Climate Questions

[Styx]

1 hour ago, jethro said:

Lol. Wild horses and all that....after reading the above, I have zero faith that there's even the remotest of hope of having any questions answered, or discussion had, without being bombarded with similar.  That said, it's only fair to give folk a chance, I'll be over the moon to be proved wrong......

I've seen quite a lot of reports from Aussie farmers on Twitter about the bush fires. Time and again, they report that in their opinion/experience, this situation has largely been driven by a change in conservation policy. Before the change, undergrowth and bush was cleared during the winter months, thus greatly reducing the amount of fuel available to fan the flames of bush fires. Bush fires being a normal problem in Australia, out of control ones, like the current situation, are not. They seem pretty certain, it is not that bush fires have happened that's the problem, nor that climate change has caused this problem, but that in conserving the landscape for wildlife a 'perfect storm' scenario has been created.

In the press, a lot of people have taken the current Australian situation and used it as proof of climate change. I wonder, is there actually any science to support those claims or are they merely promoting their own voice from the podium of a current disaster?

 

p.s REALLY NOT, absolutely NOT getting into any discussion about AGW being real or not. Not interested/interesting.

Australia background fire weather conditions ( temperature, drought, soil moisture ) have been 'off the scale' esp. in December! There is no shortage of reliable information from professional organisations which has downplayed the role  ramped up fire hazard reduction burns could have played to temper the situation. You can't burn off all the bush every year there's too much of it; it would cover the landscape in smoke for months. Farmers own tiny areas on the fire map, I wouldn't put their over-stated complaints ahead of bushfire professionals such as Shane Fitzsimmons. Watch the video. .

NSW fire boss says people complaining about lack of hazard-reduction burns have short memories

WWW.ABC.NET.AU

---

NSW's top fire brass has weighed in on a national debate about hazard-reduction burns, saying the practice made his organisation public enemy number one last year when Sydney was shrouded in...

          

Edited January 10, 2020 by Styx

[jethro]

23 minutes ago, Styx said:

Australia background fire weather conditions ( temperature, drought, soil moisture ) have been 'off the scale' esp. in December! There is no shortage of reliable information from professional organisations which has downplayed the role  ramped up fire hazard reduction burns could have played to temper the situation. You can't burn off all the bush every year there's too much of it; it would cover the landscape in smoke for months. Farmers own tiny areas on the fire map, I wouldn't put their over-stated complaints ahead of bushfire professionals such as Shane Fitzsimmons. Watch the video. .

NSW fire boss says people complaining about lack of hazard-reduction burns have short memories

WWW.ABC.NET.AU

---

NSW's top fire brass has weighed in on a national debate about hazard-reduction burns, saying the practice made his organisation public enemy number one last year when Sydney was shrouded in...

          

But all he's really saying is people complained when the hazard reduction fires were done and that it caused serious pollution. I've no doubt both are true. He also says that the areas that had had hazard reduction in the last 12 months, did stop the fire spreading. More than 12 months and the bush had grown again, so it didn't work. 

What I take from it is that the farmers were right, if they had continued with the annual winter clearance, the problem wouldn't be as bad as it is. 

Climate change may make it more likely, but you've also got to deduct the influence of El Nino from this too.

I remain of the opinion that those using the situation as proof positive of AGW/climate change are at best, misguided.

[Methuselah]

12 minutes ago, jethro said:

I remain of the opinion that those using the situation as proof positive of AGW/climate change are at best, misguided.

But no-one's doing that, Dawn? It's just that it's one of the predictions that's been proven correct...

[jethro]

11 minutes ago, General Cluster said:

But no-one's doing that, Dawn? It's just that it's one of the predictions that's been proven correct...

Yes they are. The media, twitterland, even the Golden Globes award ceremony. Everywhere you look, the general opinion is that it's climate change that is responsible.

I came here to see if there's any science to support those claims. Seems as usual, it's as I presumed, a mixture of both. There is science which says massive bush fires are more likely, that drought is likely to intensify/be more prolonged. But there's nothing scientific to pin the current situation on.

El Nino causes terrible drought in Australia, climate change may make it worse. Land management (or lack of it) can, and does make a bad situation ten times worse. Ergo, stating it's a climate prediction that has been proven correct simply isn't true.  

 

[Devonian]

15 minutes ago, jethro said:

Yes they are. The media, twitterland, even the Golden Globes award ceremony. Everywhere you look, the general opinion is that it's climate change that is responsible.

I came here to see if there's any science to support those claims. Seems as usual, it's as I presumed, a mixture of both. There is science which says massive bush fires are more likely, that drought is likely to intensify/be more prolonged. But there's nothing scientific to pin the current situation on.

El Nino causes terrible drought in Australia, climate change may make it worse. Land management (or lack of it) can, and does make a bad situation ten times worse. Ergo, stating it's a climate prediction that has been proven correct simply isn't true.  

 

I very much doubt it's all due to human caused climate change - otoh, if there have always been bush fires then it can't be the fault of bad farming practices either. I also can't ignore the reality that last year was the warmest and driest in the detailed climate record. You're not going to see record numbers of bush fires in a record wet summer - we'd all accept that?

However, the test of how serious these fires were will be in a few years time. Then we'll see if the talk of hundreds of millions of animals lost and species made extinct is correct, the talk of how this sort of event will be the norm likewise. My hope is it all recovers, that wetter and cooler years return, I hope I'll not get called names for fearing (based upon my understanding of what is going on) that might not be the case.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

21 minutes ago, jethro said:

Yes they are. The media, twitterland, even the Golden Globes award ceremony. Everywhere you look, the general opinion is that it's climate change that is responsible.

I came here to see if there's any science to support those claims. Seems as usual, it's as I presumed, a mixture of both. There is science which says massive bush fires are more likely, that drought is likely to intensify/be more prolonged. But there's nothing scientific to pin the current situation on.

El Nino causes terrible drought in Australia, climate change may make it worse. Land management (or lack of it) can, and does make a bad situation ten times worse. Ergo, stating it's a climate prediction that has been proven correct simply isn't true.  

Sorry Dawn, but the excessive heat (not the ever-present threat posed by arsonists) has been long-predicted by climate scientists...indeed, it was only a few years back that sceptics were reminding us all that 'it hasn't happened yet, it's only a theory, and we should wait for the evidence'. And, now that extreme heatwaves are fast becoming an annual event, they want us to concentrate on something else...?

But, just because I happen to be convinced, by the weight of scientific evidence, that the general opinion (that AGW is real) happens to be correct, doesn't lead me do deny the obvious fact that certain Joe Bloggses with a boxes of Swan Vestas simply love to start fires...

 

Edited January 10, 2020 by General Cluster

[Styx]

25 minutes ago, jethro said:

But all he's really saying is people complained when the hazard reduction fires were done and that it caused serious pollution. I've no doubt both are true. He also says that the areas that had had hazard reduction in the last 12 months, did stop the fire spreading. More than 12 months and the bush had grown again, so it didn't work. 

What I take from it is that the farmers were right, if they had continued with the annual winter clearance, the problem wouldn't be as bad as it is. 

Climate change may make it more likely, but you've also got to deduct the influence of El Nino from this too.

I remain of the opinion that those using the situation as proof positive of AGW/climate change are at best, misguided.

In recent years it hasn't been possible to meet hazard reduction targets because of  weather conditions ( unseasonal warmth on top of dryness ). The safe period to burn off during the cooler months is shortening. So even if there was a community consensus that more burn offs should happen despite smoke drifting around for months they wouldn't be able to do it because of safety. There is way too much bush anyway and there are not enough resources or days in the year to cover it all. In the 'old days' there was never comprehensive annual coverage either.  Many destructive fires have occurred accidently from hazard reduction burns in some instances from smoldering tree trunks that were alight for weeks. I want to go back to my main point about the weather conditions and the fire index ratings which have not been recorded before. You simply can't dismiss those factors as a side issue as the Fire Commissioner points out strongly. They make a difference between a bushfire and a 50ft high firestorm.  Did you know fire embers have travelled twenty kilometres on the wind this summer to create spot fires well ahead of any fire break? How do you stop that. That will happen in bone-dry air and temperatures reaching near 50c within 100 kilometres of the south and east coast. A very concerning element about this we are not in El Nino.

This twitter stuff about lack of burn-offs and arson as the pivotal reason for the massive fires is complete BS ( as has been reported by media with commentary from those in authority positions ).  I find the breakdown in truth reporting and what people are convinced to believe in really concerning as a lot of the exaggerated and fake stuff being thrown about has been seeded into traditional and social media by players with malicious intent,  a strategy to get people off the main game. Regular decent people then get sucked in by it and take what is said as main truth. I have been duped before on other matters.

[jethro]

3 hours ago, Styx said:

In recent years it hasn't been possible to meet hazard reduction targets because of  weather conditions ( unseasonal warmth on top of dryness ). The safe period to burn off during the cooler months is shortening. So even if there was a community consensus that more burn offs should happen despite smoke drifting around for months they wouldn't be able to do it because of safety. There is way too much bush anyway and there are not enough resources or days in the year to cover it all. In the 'old days' there was never comprehensive annual coverage either.  Many destructive fires have occurred accidently from hazard reduction burns in some instances from smoldering tree trunks that were alight for weeks. I want to go back to my main point about the weather conditions and the fire index ratings which have not been recorded before. You simply can't dismiss those factors as a side issue as the Fire Commissioner points out strongly. They make a difference between a bushfire and a 50ft high firestorm.  Did you know fire embers have travelled twenty kilometres on the wind this summer to create spot fires well ahead of any fire break? How do you stop that. That will happen in bone-dry air and temperatures reaching near 50c within 100 kilometres of the south and east coast. A very concerning element about this we are not in El Nino.

This twitter stuff about lack of burn-offs and arson as the pivotal reason for the massive fires is complete BS ( as has been reported by media with commentary from those in authority positions ).  I find the breakdown in truth reporting and what people are convinced to believe in really concerning as a lot of the exaggerated and fake stuff being thrown about has been seeded into traditional and social media by players with malicious intent,  a strategy to get people off the main game. Regular decent people then get sucked in by it and take what is said as main truth. I have been duped before on other matters.

I share your concern.  Trouble is, when it comes to the topic covered within this section of the forum, the widespread mis-reporting has been wrongly used to promote the science of climate change. All too often, every single weather event that causes headline news has been linked to climate change and used as 'proof'. Often, completely inaccurately. Hence why I ventured into here. I haven't been following the science on this for a very long time, it's a lot quicker to ask here than spend ages trawling around looking for and reading research - time is something I have very little of to spare.

[jethro]

3 hours ago, General Cluster said:

Sorry Dawn, but the excessive heat (not the ever-present threat posed by arsonists) has been long-predicted by climate scientists...indeed, it was only a few years back that sceptics were reminding us all that 'it hasn't happened yet, it's only a theory, and we should wait for the evidence'. And, now that extreme heatwaves are fast becoming an annual event, they want us to concentrate on something else...?

But, just because I happen to be convinced, by the weight of scientific evidence, that the general opinion (that AGW is real) happens to be correct, doesn't lead me do deny the obvious fact that certain Joe Bloggses with a boxes of Swan Vestas simply love to start fires...

 

Eh? Sorry Pete but what you've said is far too close to the usual guff of deniers/believers stuff that goes on in here, that I'm not getting into it. Nothing personal, just that stuff leaves me cold. I've very little spare time, not wasting it by entering into that cycle of ever decreasing circles.

[jethro]

3 hours ago, Devonian said:

I very much doubt it's all due to human caused climate change - otoh, if there have always been bush fires then it can't be the fault of bad farming practices either. I also can't ignore the reality that last year was the warmest and driest in the detailed climate record. You're not going to see record numbers of bush fires in a record wet summer - we'd all accept that?

However, the test of how serious these fires were will be in a few years time. Then we'll see if the talk of hundreds of millions of animals lost and species made extinct is correct, the talk of how this sort of event will be the norm likewise. My hope is it all recovers, that wetter and cooler years return, I hope I'll not get called names for fearing (based upon my understanding of what is going on) that might not be the case.

I also hope it recovers. I also don't doubt that millions of animals have been lost and that it may tip already vulnerable species, over the edge into extinction. 

I don't doubt how serious these fires are, how could anyone? My questions are merely trying to decipher how accurate (or otherwise) the claims that this is climate change in action, actually are. 

[Methuselah]

8 hours ago, jethro said:

Eh? Sorry Pete but what you've said is far too close to the usual guff of deniers/believers stuff that goes on in here, that I'm not getting into it. Nothing personal, just that stuff leaves me cold. I've very little spare time, not wasting it by entering into that cycle of ever decreasing circles.

Maybe it's because I never visit the scientific 'hinterlands' of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, Dawn?

PS: My conviction, that AGW is real (and that the current bushfires are almost certainly related) comes from the data: the setting of new all-time highs are outstripping those of new minima by an ever-increasing margin...?

Edited January 11, 2020 by General Cluster

[jethro]

51 minutes ago, General Cluster said:

Maybe it's because I never visit the scientific 'hinterlands' of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, Dawn?

PS: My conviction, that AGW is real (and that the current bushfires are almost certainly related) comes from the data: the setting of new all-time highs are outstripping those of new minima by an ever-increasing margin...?

Lol, maybe you should then Pete, then you wouldn't be able to say (as earlier) that no one is claiming climate change is responsible.

My conviction is that here, it's impossible to have a discussion without the believer/denier slant, despite my pleas for it not to happen. You have to do it, you have to get in the 'I believe AGW is real' comments, coupled with the superior 'I look at the science' baloney. What was the point? What has it achieved? I suppose if it's an effort to keep this closed shop going, keep the chats with just the familiar faces, then it was absolutely worthwhile and effective.

I look at the real world and shake my head in puzzlement. Because for me, all the science in the world is worthless if it isn't applied to the real world. If the science predicts that bush fires will become more prevalent, larger, fiercer, then why in Gods name stop doing one of the few things that could have helped stop the current situation evolving into an ecological disaster? I personally love the general Aussie outlook on life, straight forward, direct, no nonsense, which is why I couldn't quite believe all the reports I was seeing about stopping the hazard burning. I wanted to see whether or not the climate had changed so much, that there's nothing that can be done, that this is the new reality for that part of the world. I think I'll look elsewhere for info.

Thanks everyone.

[Methuselah]

42 minutes ago, jethro said:

Lol, maybe you should then Pete, then you wouldn't be able to say (as earlier) that no one is claiming climate change is responsible.

My conviction is that here, it's impossible to have a discussion without the believer/denier slant, despite my pleas for it not to happen. You have to do it, you have to get in the 'I believe AGW is real' comments, coupled with the superior 'I look at the science' baloney. What was the point? What has it achieved? I suppose if it's an effort to keep this closed shop going, keep the chats with just the familiar faces, then it was absolutely worthwhile and effective.

I look at the real world and shake my head in puzzlement. Because for me, all the science in the world is worthless if it isn't applied to the real world. If the science predicts that bush fires will become more prevalent, larger, fiercer, then why in Gods name stop doing one of the few things that could have helped stop the current situation evolving into an ecological disaster? I personally love the general Aussie outlook on life, straight forward, direct, no nonsense, which is why I couldn't quite believe all the reports I was seeing about stopping the hazard burning. I wanted to see whether or not the climate had changed so much, that there's nothing that can be done, that this is the new reality for that part of the world. I think I'll look elsewhere for info.

Thanks everyone.

And I fall into a similarly confused (fugue?) state, when confronted by folks who're seemingly so dead-set on avoiding the data (as if data were tainted with some kind of transmissible disease) that they [the data] need be avoided at all costs...

The world (by which I mean humanity) is currently facing an extremely serious existential problem, but the Twittersphere is hardly the best place in which to search for solutions...IMO? Most of the garbage spouted by Internet 'influencers' is very strong on 'feelings' but very weak on facts. Just look at all the pseudoscientific miracle-cures and fad-diets there are out there?

I guess I'll have to live with the fact that my inbuilt filters will exclude some wheat with all the chaff. But I think we're all in that particular boat --- one way or t'other!

 

[jethro]

4 hours ago, General Cluster said:

And I fall into a similarly confused (fugue?) state, when confronted by folks who're seemingly so dead-set on avoiding the data (as if data were tainted with some kind of transmissible disease) that they [the data] need be avoided at all costs...

The world (by which I mean humanity) is currently facing an extremely serious existential problem, but the Twittersphere is hardly the best place in which to search for solutions...IMO? Most of the garbage spouted by Internet 'influencers' is very strong on 'feelings' but very weak on facts. Just look at all the pseudoscientific miracle-cures and fad-diets there are out there?

I guess I'll have to live with the fact that my inbuilt filters will exclude some wheat with all the chaff. But I think we're all in that particular boat --- one way or t'other!

 

And I'm confused, or should I say at a complete and utter loss to understand why, oh why you have to take this approach when responding to a question about Australian bush fires? 

At no point, never ever, either now or in my past existence as a regular on here, have I ever argued with the science, nor denied climate change. And yet, despite knowing that, despite me specifically asking that my question about the Aussie disaster NOT be turned into the usual pro AGW/denier dross that goes on here, you are determined to take that road. It's the reason I left, the reason I stopped being a Mod, and the single reason why, if I ever think I might stand a chance of getting a reasoned response and answers to questions, I'll look elsewhere.

Seriously Pete, it's time to move on and maybe have open discussions. 

[Methuselah]

3 minutes ago, jethro said:

And I'm confused, or should I say at a complete and utter loss to understand why, oh why you have to take this approach when responding to a question about Australian bush fires? 

At no point, never ever, either now or in my past existence as a regular on here, have I ever argued with the science, nor denied climate change. And yet, despite knowing that, despite me specifically asking that my question about the Aussie disaster NOT be turned into the usual pro AGW/denier dross that goes on here, you are determined to take that road. It's the reason I left, the reason I stopped being a Mod, and the single reason why, if I ever think I might stand a chance of getting a reasoned response and answers to questions, I'll look elsewhere.

Seriously Pete, it's time to move on and maybe have open discussions. 

Then I think we're 'arguing' at cross-purposes: I was merely (if probably a little clumsily) telling you why I can't be bothered with Twitter et. al....

[Methuselah]

I think it's time I made a prediction, as (IMO) making predictions seems like a logical way of 'asking the Universe questions':

In the years to come, the threat posed to humans by Legionnaires' disease ( L bozemanii, L micdadeii, L pneumophila) will increase as the climate warms...?

But, why will it increase? It'll increase because of an ever-increasing reliance on large-scale air conditioning systems, that will not be properly regulated, due to the current penchant for reducing expenditure at all costs, human or otherwise?

So, although AGW may be seen as the ultimate cause of the problem (It hasn't happened yet, and hopefully never will!) the proximate cause may well be, as is usually the case, more a matter of human incompetence...

Mark Honigsbaum: The Pandemic Century (2019)

 

[Roger J Smith]

As you may have noticed I have begun to post the results of the Toronto study. It would help me if anyone could explain how one can edit type size in a post, as the toolbar that appears does not contain an option for that. I need to reduce some of the placeholder posted words to a better (smaller) type size. TIA. It will no doubt take a week or two to fill out all the posts that I set up. Just wanted to have all the data eventually appearing in sequence with any discussion after the data have all appeared. So kindly don't post in that thread until the data sets are complete. The excel file will become available in March when we have 180 full years of data (the series began on March 1st of 1840). 

[Ǝssex Ǝasterly]

50 minutes ago, Roger J Smith said:

As you may have noticed I have begun to post the results of the Toronto study. It would help me if anyone could explain how one can edit type size in a post, as the toolbar that appears does not contain an option for that. I need to reduce some of the placeholder posted words to a better (smaller) type size. TIA. It will no doubt take a week or two to fill out all the posts that I set up. Just wanted to have all the data eventually appearing in sequence with any discussion after the data have all appeared. So kindly don't post in that thread until the data sets are complete. The excel file will become available in March when we have 180 full years of data (the series began on March 1st of 1840). 

Are you using a PC/Laptop or phone? As the toolbar should come up like shown below on a PC, with the font size option near the end

If the text has already been typed up and needs a size change, drag your cursor over the text you want to change, and just select a different size from the drop down box

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roger J Smith]

That's fine when you first post, what about the edit screen? The menu is smaller (no size or colour options).

[BornFromTheVoid]

On 02/02/2020 at 23:15, GSP said:

Any thoughts welcome on this. Could it be we are actually keeping the earth a bit cooler than it should be?

I ask this question on a few counts.

First, I don't think anyone can deny the fact the earth goes through various cycles of cooling and warming phases.

The earth does indeed go through natural warming and cooling cycles, with natural change in CO2 a key part of this. However, the current warming rate is greater than anything experienced in thousands of years at least. This is related to CO2 levels, which are currently higher than they've been for millions of years (and other greenhouse gas contributions).

On 02/02/2020 at 23:15, GSP said:

As a result of jets being grounded due to 9/11 and the opportunity of having no jet omissions in the atmosphere, tests were done in America to see the effect of this on temperature. Results were staggering as with the cleaner air, the temp actually rose by 1.0c which was significant and opposite to what was expected.

The studies conducted after the flights were ground are a little more ambiguous than that. The initial study found that the daily temperature range increased a lot, but not so much the actual average temperature. So it was warmer in the day and cooler at night. A recent paper (which I'll try to find) placed most of the blame on weather conditions during that time, but it's still clear that the lack of contrails did alter the temperature range.

On 02/02/2020 at 23:15, GSP said:

A recent graph showing a temperature profile from the fifties to the current day showed mainly blue cool shading until about the turn of the century, then turned mainly red which was sustained warming to the current day.

Temperatures have been warming at an (arguably) accelerating rates since the 1970s, rather than since the turn of the century. But the warming influence of our GhG emissions go back further.

 

On 02/02/2020 at 23:15, GSP said:

Now although there is a lot of current discussion about cleaner air going forward, but our air is a lot cleaner than it was in the last twenty years and seems to coincide with the graph turning mainly red I just mentioned.

Could it just be that the earth should actually be warmer than it really is and our cleaning of the air is bringing it to the 'natural' level it should be?

It stacks up with the last twenty years increased temps with pollution down on what it was. It stacks up with the result of that test done on cleaner air in 2001 where temps actually rose +1.0c, against expectations.

Another scenario is reduced temperatures due to volcanic activity. All that material in the atmosphere in a major eruption does reduce the light and temperature.

Let me finish by saying I am one for doing away with fossil fuels replacing these with solar, tidal and wind power and more use of magnetic based power.

If my thoughts are true then so be it. If we should be warmer than we were and are now finding our true temperature level, then so be it.

But what I don't like if this is true is the lie that cleaning the air further will reduce temperatures when it will in fact it will increase them at a faster rate, back to the level they should really be?

Humanity is putting a substantial amount of aerosols or pollution into the atmosphere that is actually causing cooling by reflecting sunlight away. So if we clean up the atmosphere, so to speak, you are right that temperatures will likely climb even faster. But this is because the full effect of our GhG emissions will be felt, rather than returning to some natural climate base state. The climate was slowly cooling for thousands of years before the industrial revolution, and solar forcing has also been dropping over the last few decades, so the natural base state now is substantially cooler than how it is in reality.

 

[GSP]

23 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

The earth does indeed go through natural warming and cooling cycles, with natural change in CO2 a key part of this. However, the current warming rate is greater than anything experienced in thousands of years at least. This is related to CO2 levels, which are currently higher than they've been for millions of years (and other greenhouse gas contributions).

The studies conducted after the flights were ground are a little more ambiguous than that. The initial study found that the daily temperature range increased a lot, but not so much the actual average temperature. So it was warmer in the day and cooler at night. A recent paper (which I'll try to find) placed most of the blame on weather conditions during that time, but it's still clear that the lack of contrails did alter the temperature range.

Temperatures have been warming at an (arguably) accelerating rates since the 1970s, rather than since the turn of the century. But the warming influence of our GhG emissions go back further.

 

Humanity is putting a substantial amount of aerosols or pollution into the atmosphere that is actually causing cooling by reflecting sunlight away. So if we clean up the atmosphere, so to speak, you are right that temperatures will likely climb even faster. But this is because the full effect of our GhG emissions will be felt, rather than returning to some natural climate base state. The climate was slowly cooling for thousands of years before the industrial revolution, and solar forcing has also been dropping over the last few decades, so the natural base state now is substantially cooler than how it is in reality.

 

My first post so thank you for putting my post into a more suitable area of the site.

This is from a site called Newscientist.com

"First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork".

I really am not qualified for this but doesn't this throw a lot of doubt on both sides of the coin? It could be graphs are drawn depending on what side of the fence you sit, but none are accurate.

Through my lifetime, with the cleaner air gone are the pea souper fogs of the sixties and early seventies but other seasonal events are rare or non existent nowadays. Snow and a two week cold spell (remember the fen ice skating and ice skating on dutch canals, both gone) summer Thunderstorms, even though temperatures have risen these are much rarer.

For me something happened to our climate as far back as the mid seventies. I remember Bert Ford saying at that time in one of his forecasts in November "Here is an area of high pressure over Norway, and it will probably sit here until April influencing our weather from time to time". Since the year he said that, that high pressure has found it very hard to establish itself in that area and is usually blown away by the jet stream. As far as I know, jet stream potentcy is caused by the difference in temp between the arctic and equatorial regions. It seems both regions may be warming so this should not have an effect on the jet stream as the changes cancel each other out.

So what is causing the jet stream to ramp up. Not climate so there must be something else?

In all, I still think the jury is out as to what is happening to the climate in this world and is not just restricted to man. There are other factors at work, or other factors at least not being considered.

If our cleaning of the air IS contributing to the increase in temps, just when will this stop if we have a fair way to go still?

Again while I do want to get rid of fossil fuels, I am concerned we are putting all our eggs in one basket thinking that if we continue to clean our air this will stop the increase in temps. Not totally unstanding the subject, we might be asking for greater trouble than we think if we are barking up the wrong tree.

 

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

23 minutes ago, GSP said:

My first post so thank you for putting my post into a more suitable area of the site.

This is from a site called Newscientist.com

"First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork".

I really am not qualified for this but doesn't this throw a lot of doubt on both sides of the coin? It could be graphs are drawn depending on what side of the fence you sit, but none are accurate.

No worries
Every estimate of global temperatures comes with a level of uncertainty. With modern instruments, that uncertainty is quite narrow, and grows as you go back in time. There are not many instrumental temperature records that go back beyond 150 years, but there are a few, the Central England Temperature being the most well known and longest.

It's true that some assumptions go into proxy measurements, but these are incorporated into the error ranges. Another way of showing that proxy measurements are accurate is by using different proxies from around the world and seeing if they produce the same results. 

The error ranges are greater as you go back in time, but it's not complete guesswork. You can't get these datasets published unless you can justify the methods you use and the error ranges you place on them. So it definitely isn't down to what side of the fence someone sits on, especially as the active publishing scientists are 99% in agreement on the main drivers of climate change, both modern and historical. There will always be regional differences, but the global and hemispheric reconstructions tend to produce quite consistent results

23 minutes ago, GSP said:

Through my lifetime, with the cleaner air gone are the pea souper fogs of the sixties and early seventies but other seasonal events are rare or non existent nowadays. Snow and a two week cold spell (remember the fen ice skating and ice skating on dutch canals, both gone) summer Thunderstorms, even though temperatures have risen these are much rarer.

For me something happened to our climate as far back as the mid seventies. I remember Bert Ford saying at that time in one of his forecasts in November "Here is an area of high pressure over Norway, and it will probably sit here until April influencing our weather from time to time". Since the year he said that, that high pressure has found it very hard to establish itself in that area and is usually blown away by the jet stream. As far as I know, jet stream potentcy is caused by the difference in temp between the arctic and equatorial regions. It seems both regions may be warming so this should not have an effect on the jet stream as the changes cancel each other out.

There's a lot of discussion and work on how the jet stream will be influenced by climate change. The Arctic is warming at more than twice the global average, reducing the temperature difference between the poles and tropics. Most seem to think this will cause (and is causing) a slowdown in the jet stream with greater Rossby waves, but it's not very clear cut at the moment.  Changes to ocean circulation, sea ice coverage, stratospheric temperatures, etc, are all muddying the relationship.

23 minutes ago, GSP said:

So what is causing the jet stream to ramp up. Not climate so there must be something else?

In all, I still think the jury is out as to what is happening to the climate in this world and is not just restricted to man. There are other factors at work, or other factors at least not being considered.

If our cleaning of the air IS contributing to the increase in temps, just when will this stop if we have a fair way to go still?

Again while I do want to get rid of fossil fuels, I am concerned we are putting all our eggs in one basket thinking that if we continue to clean our air this will stop the increase in temps. Not totally unstanding the subject, we might be asking for greater trouble than we think if we are barking up the wrong tree.

There isn't much doubt as to the cause of climate change in the scientific community. The uncertainty is a falsehood pushed in the general media, but especially social media. Given the scientific agreement on what is causing the planet to warm (Greenhouse gasses), it's best to deal with that. Reducing air pollution may increase warming in the near-term, though it's hard to say by how much exactly, but reduces the many health problems linked with pollution too. It's not a simple scenario

[GSP]

On 05/02/2020 at 14:00, BornFromTheVoid said:

The earth does indeed go through natural warming and cooling cycles, with natural change in CO2 a key part of this. However, the current warming rate is greater than anything experienced in thousands of years at least. This is related to CO2 levels, which are currently higher than they've been for millions of years (and other greenhouse gas contributions).

The studies conducted after the flights were ground are a little more ambiguous than that. The initial study found that the daily temperature range increased a lot, but not so much the actual average temperature. So it was warmer in the day and cooler at night. A recent paper (which I'll try to find) placed most of the blame on weather conditions during that time, but it's still clear that the lack of contrails did alter the temperature range.

Temperatures have been warming at an (arguably) accelerating rates since the 1970s, rather than since the turn of the century. But the warming influence of our GhG emissions go back further.

 

Humanity is putting a substantial amount of aerosols or pollution into the atmosphere that is actually causing cooling by reflecting sunlight away. So if we clean up the atmosphere, so to speak, you are right that temperatures will likely climb even faster. But this is because the full effect of our GhG emissions will be felt, rather than returning to some natural climate base state. The climate was slowly cooling for thousands of years before the industrial revolution, and solar forcing has also been dropping over the last few decades, so the natural base state now is substantially cooler than how it is in reality.

 

Thank you for your reply.

Interesting you say we should expect increased temps with cleaner air in the near term. Is that message out there for Joe Public as I am sure some maybe expecting instant results through reducing omissions.

And they might want to know want 'near term' means as in duration as this could be 10 years, 50 years in man terms. 50 years of sustained warming through having cleaner air actually may put us near the precipice.

 

 

[GSP]

Thank you for your reply.

Interesting you say we should expect increased temps with cleaner air in the near term. Is that message out there for Joe Public as I am sure some maybe expecting instant results through reducing omissions.

And they might want to know want 'near term' means as in duration as this could be 10 years, 50 years in man terms. 50 years of sustained warming through having cleaner air actually may put us near the precipice.

[Gray-Wolf]

Looking at the jet over recent years there are times the polar jet is so weak as to be nearly invisible?

Take today across a good portion of our hemisphere;

earth :: a global map of wind, weather, and ocean conditions

EARTH.NULLSCHOOL.NET

---

See current wind, weather, ocean, and pollution conditions, as forecast by supercomputers, on an interactive animated map. Updated every three hours.

Could it be that we are seeing a 'strong Jet' because it is the only jet separating polar/temperate from the tropical airs? That would be a temp difference to fire up a strong jet I'd guess?