Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BornFromTheVoid

Climate Questions

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Roger J Smith said:

Well we seem to be at an impasse here because I cannot accept that the temperature trends from 1880 to 1950 show any real evidence of natural cooling with human warming overcoming it, the trends seem fairly obvious to me and I have always thought that in North America at least, the majority of scientists working in the field were seeing a natural warming trend. Frankly if I went onto American Weather Forum and blandly stated that temperature trends 1880 to 1950 show that, it would be "laughed out of court." So I don't really understand how the IPCC either hasn't accepted that, or has a different wording that might not be as unacceptable.

Just wondering also, if the 20th century warming cannot be natural in origins, then what caused the Medieval warm period? Many believe that it was equally warm compared to centuries before and after it. That must have had natural origins surely. So this long-term cooling trend seems to be capable of reversals on that time scale (one or two centuries).

All of the other connections in the above post are more or less irrelevant since I am not a flat earther, anti-vaxxer, moon landing hoaxer etc. My views on Trump might be more favourable than some but do not extend into the religious realm (earlier it was suggested that I was that person). 

Here's where I will leave the debate then, from my point of view, there is enough evidence to suggest that a natural warming trend was underway when the late 1970s early 1980s cooling intervened, then AGW combined with strong El Nino warmings reversed that situation from 1982 to 1990. What has happened since 1990 seems more open to the interpretation of the IPCC and I will go back to my research to investigate that in more detail. I do believe that the high solar activity of the 1917 through 2001 cycles was a factor in the warming, to what extent needs further investigation. 

Don't want to derail this thread so my next appearance in this sub-forum might be to discuss the results of the "Toronto 180" study that I have mentioned and which is almost ready for publication. I will attempt to stay away from anything political since frankly I don't know whether a belief in inevitable natural warming is going to produce any different political agenda than the one already in existence. The only change I would suggest is to start planning for the sea level rises which seem 60 to 80 per cent likely to me anyway (even if Greta has her way and we all stay home growing vegetables on our roof-tops). 

Hi Roger

I tend to agree with you. I don't think enough has been done to explain why earth has gone through warmer periods which cannot be related to man's activities. Once we explain that and understand properly the true natural climatic patterns then perhaps we can better understand man's influence and understand whether we can or its worth doing something about. 

From my own perspective not enough credit is given to the strength of the solar cycles since the Dalton minimum and certainly not cycles 21 and 22 which where the highest most active cycles for centuries. We must remember some said not that long ago that cycles 24 and 25 would be significantly stronger than they actually are or now predicted to be and those who actually got it right predict that we will return after cycle 26 so 27 28 to what we saw with cycles 21 and 22.

So I have no doubt come 2100 we will see sea level rises and a warmer planet no matter what we do with CO2. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to stop polluting or using resource recklessly and managing our activities better.

Keep up the good work and I look forward to your study being shared here 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Roger J Smith said:

Well we seem to be at an impasse here because I cannot accept that the temperature trends from 1880 to 1950 show any real evidence of natural cooling with human warming overcoming it, the trends seem fairly obvious to me and I have always thought that in North America at least, the majority of scientists working in the field were seeing a natural warming trend. Frankly if I went onto American Weather Forum and blandly stated that temperature trends 1880 to 1950 show that, it would be "laughed out of court." So I don't really understand how the IPCC either hasn't accepted that, or has a different wording that might not be as unacceptable.

Just wondering also, if the 20th century warming cannot be natural in origins, then what caused the Medieval warm period? Many believe that it was equally warm compared to centuries before and after it. That must have had natural origins surely. So this long-term cooling trend seems to be capable of reversals on that time scale (one or two centuries).

There can be both a warming and cooling forcing at the same time. If one is stronger than the other, the trend will go in one direction. In this instance:

  1. The cooling trend during the Holocene, if you looked at the graph, is at a rate of about 0.01C per century
  2. GhG induced warming was already more than enough to overwhelm the slow cooling, especially when combined with a short term natural warming phase (both were operating in the early 20th century)

This is simply the reality, whether you accept it or not. The opinion you think weather enthusiasts on US forums have is irrelevant. And as I work with climate scientists, I can assure you that the vast majority of them do not see things as you do. Here's the most recent and comprehensive reconstruction of global temperatures over the past 2,000 years, released a couple of months ago. It shows cooling right up to the turn of the 20th century, then unprecedented warming.

EB7uuvFU4AMyDkf.jpg:large

There is little evidence of the MWP being a global phenomenon, as you can see in the graph, much less the level you mention. Besides, we can attribute the 20th century warming mainly to human activities because of all the multiple lines of evidence, built up by actual experts over the last half century. I've laid this evidence out for you and tried to explain it several times, but you appear unwilling to accept it.

9 hours ago, Roger J Smith said:

All of the other connections in the above post are more or less irrelevant since I am not a flat earther, anti-vaxxer, moon landing hoaxer etc. My views on Trump might be more favourable than some but do not extend into the religious realm (earlier it was suggested that I was that person). 

It was clearly meant to highlight the weakness is assessing the validity of science based on public opinion. Missing the point as well as you've done is quite a feat of mental gymnastics
 

9 hours ago, Roger J Smith said:

Here's where I will leave the debate then, from my point of view, there is enough evidence to suggest that a natural warming trend was underway when the late 1970s early 1980s cooling intervened, then AGW combined with strong El Nino warmings reversed that situation from 1982 to 1990. What has happened since 1990 seems more open to the interpretation of the IPCC and I will go back to my research to investigate that in more detail. I do believe that the high solar activity of the 1917 through 2001 cycles was a factor in the warming, to what extent needs further investigation. 

You've provided not one iota of evidence to suggest natural warming was well underway then.
ENSO goes through cycles, El Nino warms, La Nina cools. It cannot be responsible for warming trends.
Despite a multi-centennial cooling trend, despite a multi-decadal drop in solar irradiance, despite an increase in reflective aerosols, despite an increase in land albedo there has been warming, and all the evidence and expert consensus point to one primary cause for the warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Born, a couple of questions.

1, I should know what paper that graphic is from but I don't...

2, the dotted lines are the 99% confidence lines?

3, what effect would a big event (or how big an event?) would it need to be to show as sudden a cooling (I can't think of a natural sudden warming event) of the same magnitude as we see atm? Toba would be bigger, 1816 smaller?

4, would such an event show up in the kind of proxies that the graphic used to produce (I'm sure it would?)?

5, and are people still working on temperature reconstructions, or have they exhausted the proxies available?

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's is a question albeit related to my area..why is the vast majority of the warming confined to the winter months and not spread out across the year??...here spring summer and autumn temps and rainfall haven't really changed over the last 50 years or so..but winter has warmed by approx +2c..is this a pattern repeated across the northern hemisphere that occurs more the further north you go??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will take one more turn since there are clearly misleading statements made above.

The opinions on U.S. weather forums are not confined to enthusiasts (although some enthusiasts have probably seen a lot more past weather data than some IPCC scientists). It is my observation that in North America, the entire profession including AGW proponents would stay clear of any statements about no natural warming, and a state of continued natural cooling overwhelmed by warming only of human origins. This simply looks ridiculous when you study maps, data and trends. It clearly turned a lot warmer between the 1880s and the 1910s.

The attached graph shows Toronto and CET annual averages for the period that they both exist (1841 to 2019, the latter contains a slight estimate for rest of Dec and will be adjusted in my research file when that data is in).

Now it's probable that 75% of the differential (Toronto used to be about 2 C deg colder on average, now the difference is closer to 0.5 deg) is urban heat island related, but the warming that is evident from 1888 to 1910 is almost a phase change of climate from a cold setting in the 19th century to a much warmer setting in the early 20th. There is no way that more than a slight fraction of this is related to human activity. 

As for not providing one iota of proof, it's all going to be evident from this Toronto180 study, so I know the proof exists. I do accept that there is some uncertainty about how much of the warming is natural and how much is from human activity. And I have already conceded that there was a general cooling trend before the Maunder minimum. Statements made about the MWP not being as robust or widespread as some claim are (as everyone knows) highly disputed and controversial, appearing to be a deliberate distortion in plain sight. The climate in Newfoundland is known to have been considerably warmer at the arrival of the Vikings than in modern times, and Greenland was evidently, well, green near the edges. Norse settlement failed by the 14th century due to major temperature declines. There is no rational reason to downplay the MWP, and doing so is probably an effort to hide the possibility of natural warming cycles or events. 

(note added: the urban heat island for Toronto (city) was probably negligible from 1841 to 1880, then grew rather steadily as the city spread out around the site of the weather station (which has always been located within 0.5 km of current location near the University of Toronto which is now near the northern edge of the CBD of a city of 4 million people) -- I estimate the UHI was at 20-40% of current intensity by 1900, 50-60% by 1920, 60-70% by 1930, 70-80% by 1940, probably reached 90% by 1960-70 and has been increasing very slowly since 1980. This is based on a large volume of research on UHI effects, and my own observations of the differentials between the Toronto location and a distant rural site about 150 kms north of the city which has no urban influence anywhere in its records from the 1890s to present time). 

MEAN ANNUAL TEMPERATURES at TORONTO (blue) and CET (red) 1841 to 2019

Note: the CET temperatures are derived from adjusted data while the Toronto city data are unaltered from reports available within the EC website under historical weather data. The only adjustments made by me are additions of missing data in their records which amount to perhaps ten days over recent years. For those I took the nearest available temperatures also well within the urban area at North York and used the small differentials established by data overlapping (not more than 1 C deg in any case). Since the CET data handlers say they are adjusting to eliminate UHI effects, one could presume that their raw data would increase a bit more than shown here and would therefore stay above the Toronto series more visibly than is the case in this graph. Their adjustments at end of month are a different issue based on completing their data sets and adjusting to 24-hour calendar days. Here again that process could only push down the red line in the graph as we all know the average end of month adjustment is around 0.2 C deg downward from provisional. 

image.thumb.png.b774ec4dab863aa2e513752656df2f01.png

Edited by Roger J Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roger J Smith said:

I will take one more turn since there are clearly misleading statements made above.

The opinions on U.S. weather forums are not confined to enthusiasts (although some enthusiasts have probably seen a lot more past weather data than some IPCC scientists). It is my observation that in North America, the entire profession including AGW proponents would stay clear of any statements about no natural warming, and a state of continued natural cooling overwhelmed by warming only of human origins. This simply looks ridiculous when you study maps, data and trends. It clearly turned a lot warmer between the 1880s and the 1910s.

The attached graph shows Toronto and CET annual averages for the period that they both exist (1841 to 2019, the latter contains a slight estimate for rest of Dec and will be adjusted in my research file when that data is in).

Now it's probable that 75% of the differential (Toronto used to be about 2 C deg colder on average, now the difference is closer to 0.5 deg) is urban heat island related, but the warming that is evident from 1888 to 1910 is almost a phase change of climate from a cold setting in the 19th century to a much warmer setting in the early 20th. There is no way that more than a slight fraction of this is related to human activity. 

As for not providing one iota of proof, it's all going to be evident from this Toronto180 study, so I know the proof exists. I do accept that there is some uncertainty about how much of the warming is natural and how much is from human activity. And I have already conceded that there was a general cooling trend before the Maunder minimum. Statements made about the MWP not being as robust or widespread as some claim are (as everyone knows) highly disputed and controversial, appearing to be a deliberate distortion in plain sight. The climate in Newfoundland is known to have been considerably warmer at the arrival of the Vikings than in modern times, and Greenland was evidently, well, green near the edges. Norse settlement failed by the 14th century due to major temperature declines. There is no rational reason to downplay the MWP, and doing so is probably an effort to hide the possibility of natural warming cycles or events. 

Here's the graph:

MEAN ANNUAL TEMPERATURES at TORONTO (blue) and CET (red) 1841 to 2019

image.thumb.png.b774ec4dab863aa2e513752656df2f01.png

'hide'? You give your prejudices away there Roger...

As to your study, well, unless you have studied other record nearby, let alone a bigger area, how do we know you're not (to use another word you have, so it's fair game) trying to 'mislead' by the use of carefully picked cherries? Why just Toronto v just the CET?

Have you done those check, those comparisons? Have you seen how the CET compares with other cities in Canada? How does it compare with Montreal, or Halifax, or Vancover? indeed, how does Toronto compare with Halifax?

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

Here's is a question albeit related to my area..why is the vast majority of the warming confined to the winter months and not spread out across the year??...here spring summer and autumn temps and rainfall haven't really changed over the last 50 years or so..but winter has warmed by approx +2c..is this a pattern repeated across the northern hemisphere that occurs more the further north you go??

How about winters are more likely to be affected by the greater changes to the Arctic climate (caused by AGW plus Arctic amplification) than summers because atmospheric circulation is more vigorous in the winter and sluggish in the summer so the effect of changes to the Arctic on weather is greater in the former than the latter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of a natural warming at Toronto, I think these data from 1886 to 1933 demonstrate how fast the climate was warming then, and I fail to see how this could all be human activity, in fact, I don't see why any of it would be in the first portion, except for perhaps a slight contribution from the urban heat island. Before 1888 the climate was generally on the colder side of the long-term average, this shows the rank of each three-year interval from 1886-88 to 1931-33 depicted in a graphical format. Clearly there was a rapid warming trend going on especially around the interval of 1904-21 and again 1928-33. The highest three-year average rank is 7.0 for 2010-12, but 1953-55 reached a previous max of 23.0. The past three years 2017-19 will come in close to an average of 28 but 2013-15 dipped lower to 53.3. No year from 1992 to 1997 at Toronto ranked higher than 40th. The interval from 1998 to 2002 was quite warm, similar to 2010-12 (the five years 1998 to 2002 average rank is 8.8).

I would submit this graphic shows that warming was fastest around 1904 to 21, after which it has been much more sedate. This seems to be at least half of natural origins, can't see how the urban heat island alone would produce the large increases. Extreme temperatures kept pace with this also, as did the number of daily maximum records per year.

YEARS ___ AVERAGE ANNUAL RANK (1 to 180, 1 is warmest = 2011)

1886-88 ___164.0

1889-91 ____________ 124.3

1892-94 ___________131.3

1895-97 ____________126,0

1898-1900 ___________________ 88.0

1901-03 _______________112.3

1904-06 __________ 131.7

1907-09 ______________ 113.3

1910-12 __________________ 97.7

1913-15 ______________________ 81.7

1916-18 ____________126.0

1919-21 _______________________________ 54.3

1922-24 _________________ 101.0

1925-27 ____________ 121.3

1928-30 ___________________ 93.7

1931-33 __________________________________ 47.7

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I observe that a fact is hidden, that is not a prejudice, it's an observation of fact. 

Unsubstantiated comment in legal terms is "hearsay" and not admissible. This is the thrust of the criticism in both directions. From my perspective, saying that there is no natural warming of the climate at any point after 1900 is hearsay and cannot be accepted in the legal sense. That should also be a scientific standard. If it is not, then the science is mostly opinion and politically motivated. I know a lot of people agree with me about the issue of the MWP warming being deliberately downplayed because it is an "inconvenient truth." It would be very difficult to defend any notion that there has been no natural warming in the 20th century. Just stating there is no such warming is not proof. 

Since part of the argument advanced has to do with warming or cooling at upper levels, then how is this even possible before 1944 since upper air weather charts did not exist until then. We have no actual data base of measurements of upper air temperatures until at least 1951-80 in terms of 30-year normal periods. Would it not be easy to "reconstruct" whatever upper level temperatures suited the arguments? How do you know what was going on in the upper atmosphere before 1950? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devonian, in terms of how does Toronto compare to those other Canadian locations, unfortunately none of them have the length of record that Toronto does, most of them began their observations closer to 1900. The only other location recording temperatures before 1880 appears to be Kingston, Ontario which is the other end of Lake Ontario from Toronto. 

I don't know how the CET might compare to any of those locations for whatever period they do have available. Like any other researcher, I am just contributing what I have the time and resources to study. There is no obvious reason to think that Toronto data will give some spurious result. Nowadays, the trends at Toronto appear very similar to all other locations in central latitudes of North America. Nobody active in the field has ever suggested otherwise. The data overlap with Providence RI around 1840 to 1860 show no different trends. I did note that the summer of 1849 was very hot in Providence RI and only average at Toronto but no maps exist for the period. I speculated that perhaps there was a strong lake effect on temperatures in those pre-urban times (Toronto was only a small town without tall buildings in the 1840s, the weather station is 5 kms inland from the lakeshore and that's enough for the recent urban development to play a role in discouraging the inland penetration of the cooling from March to July, after which it is rarely a factor anyway as Lake Ontario reaches temperatures close to mean air temperatures after August 1st). The Providence data otherwise look very similar to the Toronto data during most periods of extreme weather hot or cold in that interval. 

I suspect this entire debate will never be resolved, by the time any kind of reliable long-term forecasting is developed, we will either have exhausted the fossil fuel supplies and greenhouse gases will have stabilized, or we will be into that crisis period where mitigation is more top of mind than forecast verification. How do you separate out natural warming or cooling from the human signal if you start with unprovable assumptions such as "since the natural trend was slow cooling for 5,000 years, that must still be the case." Surely the temperature trends from Maunder to Dalton alone would negate the worth of that assumption (variations were numerous and not in any particular direction). 

All I can do is present this data set which is very comprehensive, it has daily temperature anomalies and all extremes for 180 years, as well as rainfall and snowfall daily extremes, and shows rankings of each month relative to the data set, and each year. 

One other earlier point that I know to be incorrect -- the circulation has undergone changes since 1900. In the 19th century, when it turned mild in the winter in the Great Lakes region, the most common storm track was only barely north of Toronto. This is reflected in both the lower frequency of mild days, and the shorter duration of mild spells. In more recent times, the typical warm sector low tracks across Lake Superior, roughly 5 deg of latitude further north than a century and a half ago. So naturally it brings with it milder air that persists longer. Now whether that's a natural change or a human-induced change, or a blend of the two, is not proven by the mere observation, but it's not true to say the circulation is unchanged, at least in North America. Air masses tend to be more distinct in NA than Europe so it's easier to spot these trends. There is no way that the human race caused the polar air mass to become a tropical air mass between 1890 and 1920. So what then accounts for the greater frequency of tropical air mass incursions in the 1910-22 warmer period? It is plain as day in the data that there was a massive increase in 90 or 95 deg (F) days in that interval. 

When I look at weather records from Toronto taken in the 1870s and 1880s, I think "that looks very similar to what is normal now in northern Ontario." In the 1840s to 1860s, the climate was yet again different, much cloudier and wetter, the frequency of warm days is suppressed relative to mild nights which tended to occur at almost a modern pace. So in fact it gets more complex, not just two states of the climate, but possibly three or four. As Jonboy stated, we haven't really done enough work on what causes natural variability and in particular natural warming to justify the state of the orthodox theory. It has happened before in science that a widely accepted theory had to be abandoned because it could not explain all observations. That's where I think things currently stand and that's why I am working on a third alternative since I agree that the average skeptical position doesn't do that good a job either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Devonian said:

Born, a couple of questions.

1, I should know what paper that graphic is from but I don't...

2, the dotted lines are the 99% confidence lines?

3, what effect would a big event (or how big an event?) would it need to be to show as sudden a cooling (I can't think of a natural sudden warming event) of the same magnitude as we see atm? Toba would be bigger, 1816 smaller?

4, would such an event show up in the kind of proxies that the graphic used to produce (I'm sure it would?)?

5, and are people still working on temperature reconstructions, or have they exhausted the proxies available?

I can't provide too much detail atm, but here's the paper:

41561_2019_400_Fig1_HTML.png
WWW.NATURE.COM

Multidecadal global-mean temperature fluctuations over the past 2,000 years are consistent in comprehensive climate reconstructions and model simulations...

The grey lines represent the 2.5% to 97.5% range from the reconstruction ensembles

Here's another image showing the 51 year temperature trends, demonstrating how recent trends are unprecedented in the record
Multidecadal-temperature-trends-over-the

Here's another where they detrend the data and show the link with volcanic forcing
MDV-in-reconstructions-and-models-and-vo

Always more work being done on reconstructions!



@Roger J Smith I've provided plenty of scientific evidence for my arguments. I even mentioned that the early 20th century warming occurred with CO2 in conjunction with a natural warming phase.
By referring to the popular opinion of amateurs you interact with as justification for your ideas and a basis to refute actual scientific research, you are providing a text book example of the "appeal to popularity" (argumentum ad populum) logical fallacy. 

There is actually robust evidence of past temperature patterns and trends from numerous independent reconstructions from scientists around the world. I've linked to two of the reconstructions so far, there are many more, and all you can refute them with is anecdotal evidence, cherry picking and conspiracy theories. As I even mentioned, the MWP, much like the LIA, was a primarily regional phenomenon, but for climate change, you need to examined things on a broader scale. During the early Holocene warm period, temperatures around Svalbard were estimated to be more than 5C warmer than today based on proxy records, but the globe was still cooler than now. Regional, especially not local like an individual city, is not representative of the planet, no matter how much you want it to be. Subjective analysis of short lived regional weather variations does nothing to disproved a globally coherent and robust warming signal, nor the mountains of evidence and near unanimous scientific consensus on what the cause it.

Non anthropogenic drivers have been studied extensively, that's why there's such certainty that they are not the cause. Just because you claim to be unaware the research exists (or ignore it because it doesn't suit you), doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

I've presented plenty of evidence, sourced from uncontroversial, peer reviewed, established research. Your primary reaction here is either to ignore it and go on to the next incorrect statement, or dismiss it based on what some people on another weather forum have said, your interpretation of a cherry picked local temperatures series and/or your misunderstanding of the difference between internal variability and long term drivers, anecdotal weather stories, conspiracies to hide the truth, etc. This forum isn't going to be a platform for you to promote some third approach, especially when you show such disregard and distrust of scientific research and the evidence that comes from it. Keep this standard up and you'll find your comments will be getting removed too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a cherry picked data set (Toronto) and nobody has provided any evidence that it is or could be. This is like saying the CET is a "cherry picked" data set. The weather station has been operating under the same terms for all of its existence and it is managed by Environment Canada. I have nothing to do with it except that I am responsible for the observations on one weekend in June 1969 because a graduate student needed somebody to do his duties and I volunteered. So you can toss that one data point if you think it is contaminated by the evil and blacklisted He Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken (this is my current identity in Canada -- some climate of open discussion we have going eh?). In fact I am fairly certain that EC will be quite put off that I have used their data for anything. I am said to be a total non-person and this has been going on ever since I won a forecast contest in which they participated (and finished third in) back in my youth. Sour grapes apparently. I don't share that attitude having finished down the track in various other contests from time to time.

As for logical fallacy related to giving credence to opinions of (large numbers of) weather enthusiasts, you of the IPCC persuasion are basically coming onto weather forums and insulting the intelligence of a majority of the readers and users.  Net-weather has been gracious enough to provide a platform but I don't think you should go so far as to insult the many UK weather enthusiasts who in many cases are actually very knowledgeable people that don't just leap onto bandwagons on the spur of the moment. The same thing has happened on other weather forums. Reactions have varied from indifference to hostility. I don't really see that this IPCC theory has really been proven and I don't accept it especially this part about human activity being 150% of modern warming. Thousands of other people familiar with climate statistics don't fully accept it either. That must annoy you guys, but science has these episodes and this is one of them. Trying to park your science next to the real sciences with 99% public acceptance is your right to attempt, but don't expect a free ride if public opinion is closer to 50-50 on acceptance and rejection. People are not as stupid as you think they are. I don't expect an easy time either, the skeptics are not going to like prolonged natural warming any more than you seem to like it. The logical inference from my version is to start planning for difficult times ahead.

Complicated times if we have three positions instead of two but I think my position is more logical. Just calling a very representative temperature series "cherry picked" shows that there is no real understanding of what's actually happening. I am sure New York, Chicago, Boston or DC would show exactly the same outcomes because I'm quite familiar with their records. Basically, what you folks are trying to sell is that the 1911, 1916, 1918, 1919, 1921, 1931, 1934, 1936, 1941, 1944 and 1948 to 1953 heat waves in North America are outliers not conforming to the theory of natural cooling superimposed by human warming. Nobody in weather circles over here believes that and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Well I may tell that story over on American Weather Forum where they have more icons than just "like" such as "LOL" and see what the general response is. And don't imagine these are a bunch of far-right cranks looking for leftists to dump on. A lot of weather enthusiasts (here, on boards.ie and Am Wx) are progressives or centrists in political terms, who dissent only on this one issue. That's all I can really add and I don't want to prolong this pointless talking past each other situation. Have a great life and good luck. Alternate theories will be promulgated and the matter is far from resolved. I will post the Toronto180 data set and you can see what it shows in greater detail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must confess that I'm at a bit of loss to see just what one data set, for one isolated location (when viewed in total isolation) has to say about global temperature trends, or their causes...The same surely goes for Anchorage? 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Roger J Smith said:

It's not a cherry picked data set (Toronto) and nobody has provided any evidence that it is or could be. This is like saying the CET is a "cherry picked" data set. The weather station has been operating under the same terms for all of its existence and it is managed by Environment Canada. I have nothing to do with it except that I am responsible for the observations on one weekend in June 1969 because a graduate student needed somebody to do his duties and I volunteered. So you can toss that one data point if you think it is contaminated by the evil and blacklisted He Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken (this is my current identity in Canada -- some climate of open discussion we have going eh?). In fact I am fairly certain that EC will be quite put off that I have used their data for anything. I am said to be a total non-person and this has been going on ever since I won a forecast contest in which they participated (and finished third in) back in my youth. Sour grapes apparently. I don't share that attitude having finished down the track in various other contests from time to time.

As for logical fallacy related to giving credence to opinions of (large numbers of) weather enthusiasts, you of the IPCC persuasion are basically coming onto weather forums and insulting the intelligence of a majority of the readers and users.  Net-weather has been gracious enough to provide a platform but I don't think you should go so far as to insult the many UK weather enthusiasts who in many cases are actually very knowledgeable people that don't just leap onto bandwagons on the spur of the moment. The same thing has happened on other weather forums. Reactions have varied from indifference to hostility. I don't really see that this IPCC theory has really been proven and I don't accept it especially this part about human activity being 150% of modern warming. Thousands of other people familiar with climate statistics don't fully accept it either. That must annoy you guys, but science has these episodes and this is one of them. Trying to park your science next to the real sciences with 99% public acceptance is your right to attempt, but don't expect a free ride if public opinion is closer to 50-50 on acceptance and rejection. People are not as stupid as you think they are. I don't expect an easy time either, the skeptics are not going to like prolonged natural warming any more than you seem to like it. The logical inference from my version is to start planning for difficult times ahead.

Complicated times if we have three positions instead of two but I think my position is more logical. Just calling a very representative temperature series "cherry picked" shows that there is no real understanding of what's actually happening. I am sure New York, Chicago, Boston or DC would show exactly the same outcomes because I'm quite familiar with their records. Basically, what you folks are trying to sell is that the 1911, 1916, 1918, 1919, 1921, 1931, 1934, 1936, 1941, 1944 and 1948 to 1953 heat waves in North America are outliers not conforming to the theory of natural cooling superimposed by human warming. Nobody in weather circles over here believes that and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Well I may tell that story over on American Weather Forum where they have more icons than just "like" such as "LOL" and see what the general response is. And don't imagine these are a bunch of far-right cranks looking for leftists to dump on. A lot of weather enthusiasts (here, on boards.ie and Am Wx) are progressives or centrists in political terms, who dissent only on this one issue. That's all I can really add and I don't want to prolong this pointless talking past each other situation. Have a great life and good luck. Alternate theories will be promulgated and the matter is far from resolved. I will post the Toronto180 data set and you can see what it shows in greater detail. 

interestingly the USA has the largest, longest and most widespread data set of anywhere on the planet stretching back into the 19th Century..just looking at those records there were a lot of heatwaves prior to the 1960s that occurred on regular basis, widely and with the intensity that are not seen as often today..if anything the weather in the US has become more benign over the last 50 years...less tornadoes..less heatwaves..less severe cold..less droughts..hurricanes have not increased either..even the burn acreage has decreased...why would this be the case in a warming world??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

interestingly the USA has the largest, longest and most widespread data set of anywhere on the planet stretching back into the 19th Century..just looking at those records there were a lot of heatwaves prior to the 1960s that occurred on regular basis, widely and with the intensity that are not seen as often today..if anything the weather in the US has become more benign over the last 50 years...less tornadoes..less heatwaves..less severe cold..less droughts..hurricanes have not increased either..even the burn acreage has decreased...why would this be the case in a warming world??

Look at the average temperatures - heatwaves have always occurred, but the direction of travel of the temperatures overall is clear.

WWW.NCDC.NOAA.GOV

Comparisons of meteorological local, state, regional, national, and global data in historical perspective to determine trends

download.png

Or the mins and maxes

min.png max.png

So, the very stats you're 'quoting' to apparently disprove that the USA is warming, in fact show that it clearly is. Go onto the page, and see how many of the top warmest years have occurred since the 1990's. 

As for it being benign, take a look at the cluster of years in the 'very warm' category too.

benign.png

WWW.NCDC.NOAA.GOV

This product shows, for each month, season and year since 1895, how much of the contiguous United States experienced extreme (top or bottom 10%)...

As for tornadoes, hurricanes and the like - there's so much else going on in terms of how and why they develop etc, the fact that their frequency shows no particular change isn't relevant to temperatures trends and certainly aren't indicative of a lack of warming, as you're trying to suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roger J Smith said:

It's not a cherry picked data set (Toronto) and nobody has provided any evidence that it is or could be. This is like saying the CET is a "cherry picked" data set. The weather station has been operating under the same terms for all of its existence and it is managed by Environment Canada.

Come on Roger, you and I both know that you're clearly cherry picking, as it's obviously a handy station to 'back up' your claims. I'm sure you accept though, that if in a world where there are 1000's of weather / climate recording stations, it's the averages accross those which counts if you're talking about global temperatures, not just single station records. I'm quite sure if someone were pulling a single station which showed extreme warming, and presenting it as a statement of fact that 'proves' the warming is even more extreme than feared globally, you'd be among the first to point out that it was cherry picked, and rightly so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Paul said:

Look at the average temperatures - heatwaves have always occurred, but the direction of travel of the temperatures overall is clear.

WWW.NCDC.NOAA.GOV

Comparisons of meteorological local, state, regional, national, and global data in historical perspective to determine trends

download.png

Or the mins and maxes

min.png max.png

So, the very stats you're 'quoting' to apparently disprove that the USA is warming, in fact show that it clearly is. Go onto the page, and see how many of the top warmest years have occurred since the 1990's. 

As for it being benign, take a look at the cluster of years in the 'very warm' category too.

benign.png

WWW.NCDC.NOAA.GOV

This product shows, for each month, season and year since 1895, how much of the contiguous United States experienced extreme (top or bottom 10%)...

As for tornadoes, hurricanes and the like - there's so much else going on in terms of how and why they develop etc, the fact that their frequency shows no particular change isn't relevant to temperatures trends and certainly aren't indicative of a lack of warming, as you're trying to suggest.


i didnt say the USA wasn't warming i said the climate has become more benign with less cold in the winter and less heat in the summer

images-wRXvW9JXsv29LZJhQ-Temp-Change_observed_changes_in_coldest_warmest_daily_temps_v1.png

images-mDoeELtsfd7XFgCzP-Temp-Change_obs_changes_in_cold_heat_waves_v1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it depends how you look at things. NOAA have a climate extremes index used for tracking change is extreme weather occurrence. Lots of stats, graphs and explanations. Shows little change until 2010, after which a big increase occurred.

WWW.NCDC.NOAA.GOV

The U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI) was developed to quantify observed changes in climate within the contiguous United States. Time series graphs and...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Paul said:

Come on Roger, you and I both know that you're clearly cherry picking, as it's obviously a handy station to 'back up' your claims. I'm sure you accept though, that if in a world where there are 1000's of weather / climate recording stations, it's the averages accross those which counts if you're talking about global temperatures, not just single station records. I'm quite sure if someone were pulling a single station which showed extreme warming, and presenting it as a statement of fact that 'proves' the warming is even more extreme than feared globally, you'd be among the first to point out that it was cherry picked, and rightly so.

Paul, I don't see it that way at all. My claims are based on the more general observation of climate trends at a number of locations and Toronto has similar data sets to what I have seen for those other locations. I hope to develop some of the arguments already sketched out about certain phased trends in the Toronto and CET data, as well as discussing the differences in trends that may be observed. But I sincerely believe that the Toronto data are a reliable proxy for a much larger region, namely eastern-central North America, just as I would imagine that the CET data would not look radically different from data sets for other European locations (although I am not stating that to be a conclusion because that's not my area).

I do think that as I absorb the clash of ideas in this discussion, I am getting a better idea of what people in the IPCC camp actually believe and why they believe it. The only real concern I have about their belief structure is that they may have assigned too large a weight to AGW and too small a weight to natural warming, which influences their conclusions about what might or might not be possible within the societal realm to solve potential problems forthcoming. At the present time, I am probably more in agreement about what those problems could be, but I tend to see them as more inevitable and unyielding to human intervention. Some people are still debating with me as if I were a denialist type skeptic who says there is no problem. Nope, I see a problem alright, I may turn into the biggest warminista on the planet at the rate my thoughts are progressing. 

It's all a thought experiment -- those heat waves last summer, for example, what would the temperatures in Paris and London have reached if there were no advanced human civilization and maybe the early medieval version of those cities existed, or even no human civilization at all? Would those days have been 1 or 2 degrees cooler (which is what I believe) or 5 degrees or would there never be heat like that at all? 

You may know that I have published a study of temperatures in the Canadian arctic on this forum too. There wasn't much political overtone in that thread and the trends shown in it are similar despite the locations being a long way northwest of Toronto in high latitudes. 

Cherry picking makes it sound like I am trying to pull a fast one, that I found one place that supports my views and there might be thousands of others that don't, that I know this and have something to hide. That's not my perception. I don't know of any data sets that contradict my alternate theory, but each one of us has only a limited amount of time to acquire data sets and study them, so I would likely run out of time before I looked at hundreds or thousands. On the other hand, I am not in a position to say whether the conclusions one might draw from this data set would be widely applicable, or not. Why don't I just post the data set somewhere in this forum and allow people to look at it and judge for themselves what it tells us about climate change. 

North American anomaly patterns are usually pretty well organized and spread out over large regions, so you can be pretty certain that trends at any location in the general region of the eastern U.S., southeast Canada and the central U.S. will be representative of trends throughout that climate zone. Edmonton (where CM is located) is in a rather different climate zone more controlled by Pacific and western arctic variations. I could mention to CM that the Dawson Yukon temperature records which go back to 1898 (the gold rush) show that severe cold used to be routine up there every winter, it would be rare for any winter before 1990 to fail to reach -45 C and many reached -55 or lower. But this reliable climate indicator has failed on several occasions in recent decades, most notably in winter 2015-16 which was so mild that it resembled a central BC or even southern interior of BC winter, few days were even below -30 that winter. So if the source region for cold air is in transition to a more Pacific dominated winter with less SIberian-Alaskan cold connection, then Edmonton is very unlikely to get the frequent cold outbreaks that usually start out there. Cold air that reaches Toronto on the other hand is often sourced in the central arctic and gets there by way of SK and MB, a route that is still quite active and Edmonton would be in a frontal zone between arctic air and Pacific air masses in that sort of cold outbreak further east. 

The climate in central BC has probably shifted to a milder winter phase since the mid-1980s and I hope to get some time to study the details of that, but I don't see much evidence for hotter summers in recent decades, the averages seem to be fairly constant from the early 20th century to recent times. 

Edited by Roger J Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

interestingly the USA has the largest, longest and most widespread data set of anywhere on the planet stretching back into the 19th Century..just looking at those records there were a lot of heatwaves prior to the 1960s that occurred on regular basis, widely and with the intensity that are not seen as often today..if anything the weather in the US has become more benign over the last 50 years...less tornadoes..less heatwaves..less severe cold..less droughts..hurricanes have not increased either..even the burn acreage has decreased...why would this be the case in a warming world??

This is broadly speaking similar to what I found in this Toronto study that I hope will be ready to publish within a few weeks. The file is complete but needs some re-organizing, and I have to produce a guide to the excel file so that readers can find the various features and understand what they are showing in graphical form or tabular format. 

There have been some fairly severe heat waves since 1970 as well, but the tendency has been for the most anomalous warmth to occur in the winter half year, and especially in the so-called shoulder seasons (Nov-early Dec, late Feb-March). The numbers of record warm days that were reset after 1970 drops off to a minimum in August. This is just one of those things that happens in natural variability, but to some extent I think it demonstrates that the warming that is ongoing is a circulation shift. It was always possible to get summer heat in the old circulation but the winter mild air masses were capped near the latitude of Toronto and so they either missed slightly to the south or they didn't last as many days. 

To some extent, if the summer warmth also moves further north, places like Toronto and the eastern U.S. can expect to be closer to stagnant highs extending west from the Bermuda high, so the heat while very stifling and humid is not always as extreme as when there was more of a southwest flow from the central plains states. 

My study shows that while the number of summer daytime maximum records is no more than you would expect at random in the last half century, the number of overnight low (high min) records has doubled over random expectation. So this is an era of less variable temperatures with a higher baseline. However, some summers, notably 2002 and 2011, had heat waves that would be "top ten" with all those classic ones like 1911, 1916, 1918, 1921, 1936, 1948, 1955 in eastern North America. 

Despite the large urban heat island and the human activity on the planet, seven of the twelve months still have their highest temperature on record before 1970, and the five that were reset varied from a 1 deg increase to 7 deg during the 1982 (Dec) El Nino. What is quite evident in the Toronto records (and 180 years is a long data set) is that the modern warming has picked off all the old weak records, whichever ones were below the running ten-day averages are all gone. Only a few of the higher ones were taken down. You would expect that but I think the distribution is probably non-random (testing it). One record low min (May 29th) was obliterated in 1969 and then the old mark was beaten fourteen times in the next 50 tries, and tied three times. But then 60 F as a record high min in late May was low hanging fruit so to speak. (all the new higher values range as high as the 71 F in 1969 that has withstood all the rest ranging through the mid-60s). OTOH I found 117 days where the record low min had survived the bigger heat island and modern warming, and more than half the days still have a record max from before 1970.

It can still get as cold as "back in the day." Toronto is not suffering like central England from an absence of old-style record cold. Just last month, there was a benchmark record (those are not only daily records, but earliest in season or latest depending on which side of the winter) both day and night temps on November 12th were colder than previously for any day that early. This also happened in Nov 2017 and several other times in the past few decades. The polar vortex February of 2015 was third coldest February of the series, despite the city's enormous winter heat island as compared with many of the months that were pushed one rank lower from the 1850s to 1880s. Dec 2015 was very mild like in Britain. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Roger J Smith said:

I do think that as I absorb the clash of ideas in this discussion, I am getting a better idea of what people in the IPCC camp actually believe and why they believe it. The only real concern I have about their belief structure is that they may have assigned too large a weight to AGW and too small a weight to natural warming, which influences their conclusions about what might or might not be possible within the societal realm to solve potential problems forthcoming. At the present time, I am probably more in agreement about what those problems could be, but I tend to see them as more inevitable and unyielding to human intervention. Some people are still debating with me as if I were a denialist type skeptic who says there is no problem. Nope, I see a problem alright, I may turn into the biggest warminista on the planet at the rate my thoughts are progressing. 

Cherry picking makes it sound like I am trying to pull a fast one, that I found one place that supports my views and there might be thousands of others that don't, that I know this and have something to hide. That's not my perception. I don't know of any data sets that contradict my alternate theory, but each one of us has only a limited amount of time to acquire data sets and study them, so I would likely run out of time before I looked at hundreds or thousands. On the other hand, I am not in a position to say whether the conclusions one might draw from this data set would be widely applicable, or not. Why don't I just post the data set somewhere in this forum and allow people to look at it and judge for themselves what it tells us about climate change. 

The bold parts highlight the main issue here. The IPCC is not based on a belief structure. It's a comprehensive update on the latest knowledge and findings within climate science. It's from the work of independent scientists across the planet over the last few decades. The evidence and data within it come from rigorous research and analysis, based on solid, established scientific principles. They don't believe AGW is the culprit and then work from there. The fact that AGW is the culprit is a conclusion born of actual scientific analysis of the mountains of data and its alignment with the basic principles of physics, chemistry, optics, etc.
Most of that evidence, including what I've presented here, contradict your theory, even if you can't accept it because it doesn't "feel" or "square" with your beliefs. Your analysis cannot change that, but your belief and aversion to "orthodox" climate science and scientists appears to prevents you from seeing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you looked at much North American weather data? I just don't know how anyone could imagine that there has been no natural warming of the climate here. Maybe it's easier to sustain that view looking at European weather data. 

Or maybe the accepted view is flexible enough to say that some regions may have experienced natural warming trends. I wasn't getting that impression from anything I read in your various posts. 

I think "belief" makes it sound like I have some crazy idea that is not even connected to fact. The fact is, the climate was obviously warming rapidly at Toronto after 1890. The distribution of new record high maxima and minima show that it wasn't very much related to the urban heat island although that was growing at the time. I looked at rural locations that were recording temperatures and they had these same new maximum values around the years 1911-21. They were breaking records by large amounts, not just incrementally. Going into 1911, Toronto had observed one day in 71 years reaching 100 F. Coming out of 1918, they had seven. By the end of 1936, they had four more. This just cannot be consistent with a concept of a naturally cooling climate in the first stages of AGW (what percentage of 1990 AGW would you assign to 1911-36, I would say 10-20 per cent maximum). 

The biggest temperature increases occurred before the biggest greenhouse gas increases. Unless we're dealing with time dilation here, that cannot be cause and effect. I do accept that greenhouse gases have further boosted what was already happening, as I've stated, I think the ratio is 3:1 or perhaps 4:1 natural:anthropogenic. But I won't bang on about this, more work would need to be done to investigate whether these Toronto trends have any wider relevance than perhaps eastern North America (I think that part is a given after reviewing some lists of record highs of daily and monthly data at NYC and DC, most of them appear to be same years as Toronto although the records start later, very few warm records in the missing years anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roger J Smith said:

Have you looked at much North American weather data?

Not sure how you can, in good faith, ask that question, when you're obviously ignoring the overwhelming amount of data out there which doesn't tie in with your theory. 

Such as this for Canada?

canada.png

WWW.CANADA.CA

Renseignements sur les indicateurs d'Environnement et Changement climatique Canada.

Or this from the USA?

download.png

WWW.NCDC.NOAA.GOV

Comparisons of meteorological local, state, regional, national, and global data in historical perspective to determine trends

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Roger J Smith

What is your 'alternative 'theory'', exactly, Roger? And how ought one to set about testing it?

And, IMO, statements of your antipathy toward NOAA, IPCC et. al. do not make a theory...

TIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/12/2019 at 02:36, Paul said:

Not sure how you can, in good faith, ask that question, when you're obviously ignoring the overwhelming amount of data out there which doesn't tie in with your theory. 

Such as this for Canada?

canada.png

WWW.CANADA.CA

Renseignements sur les indicateurs d'Environnement et Changement climatique Canada.

Or this from the USA?

download.png

WWW.NCDC.NOAA.GOV

Comparisons of meteorological local, state, regional, national, and global data in historical perspective to determine trends

 

These graphics don't contradict my theory in any way, Paul, since I am saying that natural variation is the main (not sole) cause of the warming over the past 120 years. I have never denied that there has been warming. We are talking about the cause of the warming, not its actual existence.

You may be speaking to a Roger Smith who in your mind is a skeptic that doesn't believe in global warming and needs to be shown graphs of it attached to opinions that the cause is anthropogenic. That person isn't me. I am the Roger Smith who knows it has been warming, already showed that in graphs posted above, and says the warming may be more natural in origin than the IPCC asserts. Their spokespersons have told me I cannot believe this because they have proven the warming to be entirely anthropogenic. I am among a large number of weather enthusiasts who do not accept that as proven science and believe that it may be based on faulty research (it has to be if it's wrong). 

My question about looking at North American weather data actually refers to a period before the graphs and studies you posted, namely 1890 to 1950. I just wondered if my critics had ever looked at North American weather data for those decades and if they came away thinking that they had seen a natural cooling trend that the first portion of AGW (back then perhaps a tenth to a quarter of the later signal) had obliterated since in fact those decades showed significant warming (as my posted graphs will illustrate). 

Anyway, with the holidays looming and the certainty that not much work is going to be done on this Toronto file until after new years, I am hereby ending my part of this discussion entirely. I will post the Toronto data in the historic weather section, not this thread, and make no connected statements about climate change in the posting over there, just the numbers and illustrative graphs. We have reached a point here where both sides in this debate know what the other side believes to be true and how they reached their point of view. Anyone who is interested in pursuing my alternative theory would probably be better served by joining a more open-minded discussion of it on the boards.ie weather forum. When I say more open minded, it's not just me vs three AGW proponents, it's dozens of people all over the spectrum of opinion having a frank exchange of views, and I like that sort of thing. 

The Toronto data could no doubt be used by IPCC or AGW proponents to illustrate their case too. Then we won't be hearing as much about Toronto the isolated nonconforming cherry picked data set (which it certainly isn't, I am rather amused by that knowing how centre of the universe Torontonians think their city to be). The unseen irony here is that Toronto is about the last place on earth I would choose to live (and I did once live there) and my only interest in their weather data would be the longevity which exceeds most other locations in this hemisphere (1840 to present). You could research this for yourself if you doubt my word on it, but Toronto anomalies month by month will have a very high correlation with NYC, BOS, ORD, DCA and various other long-period locations in the eastern U.S. .. the anomaly patterns are usually quite organized in eastern North America. If one place is much above normal, chances are good the rest will also be. The high correlation zone probably extends from about STL to BOS, and north south from YTS to BNA. Beyond that chances increase that a different anomaly regime would be in place. A location likely to be varying inversely might be somewhere between Calgary and Salt Lake City. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...