Admiral_Bobski

As a point of order, 1) we don't actually know what the Sun is going to do over the next few cycles and 2) the LI (if anyone remembers that) did predict that temperatures wouldn't start to drop for about a decade or so. Has the Sun "done its best" yet, or is it still working on it? Here's me, CB, still banging on about the Sun...

Hey peeps! I decided all this doom and gloom had got too much for me, so I absconded to the less earth-shattering climes of IGN, where I have been happily blogging and annoying the locals for going on 18 months now. It occurred to me that this global warming stuff wasn't going to go away - we were destined to just run round and round in circles until such a time as more data had been accumulated. We're still not there yet, so the debate will continue to rage or else the dissenters will all end up doing what I've done and leaving for less infuriating destinations. It is nice to hear that the LI is alive and well, somewhere in the backs of people's minds, though it's sad to hear that VP has been through so much hardship as a result. Anyway, I shall try to keep a toe in this pool if time allows... Nice to hear from you guys and gals! =)

Good Lord! Is the Leaky Integrator showing some tentative signs of vindication? =)

It's true that Elvis always seems much more svelte when spotted in public these days, but then I hear that weight loss is common after death.

Thank you very much for that GW. I appreciate both your apology and your honesty I wonder how many posters on these boards would actually have the brass balls to do the same in this situation!

Well, yes - insolation is the driver, when all is said and done, but it's not an instantaneous driver, which is what I've been trying to get at for well over a year. I'm also still not convinced, obviously, that the "spatial pattern in the atmosphere" is incompatible with insolation being the main driver, and it's an issue I am still trying to resolve - but one slight downpoint does not, to my mind, render all the other points redundant. I have been trying to seriously approach this issue from an alternative viewpoint, my arguments are logical and - where necessary - I have conceded errors and even altered my viewpoint (which has, in turn, led to an adaptation of my arguments - but this is not the same as leaping from argument to argument, you understand). What have I got in return? Scoffing, patronising, frankly insulting drivel from you. You say that I don't make sense? Well, plenty of other people on here seem to think I'm making some kind of sense, so the fact that you will not allow yourself to consider an alternative to the All-Hallowed AGW shows you to be a closed-minded jerk. Since you still will not tackle the point that I have actually raised then I see no reason to continue this discussion. And you have still not responded to my points about the Milankovitch cycles beyond saying "some people disagree with you". I really am sick of the whole thing - the only reason I continue to stick my oar in these discussions is that I hate to think that the absence of sensible skeptic voices makes some people think that the AGW debate is settled. I think I should give up, not because "you've won" but rather because you won't listen, you won't reason, you won't discuss, you won't consider and you won't treat others with any kind of respect. You're trying to deal with? What, single-handedly? Well, what a martyr you are to The Cause.

I'll read those links through later on, but you're missing the point. I'm pointing out that the ENSO fluctuations, in and of themselves, are not the be-all and end-all of the ENSO phenomenon - you are not taking into account the relative insolation at every point during the ENSO cycle. If you're going to be pig-headed about it and not actually address the issue that I am raising then I'm not going to bother discussing it with you. But then that seems to be an ongoing trend in these debates - answer the question you can answer - even if it wasn't the question that was asked - but evade the question that you can't answer.

Okay, I was not specific enough in my last post, so let me rephrase. ENSO's net effect should be zero given enough time. We have been talking pretty much exclusively about the effect of ENSO on global temperatures during the "global warming" period. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the period we have been discussing is 150 years. Is 150 years long enough for ENSO's effects to balance out at zero? I accept that we have been through a number of ups and downs in the ENSO cycle, but quite clearly these ups and downs have not all been equal, not just in the magnitude of the peaks and troughs but in terms of the varying heat within, and entering, the system at any given point. So ENSO's effect over the past 150, 200 or 1000 years does not have a net value of zero. This is patently not "speculating without evidence" but rather an absolutely fundamental truth of the nature of ENSO - it is the way it must be. Do you agree with this? Actually - if I may further clarify - ENSO does add heat to the system if we're talking about the atmosphere! Since we do not generally take the total heat content of the oceans into account, any heat which comes from the ocean should be treated as a heat input into the (atmospheric) system.

I've been thinking about how different people view the science of AGW, and how the conclusions that some people draw are different from the conclusions that other people draw. I have talked before about scientific papers that seem all good scientifically which then conclude something which doesn't seem to follow from the preceding paper. This thread is for discussions of those conclusions, to debate whether those conclusions are legitimate and hopefully to gain some understanding of how people's perceptions lead them to either accept or be skeptical of AGW. The idea is for someone to post a scientific paper (full text, please - an abstract isn't much help by itself!), then everyone who is interested can read the whole paper and we can discuss whether or not the conclusions seem legitimate. Perhaps a "Pro-AGW" poster could get the ball rolling with a paper which is generally accepted in the scientific community and we can all see what we think?

I'm assuming, from the posts of the last 24 hours, that we're allowing the Milankovitch misconception to stand? Nobody seems interested in getting to the bottom of the matter. Another thing that springs to mind is that it is incorrect to say that ENSO has no net effect on temperatures. If we accept that a negative ENSO tends to cool the globe (draws heat into the ocean) and a positive ENSO tends to warm the globe (expels heat from the ocean) then, superficially, it seems that ENSO's net effect is zero. However, if we have a negative ENSO during a period of higher insolation then there may be two effects: firstly, the globe may not cool as much as it would with lower insolation and, secondly, the oceans may draw in more warmth. If the next positive ENSO period then occurs during a period of higher insolation then you have the dual effect of higher insolation plus more heat coming from the ocean. I do believe, if I'm not very much mistaken, that this process would introduce some kind of...um...what's the word?.... Lag, is it? (Just to clarify, ENSO's net effect is zero if all else remains equal which, as is quite obvious in the real world, is never the case.)

Why do some on here seem to think that every question is intended to completely destabilise or demolish AGW? Can't someone ask an honest question and expect an honest answer? And on a note more relevant to me, no comment on the Milankovitch cycles, or is it just to be ignored again? CB

So that's the best you can come up with? I think you'll find - if you looked, or if you even cared - that there are more papers "suggesting an alternative" than there are suggesting we should be on a downward slide into an orbital-forcing induced ice age. But the idea that orbital forcing is past its maximum is a very convenient one for pinning the blame on AGW, isn't it? I have shown that orbital forcing is a non-issue since it is not past its maximum effect, but rather than debate that issue you just spout out another name that agrees with your viewpoint over mine. Well, Big Wows there, glad you pointed it out, obviously my entire worldview has been destroyed by your clever debating skills. Richard Alley disagrees with me? So what? CB

Well then, GW, you believe wrong. Here's a link to a post I made on 21st April about this very issue: http://forum.netweat...ost__p__1807608 I am sure that orbital forcing has its part to play. I am dismayed by the oversimplification of the facts by the AGW brigade, "we're coming out of our Milankovitch optimum" being a prime example. The Milankovitch cycles are rather more complicated than just "here's an optimum and we're past it", and it can be shown to be an incorrect assertion anyhow. I'm sure Professor Serreze's degree in Geography has been invaluable in his understanding of orbital forcings, and perhaps I shall e-mail him when I can find the time and enthusiasm (who knows - maybe I'll do it tomorrow). But here we are again with the "such-and-such says such a thing, therefore it must be (or is probably) true." I've put my position forward on this issue - interestingly, the last time I did nobody took the time or effort to argue the opposite case. Nobody pointed out how, where or why I was wrong and - surprise, surprise - we're now talking about the same issue as though we have learned nothing. The old "ignore it and it'll go away" method. EDIT - link to Mark Serreze's page at University of Colorado: http://cires.colorado.edu/people/serreze/ Just to clarify, I have no doubt that orbital forcing would, in time, have us gradually heading towards the next ice age. However, I would draw your attention to this section of the Wiki article on Milankovitch Cycles: "An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years. The best chances for a decline in Northern hemisphere summer insolation that would be sufficient for triggering an ice age is at 130,000 years or possibly as far out at 620,000 years." And here's some references: J Imbrie, J Z Imbrie (1980). "Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations". Science 207 (1980/02/29): 943–953. doi:10.1126/science.207.4434.943. PMID 17830447. Berger A, Loutre MF (2002). "Climate: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?". Science 297 (5585): 1287–1288. doi:10.1126/science.1076120. PMID 12193773. http://amper.ped.muni.cz/gw/articles/html.format/orb_forc.html So is it as cut and dried as you and Gray-Wolf make it out to be? In short: No.

:lol: Brace yerself!!

Jethro is asking a very important question, and I am astonished that some on here seem unable to understand what she is asking. If we know that the current arctic conditions are beyond the scale of natural variation then we must, by extension, know how far beyond natural variation these conditions are (since we must have a definition of "natural variation" by which to determine what lies outside of it). So, what state would the arctic be in without AGW, and how do we know that? The diatoms issue is irrelevant, since it only shows that we transitioned from an ice-free pole to a pole with Winter sea ice. Well, we still have winter sea ice even now, so it doesn't show that current levels are outside of natural variation. (Same goes for foraminifera, by the way.) So we are left with Jethro's question, to which I still don't know the answer. B) Show us the past 600,000 years record of non-stop all year round ice pack and maybe we'll talk. I've posted (at least twice, now) explanations of why the "orbital variation" argument is spurious - in fact, not just spurious but plain wrong. Repeating the same comments again and again proves nothing (as several posters enjoy pointing out to some skeptics on here!).

I have to take issue with the comment I have highlighted above - the Leaky Integrator is a perfectly rational position, as you should be able to see. Whether it's right or not is a different matter, but it is certainly rational. CB

Something very interesting occurs to me about this graph. The negative phase up to around 1920 was nowhere near as pronounced as the negative phase between 1940 and 1970. During a negative phase the ocean is effectively absorbing heat, which is later released during a positive phase (simplified, but that's the general gist). Now, the PDO was particularly negative around 1950-1955/6, which was when the Sun was ramping up to its highest maximum of sunspot activity. So, there was markedly high sunspot activity (which generally correlates to increased insolation) at a time when the oceans were absorbing a great deal of energy. Post-1970 we see a return to positive PDO, and suddenly temperatures start to rise dramatically. You are quite right, Devonian, that the PDO does not - in and of itself - create more heat. But we need to look at the bigger picture, compare the positive and negative phases with other phases and see how and where they coincide with increases in incoming radiation. This PDO data set has been incorporated into the LI, as have the sunspot numbers over the same period. These figures, along with some others, generate the LI output. What I have just described above is incorporated into the LI, but has perhaps not been explicitly laid out as I have just done. Thoughts? CB

I think you may have missed my point - I'm not suggesting that grizzly bears and polar bears have cross-bred before but we didn't know about it; I'm suggesting that although such a lovers' tryst may be novel, the reasons for it are nothing to do with lack of snow or ice but rather more to do with the movements of the species involved. No doubt that mankind has displaced species by our encroachment on their habitats - I believe this has more to do with it than catastrophic changes to their current environment. Well then you are clearly not "all for 'Devil's Advocate'", as you refuse to entertain alternative notions. Supposed "certainty" is no reason not to assess alternative viewpoints. In fact, all the more reason to assess them, to clarify that certainty. Links? CB

Well, if we're talking about reduced ice (or perhaps an ice-free pole) for a period of maybe 20 or 30 years then would evolution have a chance to catch up? I doubt it somehow. As for the interbreeding, the encroachment of mankind into grizzly or polar bear territory has changed their behaviour patterns. The fact that grizzlies and polar bears are meeting up with each other and getting it on is only indicative of the fact that they have met each other, which can easily be due to changes in their geographical movements rather than any climatological effects. This is a prime example of conclusions being leapt to. (On Jethro's point about berry-laden plants foretelling a cold winter being a myth, it would be more accurate to call it an indicator. The reason the old wives' tale grew up is because, historically, when such plants are heavily laden with berries a cold winter follows. This is obviously not through some predictive ability of the plants, but rather evidence for the fact that, generally speaking, the weather conditions which promote berry growth tend to evolve into the conditions which produce a cold winter. It obviously doesn't always pan out that way, but it often does - perhaps moreso in the past than now, but frequently enough that the old wives' tale developed.) CB

You're welcome, GW That said, how is it that you are able to draw your conclusions about the supposedly unprecedented scale of ice decline if, by your own admission, the existing data are not "robust enough"? CB

Perhaps you misunderstand - nobody thinks that you are laying the blame solely at YS's feet, but your wording is extremely personal. What I am suggesting is that you take a moment to read your posts through before submitting them, take a moment to put yourself in the shoes of the person at whom they are directed and see whether you would be happy if someone else wrote those things to you. If you genuinely fail to see how a post such as your earlier one might be construed as being offensive or insulting then might I suggest that perhaps you lack the capacity to play Devil's Advocate, and perhaps that is the reason why you are unable to entertain the notions of the skeptics. Looking at the alternative viewpoint in a debate is absolutely crucial - it is certainly not anti-scientific to play Devil's Advocate. On the contrary, I think that it is an absolutely essential part of the scientific process. For example, you cannot seem to entertain the idea of the LI precisely because you are so hung up on the concept that CO2 is a main driver of climate. Looking at the LI hypothesis (if I may call it that at this stage) absolutely demands that preconceptions to the contrary be temporarily suspended, or else how can one analyse its potential merits? I think that this is a crucial discussion that needs to be had - a look at how preconceptions colour our interpretation of facts, how important it is to be able to properly explore the counter-arguments in an analytical, rather than dismissive, way - but I feel that I may have pressed this point for too long. CB

I've just spent the past 25 minutes or so trawling through dozens of pages about sea ice decline, but try as I might I can't seem to find any data for either ice volume or ice extent that goes back beyond 1978. Any help? Links? References? Anything? CB EDIT #1 - Okay, I've found this: http://arctic.atmos....t.1900-2007.jpg Now to find out where they got that dataset from. EDIT #2 - Interesting pdf (be warned: it's over 20MB!!): http://nsidc.org/pubs/gd/GD-6_web.pdf The period 1953-1976 comes from a paper by JE Walsh: "A data set on Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent" Earlier data comes from a variety of sources, so far as I can tell. I'll keep digging since, at present, I am not overly convinced of the robustness of the data prior to 1978 (and, judging by this site, nor should I be). EDIT #3 - here's a link to the Glaciological Data Report in which JE Walsh's paper can be found: http://nsidc.org/pubs/gd/GD-2_web.pdf I'm just having a read now...

At the risk of perpetuating an argument which should not be perpetuated, I have to support Jethro in taking issue with GW's comment to YS earlier on. This comment, "We all know 'history will tell all' but if you are wrong Y.S. your complacency condemns millions to death" is similar to others that have arisen over the years I have been on here - the insinuation being that by "denying" AGW you are somehow an accomplice to manslaughter (at best) or murder (at worst). This is a perfectly reprehensible allegation to make of anyone. Perhaps, if we are to follow this trend, it is perfectly acceptable to accuse Gray-Wolf of aiding and abetting the mass brainwashing of the next generation with his AGW propoganda? Is that not an offensive insinuation? And, if so, is Gray-Wolf's comment to YS not equally offensive? In fact, is it not even more so, since having the blood of millions on your hands is surely worse than moulding others in your image? This is the kind of rhetoric which is likened to religious fervour, and it is best left out of these discussions. CB

Hi GW, Just a quick note - what do you mean by "the lack of SO2"? There's plenty of SO2 being pumped out of Eyjafjallajokull, as can be seen here: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ash_plume.html The "minimal cooling" is as a result of the volume of material erupting and the height in the atmosphere which it is attaining. There have been various parallels with Pinatubo to emphasise this point - Pinatubo caused maybe 0.5C of temp decreases and the current eruption, being on a smaller scale, would presumably have less of an effect. Of course, the duration of this eruption may far outstrip the duration of Pinatubo's, in which case volume levels may be comparable - height may still be an issue, of course, but then Katla may remedy this if it decides to go kablooie. CB

Not surprising in the slightest - you're welcome to check the LI thread wherein you will find VP's prediction (fairer to call it a projection, actually) of future temps. Temps fluctuate around what is, currently, a fairly high baseline - one would expect some high temp records to be broken. CB