Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Recommended Posts

<P> </P>

Easy.

So, you put both sides? No you don't, SSS states it as he see it and so you do. But, for that he's been called several things by you (arrogant and ignorant(oh, and laughable)) - that's what I don't like.

if you case is sooooo much better than the science I, SSS and others, have studied and accept why the need for all the invective? Let your case stand on it's merits.

Hi Dev,

Fair enough:

http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf

Decent review article, covering much the same stuff as by many others. Covers both sides.

Y.S

Edited by Yorkshiresnows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This UPenn report desn't truly cover both sides, though. It's an attempt at a review of the climate science by people at an Institute for Law and Economics. Assuming they have no axe to grind (frankly a bold assumption given the literature they cite), then the best that can be said of it is that it is a poorly-informed review of the sc ience, highlighting basic issues raised time and again by skeptics, and debunked time and again by scientists. I'll only give one example, as I have not the desire to laboriously critique another paper - they go on about problems with the surface temperature record, highlighting that night-time minima have risen much faster than daytime maxima. They suggest this is problematic because night-time minima may be more sesitive to vertical mixing, therefore the rise in 2m global temperatures might be an artefact. Fair enough.... if that was the only evidence. Satellite evidence, changing dates of flowering, budding etc amongst many others contradicts this point entirely. No mention is made of the fact that higher night-time minima is actually a prediction of the enhanced GHG effect theory, as a consequence of reducing outgoing longwave radiation. So to me, as a review, it's falling at the first hurdle because it is only considering a tiny subset of evidence, not what you need to do when considering a scientific question. Clearly they're looking for 'reasonable doubt', but you cannot find 'reasonable doubt' in a scientific question in the way they are trying.

Another gripe - first sentence of the abstract: "Legal scholarship has come to accept as true the various pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists who have been active in the movement for greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reductions to combat global warming." They appear to be conflating the scientific observations with moves for emissions reductions. The observations need to be (and have been) examined on their own terms. Emissions reductions are a separate issue, as reflected by the IPCC separation of the fields. Very few actively publishing researchers in global warming science have any stake in policies to reduce emissions.

Interesting post G-W. It looks like an unconfirmed result as yet, and so in line with what I put forcefully above, I would wait until this evidence is supported before declaring an oceanic disaster. Certainly it's very bad news if this study is correct.

NCDC "State of the Climate" for 2009 is out. It's a report which is "drawing on the work of more than 100 scientists from more than 20 institutions" according to the Met Office:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php

Some key figures here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/images/soc-obs.gif

Interesting observations on climate, heat waves and politics from Peter Sinclair:

http://climatecrocks.com/2010/07/29/climate-crock-heat-wave-edition-part-1/

and part 2 here:

I like the part where the usual loonies like Inhofe or Monckton claim it's been cooling since 2001. Maybe they need a read of the NCDC report too...

sss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This UPenn report desn't truly cover both sides, though. It's an attempt at a review of the climate science by people at an Institute for Law and Economics. Assuming they have no axe to grind (frankly a bold assumption given the literature they cite), then the best that can be said of it is that it is a poorly-informed review of the sc ience, highlighting basic issues raised time and again by skeptics, and debunked time and again by scientists. I'll only give one example, as I have not the desire to laboriously critique another paper - they go on about problems with the surface temperature record, highlighting that night-time minima have risen much faster than daytime maxima. They suggest this is problematic because night-time minima may be more sesitive to vertical mixing, therefore the rise in 2m global temperatures might be an artefact. Fair enough.... if that was the only evidence. Satellite evidence, changing dates of flowering, budding etc amongst many others contradicts this point entirely. No mention is made of the fact that higher night-time minima is actually a prediction of the enhanced GHG effect theory, as a consequence of reducing outgoing longwave radiation. So to me, as a review, it's falling at the first hurdle because it is only considering a tiny subset of evidence, not what you need to do when considering a scientific question. Clearly they're looking for 'reasonable doubt', but you cannot find 'reasonable doubt' in a scientific question in the way they are trying.

Another gripe - first sentence of the abstract: "Legal scholarship has come to accept as true the various pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists who have been active in the movement for greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reductions to combat global warming." They appear to be conflating the scientific observations with moves for emissions reductions. The observations need to be (and have been) examined on their own terms. Emissions reductions are a separate issue, as reflected by the IPCC separation of the fields. Very few actively publishing researchers in global warming science have any stake in policies to reduce emissions.

Interesting post G-W. It looks like an unconfirmed result as yet, and so in line with what I put forcefully above, I would wait until this evidence is supported before declaring an oceanic disaster. Certainly it's very bad news if this study is correct.

NCDC "State of the Climate" for 2009 is out. It's a report which is "drawing on the work of more than 100 scientists from more than 20 institutions" according to the Met Office:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...limate/2009.php

Some key figures here:

http://www.metoffice...ges/soc-obs.gif

Interesting observations on climate, heat waves and politics from Peter Sinclair:

http://climatecrocks...edition-part-1/

and part 2 here:

I like the part where the usual loonies like Inhofe or Monckton claim it's been cooling since 2001. Maybe they need a read of the NCDC report too...

sss

Its funny, but I sort of thought that you might see it like that !!!

Clearly its another crank review with crank publications cited. Just as well we have you to keep us all on the straight and narrow.:)

La Nina is now coming on strong, the PDO turning ...... which will cool the globe (I am convinced on this).

If this prediction is correct, there must be a role for ocean-atmospheric cycles and climate ..... So here's a test ?

Y.S

Edited by Yorkshiresnows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's entertaining the way you rail against my opinions Y.S., when all I've done is provide some evidence for others to go and look at, and reasoning to support my opinion. You call me arrogant among other lovely names, yet I leave it for others to form a judgement! I thought Taylor's presentation was scientifically worthless and provided sources for reasons why. I didn't think much of the report by some lawyers on climate science, because I didn't see them considering the full body of evidence. If you don't like my opinions, dispute my evidence, come up with better evidence!

And it's funny how the 'tests' are always just starting? We've been told it's going to cool substantially for the last decade or so and it hasn't, it just got warmer. The last 12 months have been the hottest on record, so it would hardly be surprising if the next 12 months didn't quite hit those heights, but there's no evidence of a cooling trend. La Nina always produces a temporary cooling, or downward variation about the rising trend, so no change there, except that this La Nina won't be as cool as those in the 1990s or 1980s. PDO does nothing overall as it's a measure of a spatial pattern, not of absolute temperature. What was the global mean temperature at each of the last three/four PDO 'neutral' points, ie earlier in the 20th Century? Is there an underlying trend that isn't captured by the PDO?

I read an interesting article on RealClimate which notes the 35th anniversary of the coining of the term "global warming" by Wally Broecker in 1975. Some interesting observations on the time at which a 'consensus' could be said to have been reached (1980s to 1995 approximately), and on the scientific position in the 1970s:

Broecker (1975) "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" reviewed at:

http://www.realclima...ming/#more-4520

And lest anyone think that this is a science that is a mere 35 years old, here's a paper, dug up by someone on the comments to the above thread, from 1938.

Callendar (1938). "The artificial production of Carbon Dioxide and its influence on temperature"

http://dl.dropbox.co...callender38.pdf

{This isn't exactly "New Research", but it's relevant!}

It's almost chilling to read some of Broecker's comments, written at a time when global temperature really had declined for a couple of decades; and in Callendar's paper, to see how the basics of atmospheric physics, and the consequence of adding CO2 to it, were rather well understood 70 years ago, when my grandparents were about my age, or 35 years ago when my parents were close to my age.

sss

Edited by sunny starry skies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's entertaining the way you rail against my opinions Y.S., when all I've done is provide some evidence for others to go and look at, and reasoning to support my opinion. You call me arrogant among other lovely names, yet I leave it for others to form a judgement! I thought Taylor's presentation was scientifically worthless and provided sources for reasons why. I didn't think much of the report by some lawyers on climate science, because I didn't see them considering the full body of evidence. If you don't like my opinions, dispute my evidence, come up with better evidence!

And it's funny how the 'tests' are always just starting? We've been told it's going to cool substantially for the last decade or so and it hasn't, it just got warmer. The last 12 months have been the hottest on record, so it would hardly be surprising if the next 12 months didn't quite hit those heights, but there's no evidence of a cooling trend. La Nina always produces a temporary cooling, or downward variation about the rising trend, so no change there, except that this La Nina won't be as cool as those in the 1990s or 1980s. PDO does nothing overall as it's a measure of a spatial pattern, not of absolute temperature. What was the global mean temperature at each of the last three/four PDO 'neutral' points, ie earlier in the 20th Century? Is there an underlying trend that isn't captured by the PDO?

I read an interesting article on RealClimate which notes the 35th anniversary of the coining of the term "global warming" by Wally Broecker in 1975. Some interesting observations on the time at which a 'consensus' could be said to have been reached (1980s to 1995 approximately), and on the scientific position in the 1970s:

Broecker (1975) "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" reviewed at:

http://www.realclima...ming/#more-4520

And lest anyone think that this is a science that is a mere 35 years old, here's a paper, dug up by someone on the comments to the above thread, from 1938.

Callendar (1938). "The artificial production of Carbon Dioxide and its influence on temperature"

http://dl.dropbox.co...callender38.pdf

{This isn't exactly "New Research", but it's relevant!}

It's almost chilling to read some of Broecker's comments, written at a time when global temperature really had declined for a couple of decades; and in Callendar's paper, to see how the basics of atmospheric physics, and the consequence of adding CO2 to it, were rather well understood 70 years ago, when my grandparents were about my age, or 35 years ago when my parents were close to my age.

sss

Thing is SSS, it is very difficult to have a 'debate' with you. It seems to be simply a case of you coming over as much more knowledgable than anybody else.

Going back to the Hockey stick farce, I pointed out to you that the recent Mann papers contained the same flawed proxy series so heavily criticised the first time around (as did a lot of the supporting papers from authors closely associated with Mann .. and that the same flawed statistical techniques were used, despite you stating otherwise. You failed to accept that as a fact.

No matter what references I present, you shout that the authors are biased, flawed or are not real scientists (e.g. Roy Spencer amongst others). Based on your own assessment !

I acknowledge that your view is backed by science and that there are a host of papers (some of which you have fairly presented) and that you could indeed be 100% correct in all you say. Truth is we just do not yet know for certain.

However, there is an alternative view (for which there is also good science ... just take a look at Joe laminate floori's blog or some of Roy Spencers papers on cloud feedbacks (Robert Linzden as well, several 2009 papers I believe) that would support the role of natural cycles in having a major part to play.

You simply cannot get away with stating that the alternative view is a load of rubbish. Particularly in light of the IPCC's lack of consensus on the actual feedback mechanism that is supposed to account for the warming (a 200-300% amplification factor based on something that cannot be measured and could just as easily be a negative rather than positive feedback is rather shaky in my view).

Also, just take a look at the current picture. There has been little to bugger all warming over the past 10 years and we look to be going into a cooling phase ....... there's a ton of stuff on PDO etc, (lots that have been posted previously, and like you I cannot be bothered to dig them up again for the sake of old arguments), but with an increase in CO2 of 5-7% (going back to 1992), then if the CO2 theory was so robust ...... why the pause ..... unless there is a natural element ...... that could be quite a major component of the 20th century climate change.

That is all I am saying.

Lets be fair, as I have perhaps overstated my arguments in my responses to you, so you have performed likewise.

So lets move on. As I stated in my previous post, there is a real test coming up. If warming resumes over the next few years despite going into a -PDO with low solar activity, then you are correct and my alternative view is fit for the bin. That should be fair enough for us both?

Y.S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been told it's going to cool substantially for the last decade or so and it hasn't, it just got warmer. The last 12 months have been the hottest on record, so it would hardly be surprising if the next 12 months didn't quite hit those heights, but there's no evidence of a cooling trend.

Also, just take a look at the current picture. There has been little to bugger all warming over the past 10 years and we look to be going into a cooling phase

And this is where us fence-sitters start to get really confused - have we warmed in recent years or not ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is where us fence-sitters start to get really confused - have we warmed in recent years or not ???

It's worth checking out the graph in the RC article linked to by SSS.

The ten years to June (or I suspect July, or indeed '2010') this year will show warming - I rekon.

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is where us fence-sitters start to get really confused - have we warmed in recent years or not ???

Well if the scientist are determined enough they can prove it either way which for us little people is a problem. Also the with holding of data, hopefully now resolved has been another problem plus the stacking of peer reviews towards people sympathetic to the warming cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is where us fence-sitters start to get really confused - have we warmed in recent years or not ???

Hi There:

Well, lets take a quick look:

Posted Image

My view is that would indicate little to no warming (we are on the way down now this particular year).

Also, take SSS view that the last 12 months have been the warmest o record ...... h'mmmmmm I don't think so.

A lot depends on which data set you take. The most accurate way would be to measure like for like ..... and if you do this you don't see the picture as portrayed:

http://wattsupwithth...ion/#more-22648

Here's what good old Joe laminate floori thinks of the situation (posted direct from his blog):

Check this out. I don't know if I want to laugh, or cry, at how they get away with this (the people claiming warmest ever).

Amazing how these folks (who shall remain nameless) get away with this.

I mean that... the more YOU can look at actual data, the better for all of us. I use this site to keep not only Europeans informed on other sources of info, but as I have found out, the entire globe! It has led to some viscous attacks on me from those not wishing to have all this information out. In any case, take a look at this:

ACTUAL SATELLITE DATA LINK SO THERE IS NO MISTAKE ON TEMPS!

Given the issuances that this is the warmest year ever, we can easily see by comparing the actual temps of 1998 to this year that this is not true.

Here is the link for all the OBJECTIVE satellite temps since we started this method, which of course is more objective than adjusted temps from pre-satellite eras. You can look for yourself. Go back to the the year 1998 and stack the temps up against 2010.

Remember, in the history of the planet, the NON-BIASED measurement of temps can be compared to you starting to weigh yourself every day... a week ago. That you get up every morning and one morning find yourself 1/10th of a pound heavier is not a big deal. What's more, the reports on the warmest ever are like weighing yourself on your bathroom scale and seeing one thing, then going over and weighing yourself in the gym and seeing the other. The satellite era temps are the doctor's office (even more accurate... wrestler's) scale way of measuring and cannot be confused with the bathroom scale, which not only is not as accurate but can be adjusted up and down, depending on what the user is up to!

Sattellite data link is here:

http://vortex.nsstc....t2lt/uahncdc.lt

What do you think ?

Y.S

Edited by Yorkshiresnows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be interested in the CET analysis, here, which is the start of my blog. Natural cycles are there, but it's not the key - at least not on this analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to admit I was surprised by this.

post-2404-097387400 1280771564_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth checking out the graph in the RC article linked to by SSS.

The ten years to June (or I suspect July, or indeed '2010') this year will show warming - I rekon.

I'm pretty confident that 2001-2010 will be warmer than 1990-2000 - the 90s had Pinutubo so to compare you'd really need to adjust for that. Even though 2001-2010 will be warmer (probably even allowing for volcanoes) we ought to notice that during the last decade the rate of warming seems to have come to a halt and probably (once we get past the current el nino spike) we'll see that we've had a small decline (based on the satellite data) - we have from 2001-2009 (even on the GISS series).

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2009/offset:-0.4/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2009/offset:-0.45/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2009/offset:-0.18/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2009/offset:-0.25/trend

Granted it's not long enough to conclude that we are now starting on a cooling phase (although I think we are) - but it is a long enough period to contradict the notion of accelerating warming. Money would be much better spent adapting to whatever the climate does IMHO - and a more gradual move away from oil & gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read and digested, it now appears that it is perfectly possible to decide first what one's position/belief/conviction on this subject is, and then go off and find the necessary data to 'prove' that position. I'm not for a minute saying that is what anyone on here has done, it is more an observation of the futility of the argument as it stands at this juncture. It appears that climatology is such a young science that no consensus exists even on the most basic points - to (almost) coin a phrase, the truth isn't out there (yet !)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can really say is that there's absolutely no empirical evidence which supports any claims that we're entering a 'cooling phase'; there are merely plenty of claims that we are about to. Folks have been saying this since 2003...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can really say is that there's absolutely no empirical evidence which supports any claims that we're entering a 'cooling phase'; there are merely plenty of claims that we are about to. Folks have been saying this since 2003...

Well, over the decade 2000 - 2010 there is no doubt we have seen a increase in the rate of 'about to', though if we properly remove UWI (Urban Wattage Island) effect from the data a definite 'warmer than' trend is apparent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Null Hypothesis for CO2

ABSTRACT

Energy transfer at the Earth’s surface is examined from first principles. The effects on surface temperature of small changes in the solar constant caused by the sunspot cycle and small increases in downward long wave infrared (LWIR) flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The surface temperature changes produced by an increase in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.

Journal: Energy & Environment

Publisher: Multi Science Publishing

ISSN 0958-305X Issue Volume 21, Number 4 / August 2010

Category: Research Article DOI 10.1260/0958-305X.21.4.171 Pages 171-200

Date Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Author: Roy Clark, Ph.D

You're going to need £18 to read it, though.

Edited by VillagePlank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y.S. Care to run a trend-line through your much-vaunted UAH dataset? Or do we have to rely on eyeballing? And also check out what Spencer and Christy say about whether we are warming or not (their comments are in the recent ClimateCrocks videos).

Conveniently, here's another good analysis, using the HADCRUt3 dataset:

http://www.skeptical...ng-Stopped.html

It's been often enough shown that the trends in the satellite and surface analyses are virtually identical, so Y.S., why don't you get the UAH data, RSS data, GISS data, or Hadley data, plot it from, say, 1979 to 1995, plot the confidence limits, then add the points from 1996 to 2009, or whatever your favoured time period is? What you find is not only that global warming hasn't "stopped", it hasn't even slowed down, as we're exactly where we would expect to be if you plotted a trend through the 1970s to 1990s!

I hope that's useful for folks like Pennine Ten Foot Drifts. The moral of the story is that when purely looking at temperature trends, anything less than about 15 years in annual data and you're looking at the noise, not the signal. There was a great post on that at Tamino's blog but his archive is down at the moment. The same points are made in the Skeptical Science post. The trend for the 2000s is positive, but ENSO over the same period temporarily reduces the trend, especially if you cherry-pick your start date to around the 1998 El Nino. Similar reduced trends have occurred in the past, such as in the 1980s, but did global warming stop then? Over longer time periods ENSO is neutral. The temporary volcanic forcing from Pinatubo is insufficient to make up the difference between the 1990s and the 2000s.

And absolutely no evidence from any indicator that our warming trend is reversing - see the NCDC State of the Climate report, for not only the trends but the specifically human fingerprints too.

VP - E&E doesn't exactly have a reputation for publishing good science. Its own editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen admits as such:

"By the way, E&E is not a science journal and has published IPCC critiques to give a platform critical voices and ‘paradigms’ because of the enormous implications for energy policy, the energy industries and their employees and investors, and for research." http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=407763

I would be extremely wary of anything posing as 'science' that is published at E&E, and ask yourself why it has not been published elsewhere. Does the physics proposed stand up to scrutiny? If that was sound science it would easily be published in a journal relating to atmospheric physics, which would be rather more appropriate than one devoted to one aspect of climate politics.

sss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the foundation of the "it hasn't warmed over the last 10 years" argument has always been to use the exceptionally warm 1997/98 as the starting point and claim that there has been no warming since then.

However the HadCRUT3 graph clearly shows a warming trend of about 0.15C over the period 1995-2009 and an analysis of 2000-09 will also show warming, especially as it begins with a La Nina year.

The most telling statistic is that the 2000s are set to be a good 0.1-0.2C warmer, globally speaking, than the 1990s were. You can point at the warming slowing or stalling within the 2000s, but as long it is significantly warmer than the previous decade, to an extent at least consistent with previous warming, it undermines the strength of the "warming is slowing/stalling" argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my envelope edge (across the years) gives me a slope over the past 30yrs that goes up however I 'best fit' it.

Thanks for the saving tip (£18 not spent) SSS. Once you start to look you do find many folk corroborate your opinions (not just the editor?) on the 'publication'!!!

Maybe for us 'beginners' it's best to stick to papers published in the well renown publications and let the more wealthy 'blogs sites' check out the rest???

Soooo, a possible 10yrs into the PDO-ve and no sign of warming being compromised? If this PDO-ve is met with only a minor plateau in temps will folk start to wonder as to the augmentation of such cycles by our current warming trend? will folk start to concede that their 'natural cycles' are as much prey to our changes as the Arctic ice (and permafrost)?

Edited by Gray-Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y.S. Care to run a trend-line through your much-vaunted UAH dataset? Or do we have to rely on eyeballing? And also check out what Spencer and Christy say about whether we are warming or not (their comments are in the recent ClimateCrocks videos).

Conveniently, here's another good analysis, using the HADCRUt3 dataset:

http://www.skeptical...ng-Stopped.html

It's been often enough shown that the trends in the satellite and surface analyses are virtually identical, so Y.S., why don't you get the UAH data, RSS data, GISS data, or Hadley data, plot it from, say, 1979 to 1995, plot the confidence limits, then add the points from 1996 to 2009, or whatever your favoured time period is? What you find is not only that global warming hasn't "stopped", it hasn't even slowed down, as we're exactly where we would expect to be if you plotted a trend through the 1970s to 1990s!

I hope that's useful for folks like Pennine Ten Foot Drifts. The moral of the story is that when purely looking at temperature trends, anything less than about 15 years in annual data and you're looking at the noise, not the signal. There was a great post on that at Tamino's blog but his archive is down at the moment. The same points are made in the Skeptical Science post. The trend for the 2000s is positive, but ENSO over the same period temporarily reduces the trend, especially if you cherry-pick your start date to around the 1998 El Nino. Similar reduced trends have occurred in the past, such as in the 1980s, but did global warming stop then? Over longer time periods ENSO is neutral. The temporary volcanic forcing from Pinatubo is insufficient to make up the difference between the 1990s and the 2000s.

And absolutely no evidence from any indicator that our warming trend is reversing - see the NCDC State of the Climate report, for not only the trends but the specifically human fingerprints too.

VP - E&E doesn't exactly have a reputation for publishing good science. Its own editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen admits as such:

"By the way, E&E is not a science journal and has published IPCC critiques to give a platform critical voices and ‘paradigms’ because of the enormous implications for energy policy, the energy industries and their employees and investors, and for research." http://www.timeshigh...torycode=407763

I would be extremely wary of anything posing as 'science' that is published at E&E, and ask yourself why it has not been published elsewhere. Does the physics proposed stand up to scrutiny? If that was sound science it would easily be published in a journal relating to atmospheric physics, which would be rather more appropriate than one devoted to one aspect of climate politics.

sss

Hi SSS,

No, if you followed the IPCC forecasts (there were a series of these on an earlier post a few months ago and also shown on ACCU-WEATHER (I do not have the charts to hand), you would clearly see that all of the climate models would have us a great deal warmer than we are currently.

To my mind we have not moved much in the past 10 years ...... that's obvious from just looking at the charts (El, nino years are always going to spike). We have also been in +PDO since ........ 1979 with a predominatly warm Pacific so its not so suprising that we have been warming. This does not discount a partial role of green house gas effects. The test will be when we really dip into -PDO.

Posted Image

The following figure is from a NOAA study of the impact of the PDO variability on the California Current ecosystem and shows the approximately 60-year cycle of the PDO and the corresponding northern Pacific Ocean temperature regimes [www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-Snake-Basin/upload/Briefings_3_08.ppt] Note the major switch over in 1979 !

Posted Image

If the cycle follows the predicted pattern:

Posted Image

Latest July Temp figures now added .... the spike is less than 1998 and yet we are at a higher base state:

Posted Image

If you could get over your belief in Mann's hockey stick pudding and acknowledge the fact that the past 2000 years has seen upturns and dips in Global temperature, then you could perhaps at least stomach the possibility that the earths climate has ever been in flux and that natural cycles have occurred in the past and quite possibly are the major reason for what is occurring now:

Craig Loehle, "A 2000 year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies, "Energy and Environment 18 (2007): 1049-1058

Wang Hui-Jun et al., "El Nino and the Related Phenomenon Southern Oscillation (ENSO): The Largest Signal in Interannual Climate Variation", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (1999): 11071-11072

Craig Loehle, "A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology, "Climate change (2008)

Gilbert p.Compo and Prashant D. Sardeshmukh, "Oceanic Influences on recent continental warming,"Climate Dynamics 32 (2009): 333-342

D.H. Douglass, J.R.Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer, "A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions, "International Journal of Climatology 27 (2007).

http://www.drroyspen...encer_07GRL.pdf

http://www.drroyspen...model-evidence/

http://www.drroyspen...Braswell-08.pdf

Try not to dismiss everything that anybody posts because its not to your view. :acute:

Apologies for the messy layout of this post, no time at the moment.

Y.S

Edited by jethro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Try not to dismiss everything that anybody posts because its not to your view. :crazy:

Y.S

Bit hard to take that seriously given you've just dismissed the work of Dr Michael Mann as a 'pudding'...

A Null Hypothesis for CO2

Journal: Energy & Environment

Publisher: Multi Science Publishing

ISSN 0958-305X Issue Volume 21, Number 4 / August 2010

Category: Research Article DOI 10.1260/0958-305X.21.4.171 Pages 171-200

Date Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Author: Roy Clark, Ph.D

You're going to need £18 to read it, though.

Not if you find it (and it's not difficult) you don't http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

Btw, I wouldn't bother, either it's wrong (it's bound to be) or Roy Clark is (the latest AGW sceptic) Galileo...

Edited by jethro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if you find it (and it's not difficult) you don't http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

Btw, I wouldn't bother, either it's wrong (it's bound to be) or Roy Clark is (the latest AGW sceptic) Galileo...

Isn't that a little closed minded Dev?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought, seeing as we're interested in the 'state of the climate' that we ought to see this;

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2009-lo-rez.pdf

the METo call it;

"Unmistakable signs of a warming world"

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100728.html

any argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VP - E&E doesn't exactly have a reputation for publishing good science. Its own editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen admits as such:

"By the way, E&E is not a science journal and has published IPCC critiques to give a platform critical voices and ‘paradigms’ because of the enormous implications for energy policy, the energy industries and their employees and investors, and for research." http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=407763

I would be extremely wary of anything posing as 'science' that is published at E&E, and ask yourself why it has not been published elsewhere. Does the physics proposed stand up to scrutiny? If that was sound science it would easily be published in a journal relating to atmospheric physics, which would be rather more appropriate than one devoted to one aspect of climate politics.

Oh - I ddin't realise that. I thought it was peer-reviewed etc etc. Still, paid me money ... it's not actually a great paper, with the most obvious 'problems' that assertions which are built on later are unreferenced. These may well be entirely accurate, and, indeed obvious - but for a lay-person like me, I'd rather see why it is the case. So didn't get past page three, unfortunately.

Not if you find it (and it's not difficult) you don't http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

Well, then that would be theft then, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...