Yorkshiresnows

Agree with all the above. Best stick with the layman's count and compare apples with apples !!! NASA should just stick with Landscheidt and admit they just don't have the knowledge for accurate predictions. http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50 Y.S

Great Post Kold, I also think we are at the 'crux' or 'Juncture' stage now. Thing is ... for me... I'm more than ever convinced that we are about to enter a period of global cooling. If the PDO really does tank ... you can bet your bottom dollar that global temps will drop (it covers over third of the globe on its own !!!). It would be not only the predominance of cooler waters but also (for me) a change in associated low cloud cover that would drive the temps. Whatever the arguments hold I would still advocate CO2 cuts (its not a completely polarised debate GW, and I'm all for being safe rather than sorry). A cleaner and more environmentally friendly means of living should be strived for. Y.S

Hi GW, You may, or may not like to read through the appended link: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/debates/copenhagen_article/8979 Y.S

Sorry Devonian, But I really cannot be bothered to trade posts all over again over the same old arguments. If you want to believe that none of the increased water vapour from a warming climate will not produce clouds then I'm fine with your view (various scientists would concur). You can believe that the 300% or so feedback amplification that is needed in order to get CO2 to affect the temps the way the IPCC see's it is based on sound science, again happy with your personnal standpoint. If you want to believe that past oceanic / solar cycles can have no impact on the climate .... fine. As for the Hockey stick paper, I'm sure if I posted what I have read and reviewed (I've even understood the maths on the Principal component analysis that was used to bring out the patterns in the data - V.P would be pleased (as long as I have got it right !!)), then it would probably lead to lot of unnecessary grief. I am undecided at the moment on this one. You know I am a skeptic and hence what I have so far brought out are the exposed flaws in the data .... quite a few. But I'd also like to check the 'other-side' so that its not a completely biased post, I've also not actually 100% completed the review process, but a few little pieces I will share: The main inference of the papers content was to cast a lot of doubt to the global nature of both the LIA and Medieval Warm period, both a probolem for the AGW theory. The Hockey stick was based on 112 proxy series, the majority of which were tree ring proxies (relying on the principal that for a given temperture rise you generally get greater growth (affecting the tree ring widths) and by verifying the principal from the instrumental record period, you can then go armed with some mathematical formulae and start digging and looking at older tree boles. However, there were other proxy series also included, one being actual temp measurements from the CETR. Lots of problems with the use of tree-ring proxies e.g. insect infestation .. which can impact tree growth even where temps increase, ..... but thats another story. What was apparent was an aweful lot of infilling of the proxy records in the updated paper (1999). For example, proxy number 45 had the same value in every year from 1978 to 1982. Series 46 had the same value from 1974 to 1980. Series 51, 52, 54 and 58 all had similar problems. For Series 50 the values for the entire period from 1962 to 1982 were copied from Series 49. The authors had attributed both 49 and 50 to a study by Fritts and Shao, when in fact series 49 was derived from a different study by Keith Briffa. Although not in itself mindblowing, this sort of infilling is not discussed anywhere in either paper and of course has an impact on the overall graph. Series 10 and 11 were two instrumental records (CETR - Central England Database) however, when investigator Steve McIntyre checked the figures back to the publically available archived data he found the figures did not match. The figures used were based on the average June / July and August temps for each year rather than the full year average (a little odd given they were attempting to recreate past average annual temps and not a summer average). The CETR started in 1659 allowing around 350 years of measurements. However, the data used truncated the data record to only 1730 .... reducing the length to 250 years (Cynics may note the late 17th century CETR numbers were very cold !!). When looking at the Central Europe series, similar problems with the data were seen. The data here had been truncated at 1550, when the full series went back to 1525 (the warmest part of the series being omitted !!!). Reasons for omitting either of these sets of data are not given (though I have yet to thoroughly check the various e-mail exchanges between Mann and McIntyre .... and there's alot of these !!). Again cynically, these omissions would flatten both the medieval warm period and little Ice age (to an extent) ...... but there may be a good reason for both omissions that I have yet to see One more on tree ring records... is that ring widths in certain areas have been shown to actually stay the same even in the industrial record ...... hence my own view of recent papers stating that these can be very misleading. There's an awful lot more ... particularly on the maths (V.P, you were right .... nightmare for me to get to grips with !!). I know Devonian that you want references to back all of the above up, but I will be fair and see 'the other side' before posting (if I do), my summary of all the data and various pro's and con's. The above is very troubling though, why these data series were not audited and checked prior to publication seems very odd ! Y.S

Hi Fred, Agree entirely, ...... but folks don't really seem keen on exploring this possibility. The 20th century warming can be predicted from PDO changes / and modifications to cloud cover that have actually been measured via satellite data. The Co2 forcing and aerosol's theory requires theoretical computation relying on feedback mechanisms that are not fully supported (or at least very controversial). Satellite measurements cannot pick these up. I have just gone through a whole load of data and arguments regarding the infamous 'Mann Hockey' stick and was going to post a review of the paper on the other thread. There is so much that was wrong with the initial two papers on this it is incredible it was allowed for publishing ........ but, if I do, its only going to start World War 3 with certain posters on here ..... so I'm thinking about it !!! What are your current thoughts on solar activity and possible weather patterns for later this year? Y.S

Agree with a lot of the above, To my mind the PDO has only just started its decline into negative territory. Given the collapse of Nino and forecast Nina ... evidence of the PDO exerting influence, we will start to see global temps cool. The combo -AMO/PDO is being touted by Jo laminate floori for this winter ..... we will see !! Y.S Fair enough GW, I'll keep my eyes peeled. The graph I posted was from Cryosphere today and shows total global sea ice. Seen a couple of links on Accu-weather to suggest that Antarctic sea ice is currently expanding ..... and this year could be a record ..... but I am no expert so .... as you say, lets see what happens. Y.S

I do find your doom laden posts ever more amusing as time goes on. Thing is, you do have a point in that the arctic ice is very low, I've no question with that. ...... but whether it is unprecedentally low is open to question (your already kow my view on this). Arctic temps are now below normal after an above normal start to the year, and with the change in PDO likely to herald a cold arctic winter .... with a lot of ice generation. Overall Global ice is well ...... bang on average ? As the PDO is now in its negative mode and will continue to be for around 30 years (if we beleive past cycles), then the good news is that we should see a sustained recovery going forward. You might also take a look at what is happening in the Antarctic, where there is talk of a possible record ice year this year (see Mr laminate floori is already talking about this on his blog). Y.S

Nice one Jethro. Thanks. Y.S

Hi there Captain, This is a great idea. How's about starting with the 1998 Michael Mann publication ? The infamous 'hockey stick' paper. From a sceptics or AGW point of view, this is quite a controversial and key publication. Basically if its correct (accurate), then you would have to conclude that natural cycles do not have any impact on the recent 20th century warming and that human related activities (greenhouse gas emissions) are very very likely to be the cause of an unprecedented warming event. On the other hand, if you do not believe the findings are accurate (and there is an aweful lot of critisism that it is not), then all of a sudden you see that the medieval warm period and Little Ice age brought about temperature fluctuations of similar or even greater magnitude than what we are currently seeing and natural cycles are likely to be having a major role in what is currently occurring / has occurred. Unfortunatley although I own the book "The hockey stick illusion" (Yep I guess that puts me in the skeptic camp !!), I have only a paper copy of the paper. The abstract link is below ..... does anybody have free access to the original nature publication ? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6678/full/392779a0_fs.html Y.S

H'mmmm lets see ..... oh I get it ... your right and I must be wrong because ...... you say so. Your are joking, making yourself look plain silly and going nowhere. My dad is dead thanks but again you missed the point of what I was getting at. Your sources tell you what exactly ...... and how are they prooving me wrong The fact that you wish to marginalise the medieval warm period / Little ice-age in the face of massive overwhelming data (proxy data from around the world and historical fact) is quite beyond me ...... I guess its that they are an obvious problem to explain in regards to the current view on AGW and past cycles (your not related to Michael mann are you ?). Anyway, folk reading these increasingly pointless posts (that I somehow cannot stop myself replying to) must wonder what on earth this place is all about. I would urge reading up on all sides of the arguments and coming to your own peaceful conclusion ... whatever that may be. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. El Nino has now completely collapsed with La Nina conditions likely before the end of the year and with no overall warming for the past 10 years that does not compute with IPCC forecasts....... but of course natural cycles have no part to play !!!! Y.S

Hi All, Some good discussions on here today and interesting points made by a few. I know that the issue of clouds is quite controversial and I (as well as others) have posted on the bizare point that the IPCC only assumes a positive (enhancing) effect of increased water vapour as a feedback of CO2 induced warming ....... yet ignores the very real possibility that at least a portion of this increased water vapour may turn to clouds and act as a negative feedback ... cancelling out some of the warming. I've alos posted a lot on Peter taylor's work as well as Roy Spencer and this has proved particularly controversial. Anyway, Dr Spencer has an interesting addition to his current blog on this issue: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Y.S

Clearly the books and references that you use are superior and more accurate than all others quoted. Enough now, again the point of the post was missed and is now so contaminated with silly nit-picking that we must move on. My father was a farmer (Experimental horticulturist) and I can assure you that farming records going back to the medieval period do exist and are accurately quoted by Fagan. If you wish to dispute this, then you go right ahead. I've seen nothing but praise for one of the most wonderfull historical accounts of how climate made history. Excellent reviews from no less than Scientific American and New Scientist. Still it must all be a load of old tosh .... if you say so !! Cobblers Did you read the paper on the Indo-Pacific warm pool by any chance ? Y.S

With regards to regionality of the MWP .... I know there are arguments for and against, but recent evidence would suggest a more global effect: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7259/abs/nature08233.html I DID NOT STATE THAT THERE WAS NO ICE AROUND GREENLAND but LESS ICE and the viking settlers were able to travel around Greenland, to the West coast of Nothern America and to Iceland. Even if you dismiss the actual fact that the climate was a lot warmer through this period (baffles me, but its a free world), (The little ice age was written by Brian Fagan by the way .... perhaps there's another book of the same title by another author ?). Here's a few snippets from this book of historical facts: "Abundant cod and centuries of unusually mild conditions allowed the Greenlanders to voyage to North America and trade freely with Iceland and Norway in Walrus ivory, wool and even falcons. Their ships often carried exotic, valuable cargoes. In 1075, a merchant named Audin shipped a live polar bear from Greenland as a gift to Kinf Ulfsson of Denmark. Four centuries later, no one would have dared carry such a cargo eastward. If not for the medieval warm period, hundreds of years might have passed before anyone colonized Greenland and voyaged beyond its fjords". Talking of when the Vikings first colonized the main land of Greenland (Eric the red and father Thorvald Asvaldsson were banished from Iceland and travelled west): "They reached a western shore (Southwestern Greenland) and found summer pastures and thick willow scrub. Summers were brief but warm with longer days than Iceland, the winters harsh, but not especially so. They found better grazing than at home, abundant fish and sea mammals" Further settlements colonized what became known as the Eastern settlements .... know known as the Julianehab and Narsaq districts. Another group pushed further North and founded the Western settlements centred around Sandnes Farm (Kilaarsarfik), in the modern-day Godthab district at the head of the sheltered Ameralik ford. "Life in Greenland was easier than on the crowded hardscrabble fields of Iceland". The west greenland current flows into baffin bay and the heart of Nororsetta, where it gives way to much colder south flowing currents. Cooler water passes southwards along Baffin Island, Labrador and eastern Newfoundland. This circulation pattern affects ice formation. The Baffin / Labrador coast has heavier ice cover and a longer sea ice season, whereas Greenland coast sea ice forms late and disperses early. There is often a coastal belt of ice-free water all the way up to the Arctic circle on the eastern side of the Davis Strait. The climate of the medieval warm period permitted easier navigation between Baffinland and Labrador during many summers. "Between 800 and 1200 AD, warmer air and sea surface temepartures led to less pack ice than in earlier and later centuries. Ice conditions between Labrador and Iceland were unusually favourable for serious voyaging". "In Iceland the Norse were able to obtain ample hay harvests for winter fodder and also to plant Barley, even near the north coast, where it was cultivated and until the 12th century. After that, farmers could never grow Barley in Iceland until the early 1900's". Sort of suggests a warmer regime doesn't it ? There's an aweful lot more ..... but I think you should get the point. MY POINT was to question GW's assertion that the arctic has never been in such a dire situation (in regards to ice cover) than at present times ........ but you should know this as my original post was in reply to that post. I stated that we do not know for certain as we do not have accurate measurements of either land or sea temperature. What we do have is a lot of proxy data and historical records of farming and people movements throughout the Northern Europe, Iceland and Greenland .......... all of this data suggests a warmer stable climate that ran for the best part of 400 to 500 years 850 to 1250 AD. My conclusion would be to suggest that there would likely have been less ice than now as a result. Y.S

Oh come off it. Historical data shows there was less ice and a warmer climate. There is no controversy in this area at all. Are you saying that conditions then, were likely as warm as now ...... just with less ice !!!!! The bit about less icebergs his taken from literature and relates to the how Viking fishermen (cod fishing) were able to roam the waters around Greenland and Iceland easily until winter conditions worsened considerably. The POINT OF ALL OF THIS was to state that if an area that is covered with Ice and inhospitable now, was not covered in ice and was hospitable before ..... would perhaps illustrate that a lot of the proxy data for the medieval warm period ...... was correct (evidence sort of mounts up) and people cannot therefore state with absolute certainty that the arctic area has never been in such a state as now. This seems a reasonable argument to me. Do google search Amazon and find the book 'The Little Ice Age'. You can look through the pages on line. Its a historical record and does not make any claims for any theory or anything, more a weather and agricultural history of Northern Europe. Y.S

Hi Sunny skies, Sorry to have banged on about the Greenland settlements ...... !!!! The Vikings left .... because the climate changed and they were beginning to die out .... it was abandoned because it had to be. They farmed, they had cattle, they fished (without fear of Icebergs) and they prospered. Its a valid point and there are several books that list all of the historical records of this and indeed other Northern European farming trends over this period. All of them (say this again, all of them) show or illustrate a warmer period with less ice around. So, I'll continue to bang on around this ... as it is a relevant point. Another fact is that you are not able to state with any certainty that the Ice levels we are seeing in the arctic region now are unprecedented as there is no absolute data to prove this one way or the other, just proxy data and historical records of farming that would indicate that there were warmer and colder periods over the past 1000 years. Y.S Nice Post Y.S

Hi, Yes, I apologise ... you make a valid and fair point. I think that due to the opposing (completely) view of Sunny Skies and Devonian to my own view .... then its best left for us to state that .... we agree to differ. I would add however, that until very recently I was of the same opinion as the AGW folk ..... and perhaps it is best left for folk to look at the data themselves (there is so much now available free on line) and make up their own minds. For me it really does come down to clouds and water vapour (and the effect that known natural cycles can have on them) and I would personally recommend anybody who is interested in climate change to view the Peter Taylor conference video (never mind the book ... which is excellent), which mirrors my own concerns over the computer modelling projections of what our future holds. I did make a mistake in my earlier post to Sunny Skies and should have properly checked before posting, and fair stick that I receive as a result. The argument that I have made however, is still a valid one (well at least to me ...!!). Y.S

Hi GW What exactly is that then ..... the evidence that is ... ? I know there is a lot of proxy data that suggests there has been considerable ice-loss previously. We know of events such as the Roman warm period / medieval warm period and little ice age that certainly (without question) affected the Northern hemisphere in one way and then the other. Even closer to now in the 30's and early 40's there is at least some evidence to suggest rapid ice loss in the arctic region that switched round again to peak in the late 70's. Are we to believe that a population of folk could colonise and farm an area in Greenland (grow cereal crops) that is now covered in ice and still believe that the arctic was itself unaffected less than now !!!! We know that satellite data and accurate monitoring has only been in force since the late 70's (a time when the PDO switched so dramatically)...... so please could you provide the clear evidence that our current state (arctic ice loss) is so definately an unprecendented event ? Cheers Y.S

Highlighted text is not quite correct - really must take more care. The quote comes from the expert working party (part of the IPCC process) that looked at clouds / satellite data and is re-printed in part in the book 'Chill' by Peter Taylor - it was the fact that these discussions never made it into the actual summary report which is controversial ..... I mean ...... why not when it formed part of that groups final minutes. Anyway I do have the reference and a link somewhere so you can view this for yourself (on holiday at the minute, so no access to my files .... and missus not happy with my obsession at the moment .... hence the sneaky early morning post). Y.S For the full alternative view: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6613938246449800148#

My quote was from the IPCC summary actually .... so you clearly have not read either the paper or the summaries (available online) !! Peter Taylor's book 'Chill' includes two chapters that review the entire satellite dataset ..... well up until 2009 and I've checked out most of them. Think you need to do a little more uptodate research pal. What I've highlighted above in your post is completley wrong (about feedback)..... but I'll let you figure that one out for yourself. I've read a load of papers ... not just the one. With regards to the publication of papers, you need to not only submit your work, but have to have it independantly reviewed by two separate experts in the field who have nothing to do with your research (this is organised by the editorial staff of whichever Journal you are publishing in) .... if anything is total rubbish it gets rejected ...... these are facts I know well .... just had two papers accepted for publishing myself and I've had to go through hell and back to get them into a 'perfect state' for the publishers. So, don't so readily schoff at others work who have published ....... the data has already passed a lot of checks !! Also the work carried out by Wild and others was done as part of a team .... not just one lone 'nut' with an agenda and nobody and I mean nobody will put their name to a piece of work they do not believe in. Anyway, you are entitled to your view and good on you for sticking to yer guns !! Off for the weekend now ... so will play later. Y.S P.S check this out: http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/un-climate-change.htm and this:

Maybe this year it might buck the trend then, otherwise, it at least looks as though its in pretty healthy state: Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Y.S

I disagree with the above being able to conclude your final point. The water vapour feedback effect is exactly the point. It is assumed it is a positive one (for warming), yet there is satellite evidence that is has the exact opposite effect, thereby blunting the forcing. I've shown this in previous posts (publications by Wild et al, 2004 and 2005). Even the IPCC discussed this in one of the 2007 (4th) working group summaries: "The changes in both satellite derived and surface measured insolation data are in line with changes in global cloudiness .... which show an increase until the late 1980's and a decrease thereafter, on the order of 5% from the late 1980s to 2002", This corresponds to a reported 6 watts per square metre in absorbed solar irradiation by the globe. Y.S Coincidence that these patterns fit with changing PDO cycles .... or not.

I do not recall anybody saying it was ALL solar, only that there is good evidence for a link between solar activity and Northern hemisphere climate / possibly world temps. Lots of papers blah blah blah and previous charts posted that show this. If you can accept that, then this leads you on to believe that solar activity has an impact that is not currently modelled. Yes? Y.S

Great post, To be honest, I have often been so busy attempting to defend this and that from multiple posts, that the whole principal message of what I hoped to start and discuss has now long been lost in the mud !! That tied up last night (on travel) working out if I had made a boob that I tied myself up in knots. Oh, well, the actual point was that the amount of CO2 we pump out although seems to be huge is, quite small .... from an atmospheric perspective. Also, this was also in itself just a defence on a point made by another poster away from the natural cycle versus greenhouse gas theory. But, I only mean that I stand by the accuracy of what I have posted (i.e. I myself have not made any of it up). I am a reviewer and not a climate scientist, so I was just hoping to get a good discussion and present a summary of some of the interesting science that has / is coming out and that has supported by recent change in viewpoint. Anyway, your post has made me laugh so I'll thank you for that. Y.S

Agreed. I apologise to all. The figure I quoted was from graph (which I cannot show you at the moment) that details the change in Co2 content over a 5 year period from a supposed human emissions of 70 million tons of CO2 per day. As such, and quite obviously to all I was wrong on that statement. The rest of the information I provided. I stand by. Y.S

Regarding CO2. Nope its as I've stated (fraction of the atmosphere)!! Open your eyes .... you might see something !