VillagePlank

Am I therefore wrong to conclude that there are questions that remain over the validity of both the measurements, today, and the paleoclimatic record?

It may indeed be off-topic but surely the mode of inquiry is critical? How have we proved that the Earth is warming?(I do not mean to say such things to provoke argument, I am genuinly interested on the reasoning that lead to such a conclusion. Is there freely available source data available that I might be able to get hold of?)

It is not impossible to conceive any phrase, regardless of it's content without existing. Mathematical abstractions are one such concept; they can, and are used as logical objects, but, in reality, do they exist? They are, surely, a notion inside someone's head. Go down the town on a Friday night, and you'll see many notions that exist without any logical extravagance or relevance; certainly reasoning is short lived . . . CES exists because the three words exist. This, I think, is the case regardless of the metaphysical (more accurately, ontological) semantics that one can derive thereof. However, semantically, if you wish to use CES, then you cannot presuppose that you exist (which you must do in this case) as part of the proof of existence. It is perhaps better to start with 'If there are thoughts then there must be a thinker' but this opens up a whole realm of new problems. In the same manner as your question list, the first question should always be what Without nouns (to look for a better term) adjectives form no purpose and are irrelevant; your other questions are synonymous with adjectives, or rather, a description of the problem at hand. If we have the noun; that is we have reliably both verified and validated the evidence that the Earth is in fact warming, then your list of questions forms a reasonable line of inquiry to progress the debate forward. Is there any agreement (avoiding the word 'consensus' of course!) to how we should actually measure the mean temperature of the planet? Does the mean temperature actually mean anything in a dynamic climate system based on non-linear mathematics? Averages, as I'm sure you recall from school, are suspicious even when the data is linear and predictable. I am under the impression that not only is source data not published, it is not verified in the same rigorous manner as other scientific studies (such as the double-blind studies of the FDA, for instance). If this is the case, then I cannot conclude to even start the line of inquiry you propose; which therefore forms the basis of my objection. [edit] I take your point that you've already conditionally biased the validity of asking such questions on the basis that the first question of 'Is the world warming?' must be confirmed first [/edit]

Again, looking at graphs B) Try obtaining the original source data . . .

The point is, you haven't asked even the basic first question, which is what?; you've already assumed it is. How can you answer any of the other questions before you have a complete verifiable and validated data set?A similar error exists in 'cogito ergo sum' which, roughly translated, means 'I think therefore I am' This phrase is useless because it preassumes that there is an 'I' and is therefore logically incompatible with any form of proof that an 'I' exists. The sooner we learn that it's a complex system of which we have virtually no understanding of the internal mechanics the better. Those who pursue teleconnections, in my opinion, are most likely to produce the goodies as we move into the future. Teleconnections, from what I understand, is about looking at large scale patterns and extrapolating probability based forecasts from that. Coupling ocean and atmosphere particles (and whatever) is always only going to have a short-term success.

The problem is that we're wrong, we know we're wrong, and we're likely to carry on being wrong. start: We were wrong to suggest that the population will boom irretrievably causes suffering and hunger. We were wrong to suggest that just about now should be an ice-age. We're wrong to suspect that oil and gas will run out just about now (I was taught that at school over 15 years ago) It is wrong to suggest that we're carbonising the world's economy; the inverse is true. To produce the same amount of energy progressively less carban is being used. 40,000 years ago we were burning wood which has more carbon atoms than coal. We're starting to stop burning coal, and have started relying on gas. Gas, has less carbon atoms than coal. There is a whole chain of reducing (apologies to the chemists for the pun) carbon usage. But, I hear you cry, if more of the world is using more energy the net output of carbon will increase. We were wrong to suggest that the population will boom . . . (goto start)

An interesting response. Why should I politicise an incomplete scientific consensus by informing the government? Can you name anything that any government actually does for the benefit of mankind in general? Why should we be made to presuppose that the government is concerned with the future nearly 100 years away when the EU cannot even agree to drop trade barriers and allow the poorest countries in the world to feed their citizens, today? I do not, by necessity, subscribe to global warming; I do not profess to understand each and every facet that is required to make that deduction and argue it effectively. If the world has been measured as warming I think it is enough to make the assumption that this is because heat is not being removed from the system, rather than unusual extra-terrestial activity which appears to be subject to bias and has (apparently) had all of the rigour of sound scientific method removed. Before we talk about the (alleged) warming we first need to ascertain that in fact, in the mean, the world is warming. I do wish to offer a warning here, though: is this actually the right question?

Heat not venting into space

I suppose I could have just said the solar constant is called that for a reason?

I am, of course, working under the presumption that when you say 'climate change' you mean recent and geologically local (in the temporal sense) If I am incorrect in this assumption, then I apologise in advance. The sun is, indeed, the cause of the vast quantity of warmth the Earth receives. It is however, as other readers have already observed, only the very start of the question of why it is that the Earth is warm. Heat from the sun arrives in form of solar radiation, this in turn heats the surface of the planet. The surface, by conduction, heats the air closest to the ground, and that air by convection heats air further up in the atmosphere. To mitigate your claim that the sun is the cause of climate change (based on my assumption of your belief above) then you will need to show that the basic physically properties of heat transference are wrong. You are going to need to show that the sun has caused the upper atmopshere to be modified in such a way as to trap more heat in the atmosphere. Otherwise, surely, convection would go mad. I've conveniently ignored the repeatably observed fact that as you pass upwards pass the Mesopause, and into the Thermosphere the atmosphere significantly warms to way beyond the boiling point of water so convection from surface parcels could not occur anyway (adiabatic expansion ends around the Stratopause) That, of course, is a matter of science. It is not a matter for childish conjecture, of which, I think, this debate is based. You are going to need to show that the sun's total global solar radiation budget exceeds 175,000 x 10^12W, and is continuously climbing. I can only presume that your lack in belief of the greenhouse effect negates you measuring anything that has passed through the atmosphere, whether in one direction or another, so you would, I suspect, need to measure this budget from orbit. Of this budget you will need to quantify whatever evidence you have that direct reflection of 53,000 x 10^12 W is reducing. We can then say that the opportunity to heat the surface at the atmosphere's edge is larger than what it was ten years ago. We haven't even entered the atmosphere yet, so once you can show the above, I think you'll grab our attention. More than anything else I'd like you to show that the empirical method for modelling solar radiation is not the linear relationship X=a+bY. Even though you'd claim that the constant a, and b vary both spacially, and temporally, I'd need to see you argue that the good emprical basis for this extrapolation is wrong.

It is, however unfortunate, a reality of the internet mis-information highway, that any fact you need verification for can be found, and verified; regardless of its notion of validity or truth. I’ve heard that Elvis works in Tesco’s just outside of Reading, with what, on the face of it, looks like pretty convincing evidence. This is, of course, nonsense. Why would Elvis move to Reading?

Lies, damned lies, and statistics, Mark Twain. Undoubtedly graphs, and their associated source statistical data, are used to promote a conclusion. This, in the realms of an Internet Forum, whittles down to an issue of trust, both in the author, the funding (as has already been pointed out), and the integrity of the source data in both its measurement, and the corrections made to mitigate the same. The critical point to understand is what the graph (or summarised figures) is attempting to illustrate. In the case of anomalies against the mean, the critical reference point is the mean that has been chosen. For instance, if you included the little ice age in the statistics undoubtedly the mean anomaly difference would be higher as the coldness of the period pushes the mean down. If you only include the recent warming trends, since the Industrial Revolution, then this, presumably, pushes then mean up, so that the anomalies appear smaller. If you only included last year, and used that as your mean then your results, again, would be different (I haven’t tried) In terms of the published anomaly difference which, presumably it’s opponents would argue, is from an agency promoting global warming, then why didn’t the authors extend the mean to include a colder period as it was only 100 years hence the current start of the mean period? I have no doubt that these figures could be exaggerated to promote a suspected agenda, but, I think, in this case they haven’t. So although not above suspicion, I am tempted to conclude that these figures are, in fact, good. There is, of course, the question that when considering non-linear (chaotic) systems that a mean value is, essentially, meaningless. Consider a river. If we choose to only consider the last mile before the river turns to sea, then, one could argue, we could measure the effective height above a mean sea level of the river as a measure of rainfall that occurred up-stream. I do not think that, on the face of it, this is an unreasonable hypothesis of indirect measurement. One does not need to delve into the details to find problems with this, though. First of all sea-level changes with significant variability; it always has done, and will continue to do so without any intervention from the human race. There is, notionally, the concept that a warming world will increase this, and that we’re warming the world, but I shall leave that debate for another time. Secondly, with increased rainfall comes increased erosion both for the riverbed, and for the width of the river. It is entirely feasible that erosion ensures that the river can contain more rainfall without changing the height of the river. In this case the system of measurement, the base of measurement, and the philosophy of measurement are incompatible for producing the required results which is to reflect rainfall. It should be noted that regardless of the ineptitude of this example, one could still present figures that are accurate, and repeatable; the point is that you are measuring the wrong thing. I would prefer to measure volume of water flowing through a particular cross section, if I had to measure the river, and develop a function that maps actual rainfall, directly measured, to the volume of flow of water over a specified time frame. Although we can consistently, and verifiably, show that the Earth is warming, is that actually indicative of the events that are purported to happen as a cause of this? Are we measuring the correct parameters against the correct frame of reference? I suspect that in many instances, actually, we are. I simply think that readers should be aware that a reasonable peer-reviewed hypothesis and its related conclusion may indeed be convincing, but firstly, you need to be convinced that the answers you receive are answers to the question that should have been asked in the first place.

This is, unfortunately for you, completely untrue. Firstly, there is no agreement where water came from, and also, the processes of volcanism do not account for the huge amount of water both in liquid, and gaseous form. It is better, in my opinion, to work out the origins of oxygen in our biosphere before claims can be made for the origins of water. Indeed we shall draw our conclusions.With the virtues of the internet mis-information highway you'll find evidence of whatever it is that you believe to be the case. Those who will do better are normally those with a certain gift of discernment. As for 'fundamental importance' I think you'll find that there is universal agreement that this is the truth. Whether, or not, ice age now, is the bastion of primary truth has yet to be demonstrated, scientifically, logically, or philosophically.

We can, and we have, formed a general consensus that this website is, at its very best, pseudo-science. The basis of this opinion is that, firstly, the name of the site precludes any other conclusion to its research other than an imminent ice age, and secondly, primarily directly as a result of the first, it omits research that might provide any evidence contrary to its claim. It is, on the firm basis of this opinion, quite reasonable to assume that any such paper that has scientific merit of whatever magnitude, to be part of the phenomena of noise that plagues real world data. Few would argue that the weight of evidence collected, at present, points to a world that is, in the mean, warming. This leaves only an opinion that evidence that points to the contrary must be (i) not evidence, (ii) irrational, (iii) an aberration existing for causes, as yet, either unknown or not understood. The overall approach – that where it is reasonable to subscribe to an opinion where the weight of evidence is greatest, is, in and of itself, a rational one. However, this is not conclusive, nor verifiable. During experimentation of any natural phenomena there is always ‘noise’ in the data collected. The CET series has it (especially in the early years) and the data is modified accordingly. Current surface temperature measurements have it, and we call it the urban heat island effect – which is also corrected to account for such aberrations. In my opinion, then, I can only say that, although I do not subscribe to a theory that proposes an imminent ice age, if one considers this theory as noise, it is, then, the duty of those who sustain the opposing view to collect the noise and filter it out; which, of course, includes me. It is not enough to gain a consensus that this is a ‘crack-pot’ theory pedalled by lunatics.

I specifically avoided the use of atoms as I wanted, perhaps erroneously, to avoid the detail required to understand even the simplest of atom systems; in particularly I avoided the water molecule which has many strange properties that are not apparent elsewhere in nature; you only need to consider the myocin ratchet reaction that occurs inside all of us . . . You are indeed correct to presume that the collisions of two atoms are thoroughly studied and documented; it is the interaction of three (or more) atoms that is not at all well understood; in this I mean that there is no known analytic solution using the quantum mechanical motion equation, Schrodinger’s equation. The same, incidentally, is true if you consider three billiard balls interacting at the same time (one ball hits the other two and the impact between the three occurs as precisely the same time) Given that the atmosphere has trillions upon trillions of atoms within it, I have assumed that the probability of a three (or more) particle system occurring to be so high that insofar as we can measure these things, it is certain. I do not normally subscribe to certainty, or its derivative cousin, determinism, but in the interests of avoiding terseness I shall, for once, concede this point. Indeed, some readers may choose to invoke Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle here, but I shall, in this case, conveniently ignore it for brevity. Although I would argue the reasoning that there is a linear path between understanding the interaction of two atoms to the forming of a visible eddy, I do think that the eddy is a good example of what it is I am trying to say. The eddy you spoke of is looking at the results of complex, ill-understood, interactions within the atmosphere. My argument is that whilst meteorological science is currently investigating why the eddy has formed, we should, I feel, be asking what the consequences of this eddy are in the system. Although the difference between these two is apparently subtle, and slight, I nevertheless believe that the difference is significant. I think, actually, that some people are considering the what's over the why's. Advanced predictions of hurricanes and other such systems rely on analysis of current macro atmospheric states such as a minor eddy. It is the modelling and forecasting of future states, primarily computed by super-computing processes such as GFS, in order to form a forecast, that is so prone to error that most users on this forum find out only to their dismay. How many times has snow been forecast confidently (by one of the most advanced atmospheric coupling systems in the world) only to find out six hours before that it was all, in fact, an error in judgement. I should not personify computing technology, but the word ‘judgement’ I feel is good enough to reflect the opinion of those who watch these models. In fact it is the lack of understanding of the coupling of micro atmospheric states which has led to the sub-science of tele-connections which attempts to look at patterns on a continental(ish) size basis. Numerical coupling, has never performed to the ability of its promise, and is, as has already been outlined, now subject to the laws of diminishing returns. Known mathematics already tells us that we cannot understand the physical interactions of the atmosphere in its entirety; this is something, I hope, that we can all agree on. The question, I suspect, remains at which level of abstraction we should be looking for patterns to further our understanding of the weather, and hence, improve our forecasting ability well out into the future. I think that considering weather patterns on the basis of risk, correlation of states, and teleconnections is the way forward.

I don't think that a post, related to weather phenomena, posted on a weather devoted forum is likely to catch the interest of those who do not like the subject matter.I merely posited that the frame of reference for a website that presumes some future catastrophe, regardless of the quality or quantity of material available, is likely to contain a proportionally high bias towards such a terrible event occuring. From this stance, I believe, my opinion is quite appropriate without deviating to a subjective aspect as 'like' or 'don't like' which, as I'm sure you are aware, is irrelevant in the context of any scientific discipline, anyway.

I predict the weather tomorrow will be the same as it is today within a given tolerance. A backward analysis of temperature, pressure, wind direction, and precipitation would, I am sure, show me to be right more than I am wrong.

Not quite. The non-linear nature of weather has already predefined that we can never produce good weather forecasts using deterministic modelling. This is not just the mammoth property of the task at hand. Even if we could compute each and every variable required, there is the question as to whether (i) we know all the variables, (ii) all the variables at some arbitrary low abstraction are deterministic in nature.There is a study, the study of emergence, that provides mathematical tools that help us to look at and understand patterns without understanding the details. The question, I suppose, is do we really need to know about particle interaction within, for instance, ocean/atmopshere coupling, when we can look at what emerges from a given set of cirumstances and form forecasts based on that. I feel that I've been a little hard and the community at large; non-deterministic forecasts are now being published. And these are, quite rightly, about probability. A good example is look at the vast expertise of meteorlogists (amateur and otherwise) on this forum. Together as a group there is still no conviction, no elaboration of verification, on any convection forecast. It's true that given events give life to given environment causes, which, continue to feed the illusion of a deteministic nature of weather. In reality the closest to a forecast one can give is that, for instance, convective rainfall will occur with n probabality, in Essex. If one considered a land based grid (transverse mercator?) and looked at trends for each point of the grid as the sum of all the parts (whether known or unknown) and computed trends for each point and compared each point to compute change then, not only would you be able to compute this on a standard PC (for somewhere the size of the UK) you'd be able to assign probability of forecast correctness based on, perhaps, Bayesian inferencing techniques validated statistically (chi-squared analysis?) This, today, is sadly lacking. The only areas forging forward are those who manage climatological models; but they're still stuck in the trap of determinism - "if only we knew more, had more computing power, understood this and that deterministically, then we could make a good long-term forecast." It stands today, that we can only predict rain or shine, wind or quiet on a very limited scale for a very limited time span into the future. Unless there is a sea-change paradigm shift in the nature of meteorological analysis, then I suspect the curse of determinism to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. A prediction that no prediction can ever be made will, unfortunately, become true.

I have a significant, but passing interest, in meteorology. I have been reading this forum for well over a year, and have contributed (albeit under a different account for most of the time) where I thought that my thoughts perhaps were merited or might indeed of been some interest to others, who like me, peruse this forum regularly. There is, however, a concurrent theme raging through this forum, and others very similar. That theme is determinism. Now, the vast majority of serious contenders would never disagree that the climate is chaotic; that, in essence, we cannot solve the difficulties of weather prediction by mathematics and computing power. The problem is, of course, that everyone says it; but no-one believes it. Chaotic, or to avoid ambiguous colloquialisms, non-linear, mathematics is defined, at it’s very worse, as an outcome being highly sensitive to initial conditions. The so called ‘Butterfly Effect’ The essence (and I’m not trying to ensure the reader sucks eggs, here) is that a butterfly in some far off continent flaps its wings and causes thunderstorms in London by virtue of a complex series of interactions throughout the atmosphere. This, effectively, is not only a terrible cliché, but it provides some comfort to those who wish to cling to vestiges of determinism; those who wish to carry on believing that the natural universe can be broken down in some laminate floorised fashion of top-down decomposition, until such deterministic laws are understood, measured, and can be further included in our understanding; a step closer to the truth. Basic combinatorial mathematics shows us pertinently that we will never ever be able to compute with any notional degree of certainty what the weather will do at the very next instant, let alone next week, next month, next season, or next year. Of course, to even contemplate such a terrible monstrosity of computing arrogance relies in totality upon understanding the coupling of each and every particle in the system. This understanding, this breaking down the system into smaller and smaller fragments, this decomposition, is what the meteorological fraternity is currently striving for. There is belief that if we can find the fundamental deterministic laws that govern particle coupling between different fluids (with their different dynamics) we can then put the system back together as a model inside a computer and provide a deterministic forecast model that is never wrong. This belief is further fed by promises of more computing power, better programmers, and better models. Any meteorologist with an ounce of sense can immediately sense that this is patently wrong. That to achieve this is not only highly improbably, but it is, in fact, a fool’s errand to even try. In highly controlled circumstances, such as a pendulum swinging, we can produce non-deterministic results. These results are reproducible every time – that is, that we cannot predict the motion of the pendulum to any exact degree. Modern physics has had a great understanding of many things – we sent man to the moon, but we still do not understand the motion and interaction if a single particle hits two other particles at exactly the same time. What does happen to the target two particles? Even though we can construct experiments of extremely simple systems (such as pendulums) that produce non-deterministic results and are immune to the scientific dogma of decomposition, the belief that we can eventually ‘discover’ the determinism that underpins all natural systems lives on. Of all the trillions upon trillions of particle interactions in the atmosphere, and ignoring their thermodynamic nature, we have no method, and no mathematical way of describing the interactions of three particle problem. This, of course, flies in the face of known and verifiable forecasting. We can tell to some degree what the weather is going to do tomorrow with some small essence of certainty. We can assign probability of risk to thunderstorm activity, and to impact of snow cover for a given region for a given time. The two viewpoints, it seems, do not match up. I propose that it is the meteorologist’s methodology that limits his ability to garner continuing success. The ultimately flawed belief in cause and effect, and determinism, only leads to undertaking work that, time and time again, leads to diminishing returns. We can say accurate things about the pendulum model, for instance. It helped the human race tell the time for many years for a start. In many cases a fluid does not need to broken into its constituent particles to describe its behaviour; you can predict which way a fluid will move under the influence of gravity, for instance. We can say many things about the weather, and we can conglomerate such things into a forecast. It is known that such forecasts accuracy reduces as the forecast heads out into time. The reason given, and accepted, as to why forecasts diminish with time, of course, is that the atmosphere is chaotic, and unpredictable. If we understand that then why do we still try to decompose the system into deterministic parts when we already know, in advance, that it’s a fruitless exercise? It is clear from anecdotal evidence, both experimentally, and historically, that the best efforts are those who are looking for patterns in long term and short term behaviour. That science, of course, is the child science of climatology

What worries me about a website called 'iceagenow' is the very title. I don't think I should even read it's content simply because of it's name. If it was renamed 'isthereaniceageontheway' or something else conditional then I might make something that could be considered, in some arbitrary context, to be an effort. The name itself implies that the reading held thereof is only ever going to point to articles, and 'evidence', that procures the namesakes belief. Which, in my opinion, makes it worthless as it will never ever hold a balanced opinion, or heaven-forbid a scientifically evaluated, validated, and peer verified prose.

I think that when all of the ups and downs are smoothed out, this year will be just average. This is not to preclude some exceptional hot periods late summer, and some exceptionally cold periods as the year draws to a close. So, I'm going for 9.75C. Talk about out on a limb

The Sun/Earth system is- at the very least - a thermodynamic system. A proportion of the heat, emitted from the sun as solar radiation, warms up the Earth's surface, and this produces the weather. Now, like any other (natural) thermodynamic system, how do you expect this to be linear in both causation and effect? I cannot think of any natural heat exchange system that can be methodically broken down like some of the claims I've read here imply.