New Research

[Iceberg]

I really don't want to labour the point but can you not just admit for once that your post was incorrect and an over-reaction. Just to summerise.

"And it's a red-herring. For a start, can you name one person - seriously, one person - who has legitimate concerns about the temperature record? (I did name someone the biggest most influential blogger in the skeptic world) The reason why I have been interested in this is because it supposedly completely open (haven't seen any source-code, nor handy csv files, yet!) But back to the point: name one person who thinks it's not warmer now than 30 years ago? Please. Please! Again This has nothing to do the Berkeley study unless you can find anything written down about this...and is a big strawman itself.

I suspect that you'd find it difficult. I think that it's nigh on impossible.(frankly not see first point)

So where does this leave us, then? As a sceptic for the causes of that warming, I am NOT - I repeat NOT - going to defend a position I don't hold - and serious integrity questions need to be asked about anyone who wants to band such strawman positions about."

Nobody is making a strawman man here, unless you want to show or prove this.

[VillagePlank]

Again This has nothing to do the Berkeley study unless you can find anything written down about this...and is a big strawman itself.

Agreed! Sorry for reacting to that. So every time you talk of it's warmer than it's ever been, and getting warmer, I should refer to the data-series point by point correlation and not refer to trends. ie they are linearly seperable in this argument. Thanks, that makes life a lot easier.

And for your information - you are the one who brought trends and predictions into the debate, not me (your reference to the IPCC and subsequent validation thereof from this study, and your reference to it being 'all about trends' )

But hey we can play semantics all day long, however tiresome. Shall we have a go ....

"And it's a red-herring. For a start, can you name one person - seriously, one person - who has legitimate concerns about the temperature record? (I did name someone the biggest most influential blogger in the skeptic world)

I suspect that you'd find it difficult. I think that it's nigh on impossible.(frankly not see first point)

My advice to you is to take a minute and read carefully what is written before you reply. Are you seriously suggesting that Monckton/Watt (etc) has legitimate concerns? That was the question! If that's the case you are validating their line of reasoning - ie suggesting that they have a fair point well worth investigating - since you think it is legitimate.

See what I mean? I'm certain you didn't mean to legitimise what is, frankly, a flaky line of 'skeptical' [sic] reasoning: but you have, whether you realised it or not.

So, in response to your 'I can't be explaining it that badly VP' dig, I must say that your explanation is bloody awful if your subsequent howls of protestations are anything to go by.

Edited April 7, 2011 by VillagePlank

[Iceberg]

now I give up as it not's fair on everybody else.

I am sure that Watts thoughts his concerns legitimate, unless we mean only legitimate on a VP scale.

Just because it confirms yours and mine opinions does not make it a strawman, particularly as the exercise was to address the concerns that the skeptics had with the datasets....

You are of course free to think what you like and say what you want and use whatever get out clauses you feel free to use.

ME I know it wasn't a straw man, it was set up by skeptics using money from skeptics to try and find fault with the datasets and it doesn't look like it will.

[jethro]

Can I just point to to anyone leaping to conclusions about this auditing process - it's FAR from complete.

[Thundery wintry showers]

There are definitely people out there who try to deny that the world is warming at all, or insist that the amount of warming that has occurred is strongly exaggerated (before we even get around to discussing the "anthropogenic vs natural" argument, where there is more scope for debate).

There's an easy place to go for proof: this thread!

[jethro]

I think it does hold true as one of the arguements against AGW/ACC is that the warming we have now is natural and has occured in the last 100 years before(check out Monckton etc). There if it has occured recently then it can be more easily explained by natural drivers.

I agree with the auditing comment but only with the caveat that you need to add 1000's of people, websites blogs etc saying that the company is upto dozens of illegal activities.

I'm sorry Iceberg but so far you have only cited the most extreme views from the world of blogosphere, to illuminate and support your argument. Those sources are not regarded as a legitimate source of information for the sceptic side of this debate, I see no reason why they are now to be considered as valid. About the only person from the world of blog which could be cited is Steve McIntyre.

This audit of the temperature record is simply that, an audit. It makes no difference to the argument of whether or not the warming stems from natural causes or otherwise - that is a remit it cannot satisfy.

IMO anyone who uses this audit to validate or vindicate their own personal point of view in this debate is simply trying to mislead.

[knocker]

Well I've thought for a while we are past the point of no return.

Ancient fossils hold clues for predicting future climate change, scientists report .

Our data from the early Pliocene, when carbon dioxide levels remained close to modern levels for thousands of years, may indicate how warm the planet will eventually become if carbon dioxide levels are stabilized at the current value of 400 parts per million," said Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ancient-fossils-hold-clues-for-199756.aspx

[Methuselah]

There are definitely people out there who try to deny that the world is warming at all, or insist that the amount of warming that has occurred is strongly exaggerated (before we even get around to discussing the "anthropogenic vs natural" argument, where there is more scope for debate).

There's an easy place to go for proof: this thread!

You're right there, Ian. Whenever a scientific consensus exists, there will be those who deny it. Sometimes, as with the Zetetic Astronomy movement, it seems hard to know whether they [the deniers] even believe themselves...

Any publicity is better than no publicity??

[knocker]

Climate change from black carbon depends on altitude.

Palo Alto, CA—Scientists have known for decades that black carbon aerosols add to global warming. These airborne particles made of sooty carbon are believed to be among the largest man-made contributors to global warming because they absorb solar radiation and heat the atmosphere. New research from Carnegie's Long Cao and Ken Caldeira, along with colleagues George Ban-Weiss and Govindasamy Bala, quantifies how black carbon's impact on climate depends on its altitude in the atmosphere. Their work, published online by the journal Climate Dynamics, could have important implications for combating global climate change.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/ci-ccf041411.php

Edited April 14, 2011 by weather ship

[knocker]

Oh dear, surely we are not going to have to reconsider low sunspot activity and the Maunder Minimum.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/agu-ajh041311.php

[jethro]

This is what Livingston&Penn (supported by Svalgaard) have been saying for some time. Their research predicts a period of very low or total absence of sunspots after about 2015 but it also shows that although spots will no longer be visible, the Sun will still be active.

Wasn't there something from the METO recently which suggested that lower Solar activity had a strong impact upon pressure belts and thus weather systems? I have vague memories that the conclusions suggested that colder weather at lower latitudes would be the outcome, it was postulated that this is how the LIA developed.

Research during the earlier years of climate studies focussed upon TSI, as this was the only variable which was measurable and known to periodically change, it was assumed this was the only impact upon climate caused by the Sun; it seems changes in Solar activity may impact in ways previously not considered.

[knocker]

Wasn't there something from the METO recently which suggested that lower Solar activity had a strong impact upon pressure belts and thus weather systems? I have vague memories that the conclusions suggested that colder weather at lower latitudes would be the outcome, it was postulated that this is how the LIA developed.

I don't recollect the METO angle but is this along the same line of thinking?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8615789.stm

[jethro]

Yes it is WS, thanks for that.

I knew I''d seen something about it, thought it was the METO but it must have been that paper.

Wonder what impact it would have on the Arctic?

[PersianPaladin]

You're right there, Ian. Whenever a scientific consensus exists, there will be those who deny it. Sometimes, as with the Zetetic Astronomy movement, it seems hard to know whether they [the deniers] even believe themselves...

Any publicity is better than no publicity??

Science should not be determined by consensus.

Ever heard of group-think?

http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm

Pressures to conform?

Edited April 20, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[knocker]

Come in GW your time is up.

Effects of climate change in the Arctic more extensive than expected

04 May 2011

A much reduced covering of snow, shorter winter season and thawing tundra. The effects of climate change in the Arctic are already here. And the changes are taking place significantly faster than previously thought. This is what emerges from a new research report on the Arctic, presented in Copenhagen this week. Margareta Johansson, from Lund University, is one of the researchers behind the report.

http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24890&news_item=5580

[Gray-Wolf]

I also think it's cumulative also with positive feedbacks increasing the pace of change? We hear a lot about the past 2 N.H. Winters and the 'cooling' this shows but , by now, all thats left is the flooding from melt waters. As for the Arctic? well the ice is thin and is giving way to spring with lots of areas now poised for melt out (NE Greenland being the easiest to pick up on MODIS and the worst place for early 'open dark water' as the mechanics of the basin drive ice this way via Fram).

The earlier the 'melt out' (of FY ice) the longer it opens dark water to the sun and so the more ice melts (as the water it sits in warms) so more dark water is open to the sun (and so it continues).

In past years we have had a 'reserve ' of thick, Paleocrystic ice, to maintain and endure through the summer months. This summer the ice is all under 5 years old and it's average thickness appears to be 2.5m or less. This means that the pack is both more mobile (at the mercy of wind and currents) and able to melt out , in situ, in an average summer. The other worry is the mixing of the ocean below. numerous scientific voyages to the pole have reported the swells running under sub 3m ice (and breaking it) mixing out the layers below so we are losing our 'Halocline blanket' which used to aid in the maintenance of the ice above.

[jethro]

One step closer to understanding the impact clouds have on climate:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110424152458.htm

[Methuselah]

Science should not be determined by consensus.

Ever heard of group-think?

http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm

Pressures to conform?

Please don't extrapolate my words beyond the possible scope of their potential domain, PP. IMO, a consensus, when there is one, (amongst those who can be most realiably expected to have their 'opinions' coloured by genuine understanding) carries more weight than the crosstalk of those who know little or nothing about a particular subject??

Do you ever hear me pontificating on computer science, for example??

[PersianPaladin]

Please don't extrapolate my words beyond the possible scope of their potential domain, PP. IMO, a consensus, when there is one, (amongst those who can be most realiably expected to have their 'opinions' coloured by genuine understanding) carries more weight than the crosstalk of those who know little or nothing about a particular subject??

Do you ever hear me pontificating on computer science, for example??

Scientific fact does not equate to consensus.

The consensus may be incorrect (no matter how strong they believe their understanding to be correct), or they may sometimes be correct.

I don't like the institutional groupthink that has crept into scientific understanding over the years - and the oft repeated nauseating idea that the "fringe" is always wrong.

Edited May 9, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[jethro]

A new study has been done on deciphering the ARGO data:

How well can we derive Global Ocean Indicators from Argo data?

http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011.pdf

[jethro]

The latest news from the Cloud experiment at CERN indicate that there is substance in Svensmark's theory of Cosmic Rays and cloud formation. It will be interesting to read the full paper promised in the next few months. If he's proved correct, coupled with the now widely predicted long period of low Solar activity, we could be looking at a prolonged period of lower temperatures.

http://physicsworld....ultimedia/45950

Brief info on Svensmark and his disputed theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

[jonboy]

The latest news from the Cloud experiment at CERN indicate that there is substance in Svensmark's theory of Cosmic Rays and cloud formation. It will be interesting to read the full paper promised in the next few months. If he's proved correct, coupled with the now widely predicted long period of low Solar activity, we could be looking at a prolonged period of lower temperatures.

http://physicsworld....ultimedia/45950

Brief info on Svensmark and his disputed theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

See this also

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/17/new-study-links-cosmic-rays-to-aerosolscloud-formation-via-solar-magnetic-activity-modulation/

[Methuselah]

The latest news from the Cloud experiment at CERN indicate that there is substance in Svensmark's theory of Cosmic Rays and cloud formation. It will be interesting to read the full paper promised in the next few months. If he's proved correct, coupled with the now widely predicted long period of low Solar activity, we could be looking at a prolonged period of lower temperatures.

http://physicsworld....ultimedia/45950

Brief info on Svensmark and his disputed theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

We'll all be able to rest a little easier, should cosmics-rays' climatic effects turn out to be substantial. Politicians excluded of course!)

Something has obviously caused dramatic climate shifts in the deep past...

[Iceberg]

My take on it and this is very preliminary.

IF we assume that this is correct ( I have reservations about the scientists due to comments they have made in the last few years, but I'll leave them aside atm as this should be judged on science and not the people carrying it out).

Then we need to view what this means and any possible effects.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

Above is a similar piece from Svensmark from a dodgy source but still put together with his approval so should be viewed as pretty accurate.

"The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.†Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth"

"It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect – indeed so great that in popular terms the Earth’s clouds originate in space."

So the theory seems to be that a very quick reaction takes place between this solar effect and the clouds i.e a few days.

We know that the effects of clouds on surface temps happens very quickly, this would seem to indicate less of a lag. Taking this into account why has the last few years not seen any kind of falling global temperatures ?

IMO we have the following choices

1 ) AGW is adding to global temperatures more than first thought as even the above mechanism it not overidding it.

2 ) The above mechanism does not effect global temperatures much.

3 ) AGW is not having much effect, some other natural driver has been pushing temps up and overidding "Svensmarks" effects.

4 ) Svensmarks affects are lagged and somebody needs to explain why these changes in cloud cover have such a lag.

I have yet to see much evidence for the last 2 and so would hope that this research doesn't find that this is a significant affector of climate as that would move more into the first choice.

BTW for reference global temperatures in this La Nina are struggling to indicate anything accept that the underlying warming rate is continuing...

[Methuselah]

I think that, to a great extent, your last paragraph is one to keep in mind, Ice...