Fergus Brown

Hi Stew, My interest is in meteorology and has been since I was around 6. Guess this is why we're both here... I suppose you have kind of 'supported' unknowingly the reason why there are two separated threads, I'm not sure if there is much benefit in trying to preach to someone re 'where they have gone wrong' ? Agree. Preaching is annoying. What about discussing opinions and challenging the assumptions that lie behind them? Is this a good thing to do or a bad thing? I'm happy to be contradicted and corrected - it's how I learn. Generally; Polemic = monologue, Debate = dialogue. Does anyone want to engage in a dialogue about climate change, or is this now impossible? We often forget there is a massive cost in having wide spread green taxes or spending trillions globally on unnecessary projects that are based on untested science. Ignoring the second part of your comment for now, this is at the centre of both the ethical and political divide (sic) over climate change, sustainability in general, and ecology & environmentalism; not the taxes, but the costs. Very broadly, one side argues that spending now is an investment in the future and is Morally necessary, the other that it is a tax on the present with limited future benefit and is Practically inefficient (and unfair). It is very hard to cross this divide once it has been established. Its not a question of getting of ones feet and waiving a flag, also more generally being a sceptic for me doesn't make one 'anti green', happy to have a 10p charge for each plastic bag at the check outs. I would argue that addressing GW is one of several imperatives which have fallen to our generation in relation to the planet on which we live and the people on it. I happen to think it's one of the most important ones, but almost all of the key global environmental and social issues which face us today are interlinked on so many ways, it isn't necessary to me that everyone else thinks this way. In terms of 'action vs inertia', each of us can make our own personal decisions. But the sheer weight of the evidence that we are continuing a tradition of screwing up our planet and creating human misery is so great that many -probably most - of us now feel that 'something should be done'. On a personal level, every drop in the ocean towards a more sustainable world is a good thing, and even if the ocean is vast, (to paraphrase Cloud Atlas) 'what is the ocean but a multitude of drops?' On a society-wide level, if you believe strongly enough that you want to contribute, you can be politically active or organisationally active. What truly concerns me is the consequence of inaction. Nice to chat...

John - for when you get back; I found this: http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science?page=1 On the surface of it the article seems to address a lot of the ideas you propose. I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks

Well, Tamara, it sounds like you have made your mind up about me already, which means it's unlikely that we'll be able to reach an understanding. I try to be nice to everyone but some people don't take to me - not sure I can do much about it. Shame, though; I enjoy spirited discussion. I'll continue to do my best to be reasonable and only ask that others try their best to do the same. Maybe it's like one of those speed-dating things where you know before you've even sat down that this one's a non-starter... not that I've ever done speed dating. Or am suggesting that you have. Hmm... I'm not going to get this right, am I? Never mind. Good will

Hi Gray Wolf, good to hear from you. We must try to avoid making this too much like a school reunion. Sorry about your health problems - it's a bummer. I'm playing for now, but who knows how long I'll have the luxury of time? It's a circumstance of life. Have just started a new blog - come and visit: http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/ Communicating online is often problematic. One can only stick to principles - listen to the other person (or in this case, read carefully) - respect their right to be themselves, however they come across - try to say what you mean and mean what you say - admit when you are wrong. I've long got over the idea that I know better - but I do think I 'understand differently', at times. got to go...

Hi Stew, I must be brief in my reply otherwise I'll justifiably be accused of hijacking your part of the forum. It looks like there are quite a lot of things we (broadly) agree on. My impression is that your interest is mainly about extreme weather rather than climate - is this right? Though I'm not responding to all your points, I think we can focus on these questions: 1. Are there more 'extreme' (damaging?) weather events than there used to be? 2. If there are, what relationship if any does this have with any changes in climate (eg, GW)? 3. If there is a relationship between a changing climate (warming) and extreme weather, are there likely to be more extreme (in force and frequency) events in the future, (assuming the warming hasn't flatlined)? My opinions/suggestions: 1. Very hard to be certain. Personal experiences often cloud the facts, and none of can be everywhere at once. Part of the impression that there are now more droughts/storms/floods/hurricanes etc. than there used to be is that these are observed and reported much more carefully than they used to be. As a broad statement, there doesn't appear to be a lot of hard evidence that the frequency or severity of extreme events has increased enough to be statistically significant. But because we are, generally, much more aware these days of these events, it is easy to believe intuitively that things used to be better, whether this belief is right or wrong. 2. (in 2 parts) a; Personally, though I am an AGW advocate, I am not convinced at all that any recent event (eg Sandy) can be attributed to climate change, and I don't think it helps when people claim it is. I don't think CC represents an impending apocalypse - I think the problem is more subtle than that - perhaps a slowpocalypse? If I were to be convinced that the relatively small changes in climate we have seen so far were connected directly to more extreme weather, I would be even more worried about what things will be like when global temperatures increase to +2c. 3. I'd be very surprised (astonished) if a warming planet didn't substantially change global weather in many ways in the future, including droughts, floods storms and so on, it stands to reason that there will be changes. But not everywhere will see the same kinds of change, and not all of the changes will happen at the same time. I am convinced, though, that the warmer the planet gets, the more extreme will be the changes, and the more difficult it will be to adapt. Which is why, though I don't think we will see the most powerful impacts in our lifetimes, I do think that we have an obligation to get off our backsides and do something about it, inasmuch as anything; mitigation, adaptation and anything else positive, is better than doing nothing. Enough for now.

Hi John, First you must excuse my ignorance/presumption. I read the post not the links then decided I wanted to disagree with what you seemed to be saying. I have now looked at the links. The first one suggests that the effects of tectonic activity should be incorporated into local global calculations. This seems very reasonable. Is it not already being done? The second one was part of a textbook. I presume the relevant bit was the section about heat flow? As you are an expert, please clarify; is the heat flow they are describing primarily vertical (ie, from the core towards the surface)? I had the (quite possibly erroneous) impression that most of the heat emitted from the mid ocean ridge (and other sub-ocean plate boundaries) does not mix into the upper (0-700m) levels of the ocean; happy to be corrected on this. The book also mentioned a value of heat transport at 50mW/Km2 (is that right?). How does this measure against the observed changes in surface/atmospheric/ocean temperature?I also had the impression (which I am more confident about) that the Tectonic heat budget is already included in CGCMs. Last questions on this bit: What is the observation period for temperature flux at the mid-ocean plate? Is it long enough to reveal a statistically significant trend? how does the trend compare to the trend in global surface temperature changes? The third article suggested that Tectonic emissions (sic) should be incorporated into global emissions budgets on a Tectonic time scale. This sounds reasonable. How long is a Tectonic time scale? Are we talking years, decades, centuries or millennia? The fourth article was about the effect of Ash deposits on glacial melt in part of Iceland in 2009-2010 after the big unpronounceable eruption (sorry!). It concluded that there was increased melt in some areas and decreased melt in others, and this this was connected to the amount of ash deposited. If this was intended to act as an example of the significance of volcanic ash in Cryospheric analysis, I heartily concur - it is important for a lot of reasons, not least the calculation of albedo. But it seemed a bit localised and specialised - can you clarify why you included it - ie, what point you were making? On to your other comments: I disagree that ice caps have no bearing on GW. Ice (and snow) form a very important part of our global climate system. What was once believed to be a steady-state (seasonally adjusted) has recently been observed to be volatile, and in particular, sensitive to changes on other parts of the global system. If it becomes so volatile as to represent a threat (via changing weather patterns, ecological devastation or sea level rise), surely this is important? I agree; if people ignore natural causes then they are at the least naive. I agree; nature (natural processes) cool the planet and warm it, as do celestial mechanics, etc. I agree; it has done for millions of years and will continue to do so. The (main?) reason why climate change is on the global political agenda is because recent observation indicate that changes are now happening at a different (much faster) timescale, so fast that it may be difficult for humans to adapt, and almost certainly too quick for animal/vegetable species to adapt. I disagree; we know the effect we are having because of physics and measurement - no hocus pocus there. The problem is that the system as a whole is so complex than only hugely vast computers can run the trillions of operations and iterations required to produce any kind of simulation. As with all computers, there are always limitations, which is why doing on the ground observation and simple human intuition must always be done alongside, to test, support and adjust the information going in and coming out. I hope you don't mind the overlong post too much, and that you will be kind enough to answer some of my genuine questions. Perhaps one at a time, to make things easier?

Hi Jethro, nice to see you again . I was ill. Got bored. Got a new Job. Was doing something else. all the above and others besides. How you keeping? Still of the Climate Agnostic persuasion?

Perhaps you could read the first as: 'There is a lot of freely available information out there (some theory, some observation) - reading it helps us understand better. The (scientific) literature supports the view that the Global Mass Balance of Land Ice (everywhere) and Sea Ice (at the poles) is declining, and is expected to continue declining.' Perhaps I was a bit sniffy in tone, but that aside, two questions: 1. I have made a statement about the amount of ice in the world. Please challenge it. Can you provide me with evidence that my assertion is false? 2. Have you read the literature on the subject (e.g. http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/1565/2013/tc-7-1565-2013.html ? If so, what are your conclusions? There is a big difference between saying 'knowledge is not complete' and 'Don't know'. You are implying that climate science (all the research and observation and analysis and modelling) has taught us nothing. One of the most important things about science is that it takes what is known and what is observed and seeks to find an answer to questions such as 'why do things fall to the ground?' and 'Why has the Global temperature gone up?' (sic). It also tests what we think we know and challenges our assumptions. In the same way that I am trying to reassure you that my comments are not adversarial - I'm not looking for a fight, just a conversation - I'll assume that yours are intended in the same vein.

Stew, I'm sure you know as well as I do that there is a question mark over the combination of 'short term' and 'trend', something you overtly recognise in your qualifying comment. I don't think you'd need to wait that long, statistically - perhaps another five-ten years where Global mean surface temperature does not shift much would have a few people scratching their heads. My guess is that the tendency though would be less 'have we miscalculated sensitivity?' (for example), than 'Given what is already known/understood, how to account for what would then be an actual statistically significant trend? I am sure nobody in climate science would ever claim that any aspect of GW science is 'complete' - as with all science, our understanding develops and improves over time. But study continues constantly, and some things which were less well understood yesterday may be better understood today - for example, what factors effect the development of sea ice in the Antarctic. I absolutely agree that we are looking at the whole picture with AGW, and that cherry-picking regional peculiarities, or short-period observations, doesn't help us understand the big picture except in context. I've spent several years trying to understand the big picture for myself, and recognise two things - that it is possible to develop an opinion independent of the 'majority view', - and that there are a hell of a lot of people who know, collectively, a hell of a lot more than me about their particular specialisms, and I would be foolish to ignore their expertise.

Hi Tamara, thanks for answering. I know I have a tendency online to sound like I'm being patronising - it isn't deliberate, though the hopefully gentle irony/sarcasm probably is. I am genuinely concerned that the general public understands AGW better and try to do my little bit to help in that direction. Of course I have my own opinions, hopefully founded on reasoned grounds, and tend to advocate my viewpoint, naturally. I was a part of this community a few years back when the debates used to get very personal. I rarely rose to the bait, though, and have always tried to use a respectful and reasoned approach - this though can come across as patronising if a reader is expecting a conflict-based interaction. Perhaps if this is not the right place to engage in discussion/debate, you can come across to my blog occasionally and comment there? http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/ I hope we will be able to engage at some point on subjects which are of interest to you. Sincerely, no condescension intended,

Morning all. Antarctic Sea ice is a bit of a red herring. For the Antarctic, the key metric is the land ice, or the mass balance thereof. However, for those of you who are obviously enjoying the discussion, here is an abstract for a paper which is scheduled for publication but not yet finalised. The authors provide an explanation for the phenomenon under discussion: Decadal trends in the Antarctic sea ice extent ultimately controlled by ice-ocean feedback H. Goosse and V. Zunz Université catholique de Louvain, Earth and Life Institute, Georges Lemaître Centre for Earth and Climate Research, Place Pasteur, 3, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Abstract. The large natural variability of the Antarctic sea ice is a key characteristic of the system that might be responsible for the small positive trend in sea ice extent observed since 1979. In order to gain insight in the processes responsible for this variability, we have analysed in a control simulation performed with a coupled climate model a strong positive ice-ocean feedback that amplifies sea ice variations. When sea ice concentration increases in a region, in particular close to the ice edge, the mixed layer depth tends to decrease. This can be caused by a net inflow of ice and thus of freshwater that stabilizes the water column. Another stabilizing mechanism at interannual time scales that appears more widespread in our simulation is associated with the downward salt transport due to the seasonal cycle of ice formation: brine is released in winter when ice is formed and mixed over a deep layer while the freshwater flux caused by ice melting is included in a shallow layer, resulting in a net vertical transport of salt. Because of this stronger stratification due to the presence of sea ice, more heat is stored at depth in the ocean and the vertical oceanic heat flux is reduced, which contributes to maintain a higher ice extent. This positive feedback is not associated with a particular spatial pattern. Consequently, the spatial distribution of the trend in ice concentration is largely imposed by the wind changes that can provide the initial perturbation. A positive freshwater flux could alternatively be the initial trigger but the amplitude of the final response of the sea ice extent is finally set up by the amplification related to ice-ocean feedback. Initial conditions have also an influence as the chance to have a large increase in ice extent is higher if starting from a state characterized by a low value. Citation: Goosse, H. and Zunz, V.: Decadal trends in the Antarctic sea ice extent ultimately controlled by ice-ocean feedback, The Cryosphere Discuss., 7, 4585-4632, doi:10.5194/tcd-7-4585-2013, 2013. Hope this helps

Keith, Please look back at #555-556

Hi Knocker, nice to meet ya. Don't worry, I'm a bit of an old hand at this, going back a few years. I'll happily rise to the bait anywhere anyone wants me to on the subject. But I've always thought that debate is useful, since it allows people to weigh up evidence and consider their own prejudices in the light of alternative views and evidence. It would be a shame if there was nowhere for a mass debate

Hi John, Thanks for the welcome... though I have been here before (check my tagline/signature). I promise I'll take a look at some volcano stuff and get back to you. If it's interesting it might go on my new blog. (link in profile?) Promise I never get heated, had a bit of a rep. for being civilised and reasonable. Always try to respect everyone, each person has the right to their own opinion, but also think this issue is important enough to try and make a small difference (if I can) to the layman's attitude to AGW. In other words, I like to plug my own line, too

I'll let you go, honest... I agree. They are a forcing agent and a cooling one. They don't account for the changes, though. I also know Judith Curry, I have in the past exchanged emails with her on the subject of AMOC. Haven't done volcanoes for a while - must catch up... Best wishes

Hi, is this where I come and play? I got thrown out of the scepticism thread, cause i'm not very sceptical. I do, though, play with climate science: http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/ What's today's canard?

In answer to your questions above: How am I so sure? - I studied the subject for several years and reached the conclusion that a lot of people who are more expert than me have a lot of good reasons and evidence for AGW - therefore, both independently and in agreement with the evidence, i concluded that AGW is real. I didn't really get points 2 and 3, but I guess you don't really want to know. I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was in the wrong playground. So this isn't a thread for discussion, then, only agreement about scepticism. Fair enough. I'll go away. Have fun. By the way, I haven't been here a while, what are the new rules? Where's my bit of the playground?

Hi John, best not - I used to do this kind of thing quite a lot, you may recall. A nice stab, but oceanic volcanism does not account for recent OHC changes at 0-700m. Note also the sentence in the paper on ash which you quote 'The interplay between these controls is driven by atmospheric forcing'. Volcanoes have always been part of the science. Solar influence (or lack of) has also likewise been factored in for a long time. Either sea level is rising or it is not. Which is it? Lots of things cause flooding. The science which is the basis of AR5 is extensive (comprehensive?) and the evidence overwhelming. Why are you so sure that it is wrong?

If that is indeed the aforementioned paper, My question to MIA (and perhaps knocker (we haven't met...), is 'what do you think this paper tells us about global climate change?'

Hi Stew, Trends, observe the trends. Climate is about trends. What is the trend? Re Antarctic; the models do not capture well. This is known and understood. What is also known and understood is that, because the Antarctic is (broadly) a self-contained system, it does not respond to GW in the same way as the Arctic. However, work such as that done at Pine Island and the Thwaites Glacier (amongst others) suggests that parts of the area at least are showing signs of a response to the changing global climate. I'm not sure why you seem to think the changes in the Arctic, Greenland, and most of the world's glaciers and ice caps are not significant - is there something you're not telling us?

or

...Er Keith... It's Autumn. The ice always comes back. Just not quite as much as it used to. Then it goes away again. Think 'trends' rather than 'seasons'. Arctic sea ice cover is on a steady, consistent, persistent decline. this is unarguable. If you come back with 'but there's plenty in the Antarctic', you need to read some of the literature to understand why it works that way, and why it doesn't make any difference to the overall picture, which is that there is less ice than there used to be...

Hello all. So, a few years on and nothing much seems to have changed. Parmenides would have been pleased. In response to Keith (?) about glaciers: http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/on-rocks-no-ice.html The paper is linked and is open access. So you can read it if you want. Basically, it says ; most of the glacial and ice cap ice is melting steadily. It's been measured lots of times in lots of different ways. This new paper suggest that the rate of ablation has previously been underestimated and gives its reasons why. It also mentions as a by-blow that the consequential future sea level rise from ice melt alone has also been underestimated. General question: why is the planet losing ice?