Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[VillagePlank]

Oh, sorry. Presumption is the mother of all .... well, I think we know that phrase!

Still, could you try the analysis with monthly data? I also don't see how you've analysed weather or extremes, just climate variability. Which I agree, is becoming less variable.

 

Well, my contention (which could be wrong) is that a warming climate means more extreme weather both cold and both hot perhaps bias to hot. If this is the case then the distance of the residuals around the mean (or in my case the 9-order polynomial detrend) should be increasing. It just isn't - and it's not temporally located to the last decade or so (which, honestly, I expected (by visual inspection) to find) - it's throughout the whole series.

 

It could well be that my original contention is wrong, but I don't see how. Climate *is* the average of weather events. If weather events are getting more extreme, so, therefore, should the climate signal. Of course, I have only looked at temperatures.

 

Sorry for my poor writing style leading to confusion.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

Well, my contention (which could be wrong) is that a warming climate means more extreme weather both cold and both hot perhaps bias to hot. If this is the case then the distance of the residuals around the mean (or in my case the 9-order polynomial detrend) should be increasing. It just isn't - and it's not temporally located to the last decade or so (which, honestly, I expected (by visual inspection) to find) - it's throughout the whole series.

 

It could well be that my original contention is wrong, but I don't see how. Climate *is* the average of weather events. If weather events are getting more extreme, so, therefore, should the climate signal. Of course, I have only looked at temperatures.

 

Sorry for my poor writing style leading to confusion.

 

We could have extreme cold in one region and extreme warmth in another region (US and Australia right now) which somwhat balance eachother out, giving a more balanced looking monthly temperature and especially an annual temperature. By taking long timespans, (annual or especially 30 years averages) you end up averaging out much of the extremes.

The increase in heat extremes is driving the trend upward, but then you remove that by detrending the time series, thus allowing for no extremes in weather to be analysed at all, only climate variability.

 

Perhaps I'm getting this wrong though, which wouldn't be the first time. As I mentioned, I think an analysis of how often the temperatures end up in the top and bottom percentiles versus the probability of that occurring would be of use here. 

[Gray-Wolf]

And just so that I am clear ( and trying to help in our understanding of what your work shows us all?). Prior to the period we see as 'globally dimmed' we had a period of climate warming ( oft referred to in the other place) and it would appear that a lot of global max temp records were set during this period? We then saw the warming that coincided with our moving out of the dimmed period and were in warm natural forcings? Post that we saw us enter another 'dimmed period' as Asia turned it's hand to energy production and this has recently been further impacted by 'cool' natural forcings.

 

Now over the period of the recent dimming and cool forcings we have still been seeing 'max temp' records fall? to me this suggests that if we removed the dimming and added in warm forcings these 'max temps' would have been a tad higher? As I'm understanding it this would have altered the flavour of your findings Sparks?

 

As such I'd be tempted to wait until we have reduced dimming and at least 'neutral' natural forcings before we jump to conclusions about what we should expect from climate as , as I am witnessing it, we are looking at it from a pretty biassed slant?

 

The hint has to be that we are still besting old records even with the hindrances dimming and nature place in our way? 

 

For global society a promise of "mostly nothing to worry about" is not too great if it means that we still face the chance of a 10 year period of extremes wiping out agriculture and brings water supply issues to nations?

[VillagePlank]

No, I don't think you've got it wrong.

 

Yes, this is about climate variability, and, of course, the extremes are average out, but not so much with standard deviation: you have to have a series in order to compute it, for instance. Consider the distance between the lowest temperature and the highest temperature of a series - this is, effectively (with a bit more of course) the standard deviation. You have to take out the trend in order not to be skewed by underlying warming trend.

 

Apart from the last chart I posted - of which I have no idea - you'd expect what you say to be true - but to fall across the whole series, well, along with the scatter chart of 30 year trend vs 30 year st dev, you'd expect the trend to be closer to zero, or, even rising, if the assertion that warmer means more extreme. It isn't the case.

 

I'll dig out some old textbooks about averages etc and how analysis of how they are made up (and various really odd laws) show this to be the case.

And just so that I am clear ( and trying to help in our understanding of what your work shows us all?). Prior to the period we see as 'globally dimmed' we had a period of climate warming ( oft referred to in the other place) and it would appear that a lot of global max temp records were set during this period? We then saw the warming that coincided with our moving out of the dimmed period and were in warm natural forcings? Post that we saw us enter another 'dimmed period' as Asia turned it's hand to energy production and this has recently been further impacted by 'cool' natural forcings.

 

Now over the period of the recent dimming and cool forcings we have still been seeing 'max temp' records fall? to me this suggests that if we removed the dimming and added in warm forcings these 'max temps' would have been a tad higher? As I'm understanding it this would have altered the flavour of your findings Sparks?

 

As such I'd be tempted to wait until we have reduced dimming and at least 'neutral' natural forcings before we jump to conclusions about what we should expect from climate as , as I am witnessing it, we are looking at it from a pretty biassed slant?

 

The hint has to be that we are still besting old records even with the hindrances dimming and nature place in our way? 

 

For global society a promise of "mostly nothing to worry about" is not too great if it means that we still face the chance of a 10 year period of extremes wiping out agriculture and brings water supply issues to nations?

 

No, the spread of temperatures falls throughout the entire temperature record. No specific event, rather like the warming of the late 1990's, is affected. One of the major points of my work - is that we should *expect* hot temperature records to be broken in a warming climate - and I am saying they are, but they are not affecting climate anywhere near as much as it seems they are - since, as BFTV points out, cold events balance things out. Even worse, the difference between the two (climate variability) is getting worse ie smaller.

 

This is green-lobby wet-dream, not a sceptics put-down. Many animals depend on quite extensive natural variation for their survival: consider temperature triggers for hibernating, for instance. It's just quite not the apocalyptic vision some hope for. I had to pick a thread to put it in, since, in my view, it is betwixt and between. Please ignore the context of where I posted.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

For global society a promise of "mostly nothing to worry about" is not too great if it means that we still face the chance of a 10 year period of extremes wiping out agriculture and brings water supply issues to nations?

 

Just to make it clear. I have never suggested such a thing. My view is that humankind should limit it's pollution on the environment in all respects as much as possible. Sorry if I haven't made that clear enough.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

News media and climate change - an example.

 

The Big Oil-backed climate denier who hoodwinked Fairfax

http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=419275

[Gray-Wolf]

This might prove of interest Sparks ( if you haven't alread read through it?);

 

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/55866?

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-49#entry2894660

 

Oh great joy, Watt's is already hyperventilating about this.

 

Breaking news: BBC gets science from scientists

Stop the presses. In breaking news we can reveal that BBC senior management seek scientific information from scientists.

David Rose first published this scandal at the Mail Online.

Science deniers are enraged.  Andrew Montford labelled it "subversion of the state broadcaster".

Steve E, of Norwich wrote of his outrage: Scap the licence fee now, we are being forced to pay for the BBCs properganda! 

The scandal has made headlines in the USA.

The saga was revealed by a little known - outside of the British arm of Science Deniers Inc (a branch of the Scientific Illiterati)  - pensioner CWM Tony Newbery whose hobby is blogging, mainly protests against clean energy and writing to all and sundry about how he is a fervent and committed climate science denier and that "scientists don't know nuffin'".


In other news, the Scientific Illiterati Society will be holding their annual general meeting next month.  WUWT and Daily Mail readers are encouraged to attend.  The Society said it was bending the rules slightly and would be keen to recruit anyone who is able to read.  Particularly if they are also able to write.  Understanding what is read or written is desirable but not essential. Tea will be served, with an extra biscuit for eligible members. Dress: Brown cardigan.

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-49#entry2894660

 

Seems like quite a sensible stance being taken by the Beeb? After all, they are only going with the scientific consensus, despite what the over-represented 3% might think...

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-49#entry2894660

 

Oh great joy, Watt's is already hyperventilating about this.

 

Breaking news: BBC gets science from scientists

Stop the presses. In breaking news we can reveal that BBC senior management seek scientific information from scientists.

...

They did what!?!?!?

 

Blimey, the next thing those BBC conspirators will be doing is getting acting from actors, sport from sports players, and political opinion from politicians . Is there no end to these damaging revelations?

[jonboy]

But why deny it and spend thousands trying to keep it secret?

[Gray-Wolf]

I know guys it's terrible, you'd never find the the like's of the other place looking to folk trained in climate science to tell them how better to appreciate the subject now would you?

 

In a related twist climate sympathiser Cameron's Govt. has been paying trained educators to lecture to the youth of our great nation!......... 

 

EDIT: And remember 'Sherlock' is a part of the Beebs intentions to overthrow all Right thinking conservatives...

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2538350/Sherlocks-new-press-baron-foe-evidence-Left-wing-bias.html

Edited January 13, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

But why deny it and spend thousands trying to keep it secret?

 

I don't know. Why, do people and organisations have secrets? Why, for instance, do you keep your name secret?

 

Well, I do actually think there are good reasons to keep our names off screen and I suspect the BBC would rather busy body pensioners with time and axes to grid didn't waste their time, and public money, on a search for non existent conspiracies...But, I am SURE you'll disagree

 

Btw, if this gets disagreeable I think you ought to post to the sceptic thread. I and many other can stick to one thread

Edited January 13, 2014 by Devonian

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-49#entry2894728

 

I'm really struggling to reply to that. It's clear you know better and it's really nearly impossible to debate when someone is of the opinion they know better than those who know better than them.

 

No one stopped you going to university to study meteorology or climate. You could have been an expert. I wonder, if I'd studied long and hard at school (and I didn't..) if I too could have. But, if we reach a state when what is authoritative is decided by bloggers with grudges or those who post to internet forum rather than by academic study, theory tested by experiment, observations and data then  we will be up that blissful ignorance creek without the proverbial paddle of reality...

[Gray-Wolf]

But why deny it and spend thousands trying to keep it secret?

 

Was it 'secret'?

 

Jump to page 40 of this;

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.pdf

 

there you go, that's how 'secret' it was. just a part of the trusts research into how best to serve us all into the 21st century. Sadly it does explain why 'deniers' should not be allowed equal footing ( being such a teensy weensy minority) so you might need to take a few deep breaths........

[UV-RAY]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-49#entry2894728

 

I'm really struggling to reply to that. It's clear you know better and it's really nearly impossible to debate when someone is of the opinion they know better than those who know better than them.

 

No one stopped you going to university to study meteorology or climate. You could have been an expert. I wonder, if I'd studied long and hard at school (and I didn't..) if I too could have. But, if we reach a state when what is authoritative is decided by bloggers with grudges or those who post to internet forum rather than by academic study, theory tested by experiment, observations and data then  we will be up that blissful ignorance creek without the proverbial paddle of reality...

What the hell as any of that rant got to do with my licence fee being wasted on things that have nothing to do with TV programming. Scrap it as it's another outdated form of compulsory taxation which I totally disagree with.  

 

Edit; And what as my rant got anything to do with this thread, apologies.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Sceptical Inquirer

[knocker]

Documenting the Swift Change Wrought by Global Warming

For 25 years, photographer Peter Essick has traveled the world for National Geographic magazine, with many of his recent assignments focusing on the causes and consequences of climate change. In a Yale Environment 360 photo essay, Essick presents some of the images he took while on assignment in Antarctica, Greenland, and other far-flung locales.

[knocker]

Climate change role in cold snap triggers debate Hypothesis centers on massive loss of Arctic ice 

 

North America’s sudden fascination with the swirling, icy-cold air mass called the polar vortex has — if nothing else — expanded the meteorological vocabulary of millions of people, from late-night talk-show hosts tossing around their quips to ordinary people who share opinions on Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media.

 

But it’s also quietly opened up an ethical debate among mainstream scientists over how hard they should promote any and all possible links between climate change and the planetary effects of it, especially when they’re in early phases of research. 

Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2014/01/12/Climate-change-role-in-cold-snap-triggers-debate.html#qzYWk2wT4LztIoCl.99

Edited January 13, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-tU18QfEQEOY/UtP2t0YxPmI/AAAAAAAAAP8/TTYVYPgNd_U/w1026-h793-no/glbSSTSeaInd6.gif

 

models now starting to look to the Nino?

 

http://blog.chron.com/weather/2014/01/one-of-the-biggest-predictor-of-atlantic-hurricane-activity-is-trending-down-for-2014/

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-09/lower-rainfall-predicted-as-early-signs-point-to-el-nino-return/5192182

 

Some observers also looking at early signs of El Nino later in the year?

 

By April/May we should have a firmer idea of what is to come and just how extreme we might expect it to be......one of the outlier plots looks like it belongs on a launch pad!!!

[knocker]

Dana Nuccitelli with his recent article in the Guardian has upset the potty lord so much that he has taken to print in the usual place and screaming law suits. Oh the irony of that. I won't bore you with the article you know where to find it.

 

Just one quote though,

 

The deniers who think they are modern-day Galileos won't be happy with Christopher for writing this bit of nonsense:

 

Edited January 14, 2014 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-tU18QfEQEOY/UtP2t0YxPmI/AAAAAAAAAP8/TTYVYPgNd_U/w1026-h793-no/glbSSTSeaInd6.gif

 

models now starting to look to the Nino?

 

http://blog.chron.com/weather/2014/01/one-of-the-biggest-predictor-of-atlantic-hurricane-activity-is-trending-down-for-2014/

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-09/lower-rainfall-predicted-as-early-signs-point-to-el-nino-return/5192182

 

Some observers also looking at early signs of El Nino later in the year?

 

By April/May we should have a firmer idea of what is to come and just how extreme we might expect it to be......one of the outlier plots looks like it belongs on a launch pad!!!

 

The models have been hinting at a Nino developing regularly since mid 2012, and it just hasn't happened. I wouldn't put too much faith in the CFS predictions tbh.

[knocker]

Today from BOM. Tropical Pacific remains ENSO-neutral

 

Issued on Tuesday 14 January 2014 | Product Code IDCKGEWWOO

 

The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) remains in a neutral state, with all indicators well within neutral bounds. International climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate this neutral ENSO state is likely to persist into the austral autumn. Some models suggest the central Pacific Ocean may warm during autumn and winter, while others remain near average. However, forecasts that span autumn have lower skill than forecasts at other times of year, and hence long-range model outlooks need to be used with more caution at this time of year. The Bureau will continue to monitor the ENSO state closely as forecasts become more reliable.

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

Edited January 14, 2014 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

The models have been hinting at a Nino developing regularly since mid 2012, and it just hasn't happened. I wouldn't put too much faith in the CFS predictions tbh.

 

OMG: models are wrong??? Never ever even considered it.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Guys!

 

I know that most models , this far out an of autumn/winter persuasion, have to be considered on the low side of reliability but with the Dutch Uni prof's 'long range ENSO prediction (large Nino) and now some other models pushing that way ( as well as the 'Neutral' predictions being eroded all winter with Nino starting to become the new favourite) I am pinning my colours to the mast and saying that we will see Nino conditions later on in the year and into 2015!

 

On top of all that we have only the fleeting 2010 Nino to try and milk out some of the energy that the run of Nina's have left across the regions .On top of that we have some pretty high ocean temps over the Asian side of the pacific just waiting to slosh over to the Americas side of things.

 

Anyhow, my funeral guys!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/8/273/2014/tcd-8-273-2014.html

 

Had to post here as well as I think it means more than just 'bootstrap errors' impacting ice measurement esp. the number of time the subject is brought up in the other place?

 

Seeing as it is only a discussion paper a.t.m. we will be hearing a lot about it esp. from the other place if it is found the data post 07' is was is at fault and not the data pre 07'?

 

I suppose that this is the way we advance though ( whichever way the chop goes) but I'd suggest we'll never hear the last of it if the revision goes against what the other place want and that it will be embraced by them if it shows we underestimated change before 07'?

Edited January 14, 2014 by Gray-Wolf