 1970-2000, and 1979-2009.

post-5986-12632221917828_thumb.png

I've left the labels off, on purpose.

Can you guess which one shows the less extensive warming - by some 0.25C? Which one is right? Did you realise the climate, according to one,reported no anomaly in 2008, and cooled slightly in 2000?

Are we going to increment forward, the climate average base by 10 years after this year is out, like we did ten years ago? Or just stick to what we've done previously? If the latter, why did we increment the climate average base by ten years last time around?

Hi VP,

Maybe the answer to your poser is to refer to the temperature values themselves, rather than the anomalies? So if the global temperature is 14.6C, the data point is that and not an anomaly from an arbitrary baseline. As we are now monitoring the temperatures through the decades, we will confuse matters by moving the baseline forward each time. Either you keep to a 'standard' baseline (say, 1961-1990, or some such), or you move to reporting the values, not the anomalies. You will of course still get the same pattern from the same raw data. And hopefully people will be less confused?

It's the same problem as with BFTP or Dev's northern hemisphere temperature anomaly map. It's a different map if the baseline is, say 1961-1990 as opposed to, say, 2000-2009. Interesting, but the anomaly crucially depends on the baseline, even though the values are absolute.

sss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

I've looked countless times (albeit not recently) and actual temperature graphs are nowhere to be found, all I've ever found are anomaly graphs. Does anyone have any graphs of actual temperatures for the last 30-40 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

It always pays to understand what your looking at, it's an example of a negative AO and the effects on temperature.

Indeed and my initial argument was that the highlighting of a mild Greece / Turkey was AGW propaganda...simples. :shok:

BFTP

I've looked countless times (albeit not recently) and actual temperature graphs are nowhere to be found, all I've ever found are anomaly graphs. Does anyone have any graphs of actual temperatures for the last 30-40 years?

I'm sure GISS or HADCRU can make some up for you Jethro...name your temp required :shok:

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL

I've looked countless times (albeit not recently) and actual temperature graphs are nowhere to be found, all I've ever found are anomaly graphs. Does anyone have any graphs of actual temperatures for the last 30-40 years?

Is that before or after the massage??

Not seen any raw stuff for yonks probably because none exist.. Saying that, I've not seen any other figures either. That's probably because they don't want you to get the wrong colour idea on an anomaly map....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

Hi VP,

Maybe the answer to your poser is to refer to the temperature values themselves, rather than the anomalies? So if the global temperature is 14.6C, the data point is that and not an anomaly from an arbitrary baseline. As we are now monitoring the temperatures through the decades, we will confuse matters by moving the baseline forward each time. Either you keep to a 'standard' baseline (say, 1961-1990, or some such), or you move to reporting the values, not the anomalies. You will of course still get the same pattern from the same raw data. And hopefully people will be less confused?

It's the same problem as with BFTP or Dev's northern hemisphere temperature anomaly map. It's a different map if the baseline is, say 1961-1990 as opposed to, say, 2000-2009. Interesting, but the anomaly crucially depends on the baseline, even though the values are absolute.

sss

Yup - which is why I advocate some sort of running value, my preference being the median, not the arithmetic mean. It may even get a lot worse. For instance, if 2010 reports a massively warm year, and then the next iteration of climate averages goes to 1980-2010 in line with the past, then if we maintain, say, above average anomalies of, say, 0.25-0.5, then the trend graph will go down should any year not get up to those values (CET we're talking about here) even though in the previous iteration it would still show as going up!

Even worse - can the climate community now change their methods? If they do it will be scrutinised and criticised as trying to hide a downward turn, even though, to my simple mind, it is better mathematics.

A conundrum, and one, I expect in the next 18 months, to seriously rear it's head ...

EDIT: diessoli and Iceberg have already shown very good reasons why anomalies must be the way to go.

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

Indeed and my initial argument was that the highlighting of a mild Greece / Turkey was AGW propaganda...simples. :unsure:

And therefore the highlighting of cold weather was anti AGW propaganda... simples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...