Yorkshiresnows

From the previous comments and also the videlo blog, the overall Ice extent, the temps at the arctic, the slowing of the melt this year and projections of a cooler period as La Nina comes to fruition and the PDO turns Y.S

Starry Skies It makes him perfectly qualified to review and comment on the science, particularly computer modelling, for which he has criticised the IPCC reliance in regards to projections of climate change. Somebody with his experience taking a step back and reviewing the 'big-picture' can only be a good thing. Again, he has acted as a revieer in the book 'Chill', looking at the evidence as a whole (if you had read the book you would see this, but watch the video as most of the main points are given here). Arguing from authority, nope, never said I was, arguing with a bit of common sense, ..... maybe, .. arguing after careful consideration of what I have seen, .... yes I believe so....... am I right and you wrong ....... cannot say for certain, but I will not so easily dismiss disenting views. Have you actually seen his stuff, read anything he has written, do you have an opinion on his queries, is he wrong and if so why ? If you do not agree with his view, then that's fine and your completely justified to make your own mind up, its the immediate dismissal that winds me up so much. The same goes for Roy Spencer and a whole host of others who have the audacity to question the 'consensus'. I make my own mind up from reviewing the evidence, looking at the papers and then coming to my own opinion, I only suggested you take a look at his reviews as they coincide with others, primarily in the overreliance on computer modelling to make the case for human emissions as the primary cause of global warming. When you drill into the science you can clearly (to my mind) see obvious flaws. Nobody will ever convince me that to input a 200% to 300% amplification factor into all modelling (which is liitle more than guesswork based on assumptions regarding water vapour feedback, without looking at the role of clouds) is compelling. This does not means its wrong, only that there are serious flaws. Why not take a closer look at the paper that Jethro posted a little while ago (here it is again: http://www.probeinte.../UPennCross.pdf) Read it .... particularly the section on computer modelling and the effect of water vapour and clouds (its a review document and contains references for both sides of the argument), ..... again the same messages keep coming out. In the meantime, looks likely we will be entering a cooling phase, if this takes the world temps back to the 30 year running mean ...... I wonder what that will tell us? Have a good weekend Y.S

Starry Skies Your beliefs and dogmatic dismissal of anybody who is not towing the party-line is quite amazing and also very unfair: http://video.google....938246449800148 Your might want to check out his background and who he has worked for before. Peter Taylor is a science analyst and policy advisor with over 30 years experience as a consultant to environmental NGO's, government departments and agencies, intergovernmental bodies, the European Commission, the European parliament and the UN. His range of expertise stretches from pollution and accident risk, from nuclear operations, chemical polution of the oceans and atmosphere (good knowledge of computer modelling), wildlife ecology and conservation, to renewable energy strategies and climate change. He has lectured widely in universities ann institutes in Britain, Germany, Sweden, the USA and Japan. After graduating at Oxford University he set up and directed the Oxford based Political Ecology Research Group and pionerred the development of critical scientific review on environmental issues, both in the examination of official policy and its use as a campaigning tool for legal reforms such as the precautionary principal (he was a leading advocate of this at UN conventions). He has sat on several government commissions and research bodies. From 2003 to 2003 he was a member of the UK Government's National Advisory Group for Community Renewable Energy. In 2000 he set up the web-site Ethos to develop cutting edge computer techniques for visualizing change in the rural landscape. He published 'Beyond Conservation: a wildlife strategy' in the spring of 2005 and helped found and organize the wildland network for conservationists, foresters and land managers. He is a leading advocate or rewilding policies in nature conservation involving minimal human intervention and the reintroduction of exterminated large mammals and sits on an advisory group for the management of National Trust and Forestry Commission land in the Lake District. He has been a member of the following professional institutes: The Institute of Biology / The British Ecological Society, The Society for Radiological Protection and The International Union of Radio-ecologists (at times he was on the editorial board of the Journal of Radioecology). During his work on marine pollution and hazardous industries he both critically assessed and utilized computer models of complex marine and atmospheric pathways and is ideally qualified to review and synthesize climate science across many disciplines, taking a broad and independant view with a brilliant insight into the workings of science. This is the Peter Taylor you are so keen to dismiss. In fact you seem want to dismiss anybody and everybody that does not hold you own viewpoint which is very sad. Peter Taylor is clearly not a nut, maverick nor is he unqualified. He has critically assessed and presented his findings / observations and I personally find what he says very compelling. I am a scientist myself so please cut the patronising remarks about what my beliefs are based on. This has no basis nor adds any merit to your arguments. Y.S

Nice presentation of the data Stewfox. I agree, that things are looking (in the round) a little more robust this year. Lets hope those arctic temps stay nice and low. Y.S

Hi Starry skies, Read up on some of what Peter Taylor has been looking at. It will test your faith. It certainly did mine. How come we have flattened on Global temps. Since the 1998 El-Nino we have roughly 5-6% more CO2 in the atmosphere, yet we have never reached that peak. We're dropping right now. Arctic summer temps have been consistently lower than normal this year with the ice melt flattening off. We have a possible record year for Antarctic ice. Overall sea ice cover is .... bang on the normal (based on 30 year trend). The PDO is turning and La Nina coming on. The predictions are for a cooling trend to develop this year and persist throughout next. If this transpires to be correct, ... what of the all conquering Co2, flattening all natural cycles in its mighty wake !! Lets see what happens ... Y.S

Hi There, Fair, point. Things seem to be looking a little better though. Check the video blog from Joe http://www.accuweath...temp-report.asp Y.S

Hi Folks, Seems that summer temperatures are running around 2 degrees below average in the Arctic (and have been below normal for most of the summer): If you look at the past years, its hard to find a summer that has been as cold. Guess we will have to see what happens next (as ever): http://ocean.dmi.dk/...meant80n.uk.php Will we see a sustained levelling off on the ice-melt, or perhaps an early re-freeze this year ? Y.S

Hi Pete, Which is the more flakey ..... the supposed effects of CO2 which require a mathematical formulae to estimate supposed positive feedback effects (estimated to be around 300% to get the sort of projections the IPCC are suggesting), or that certain natural cycles that we know impact our climate now (e.g. La Nina / El Nino ENSO / PDO / AMO) could provide an alternative explanation ? It would take a global change in low cloud cover of less than 1% to change the radiation budget of the Earth to account for all of the warming from pre-industrial to now. We have only just got the technology to start to measure these kinds of relevant changes, but there is at least a suggestion that oceanic cycles can impact on these conditions. Sure there are theories and theories, .... and of course we have warmed (though pretty constant for the past 10 years), so AGW may be correct. But, an aweful lot just does not stack up to my mind. Cheers Y.S

We're not there yet, so keep your powder dry GW. The PDO is turning and this oncoming La Nina off the back of a very unusual El Nino is a sign. Wait and see Y.S Dooms-day of course .... with a whole heap of rotting ice !

Hi GW, Its not a question of advocation of responsibilities. I will vote for a cleaner future by whatever means necessary (its a sensible way forward for such polluting humans as we undoubtly are). However, i simply cannot understand your statement in bold above. There are a lot of learned scientists and others who are dissenting voices and have put forward possible mechanisms by which most of the 20th century warming could have occurred without involving green house gas emissions. Its not about getting into anybody's mindset ...... more about reading around the subject. Even the IPCC are vastly uncertain as to how much warming will occure and by when and have to use a mathematically calculated amplification factor to get the figures they produce. The uncertainty over the effects of cloud cover (cloud generation where the atmosphere holds additional moisture through a warming climate leading to a possible negative rather than positive effect) is pretty well accepted. I was also a firm believer in the green-house gas theory, ...... I've changed my mind in recent months ......... if further data becomes available disproving many of the alternative theories and we resume warming .... I may well change it back. Its the next few years that hold the key and it will be very ineterseting to see what actually occurs (Arctic as well). In the meantime, I agree, as a population we should take the precautionary approach. Y.S

Hi Jethro, Yes, I am pleased with this news. As you know, I am a believer in the cyclical nature of oceanic phases coupled to an atmospheric response and the possibility that like waves, certain cycles can peak together to provide a notable effect on climate. This I believe is the cause of much of the 20th century warming. As the cycels turn, we should see an effect at the polar region, that is most affected by predominant PDO states (at the turn of the last 30 year PDO cycle Alaska prety much warmed up immediately) ...... but, .... as ever, time will tell. Y.S

Yes, a good read Jethro. Lets hope that the overall thrust of the paper is wrong, otherwise we could be in trouble ! Have you seen the latest from Roy Spencer ..... good discussions on his blog reagrding satellite derived temp measurements and on a critical paper in press: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Y.S

No need dude, ....... nobody has accurate data prior to 1979, lots of suppositions, but little else .... as you well know. Arguably the 1930-s to 40s could be classed as poor for arctic ice ...... big increase peaking in the late 70's .... decrease and then rapid decrease recently...... but lets not go through all this again. Lets see what happens with the turn of the PDO. I see that arctic temperatures are now hovering around freezing and remain below normal for the time of year and Global tempeartures have now dipped below last year for the first time. Is this the beginning of a second half trend ...... guess we'll soon find out. (links to the above on Accuweather, or The AQUA satellite area). Y.S

The thing is Gray Wolf, .... we do not know for certain that 'massive alterations' have taken place ..... at least, all we know for certain is that the current conditions are low and as low as detailed instrumental records began back in 1979. That's not a great deal of time to form an accurate opinion, and is particularly so give that 1979 - early 80's was a particularly good time for Arctic ice. I do find it strange that as Arctic Ice has declined the Antarctic ice has increased, more or less keeping pace over the past 30 years (see previous links). I know that the Antarctic being mainly land based has certain peculiarities. When the PDO switches we should see a reversal in fotunes for both the polar and antarctic regions as the various pressure belts react ....... guess this is a test ? Y.S Hi Dev, I saw predictions of 2010 being possibly the warmest year on record (JAN / FEB time), but I cannot remember where. I think it was on a link over on ACCU-WEATHER, but cannot be sure. I'll look later and see if I can post it up. Y.S

You could be right Dev, ... but if natural cycles do have any weight, then we should see a reversal of fortunes for the arctic (and antarctic) once the PDO and AMO swing to negative. Exciting times. Y.S

Hi Folks, Was not sure whether this should go into the other thread or here (guess its sort of more 'in the news', but anyway ...... another attach on the greenhouse gas theory): http://kirkmyers.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/miskolczi-destroys-greenhouse-theory/ Y.S

Hi Folks, Check out the following site: http://wattsupwiththat.com/sea-ice-page/ It puts all the graphs and charts for the Arctic and Antarctic all together. Currently ...... well looking a lot better than I would have thought. Arctic below, but currently slowing on the melt and Antarctic up (could be a record in the making), ....... overall ice extent = bang on average. Y.S

Okay Pete, Point taken Y.S

Hi Pete Right, lets have enough of the complete clap trap. Both the guys you critisise are respected mathematicians in their own right ...... it was the maths used in the original papers that interested them in the first place. Also, neither worked with the other but joined in a common purpose after both realising what a complete load of godswollop the Hockey stick was. They arranged to meet after both coming to the same conclusions concerning the data manipulations. Please read some of the references or maybe even take a look at the accepted peer reviewed published rebuttle made by McIntyre and Mckindick and then come to a considered conclusion. I am sure that once read you will find at least some of the arguments compelling. I recently challenged 5 of my colleagues (one is a registered mathmatician) to read the 'Hockey-stick' illusion and referenced the papers 98/99 by Mann, the updated 2008 Mann (+ climate audit and real climate forums data) and asked their general opinions. Not one was happy with the Hockey-stick and all could not believe how the original paper could get peer reviewed and accepted without anybody looking at the maths or requesting the data to check on mathematical methods used. That Mann then went on to chair and write the relevant chapter in the IPCC third assessment report (conflict of interest or what !!), where his papers took centre stage is also at the very least questionable. Your quote concerning 'meddling in matters outside area of expertise' is just so very wrong. Each expert pannel that was commisoned to look into this area critisised Mann's use of various statistical manipulations, particularly in the are of correlation statistics, the use of Bristlecone pines, short-centering of data, truncation of data series, back-filling of missing proxy data amongst others. If it wasn't for these two 'meddlers' then the closed science policy of this area of climate science would still be operating and folks would be unaware of the serious flaws that operate in the area of tree-ring proxy data and the methods used to draw out meaningful data from complex multi-proxy data series. Rant over Y.S Cheers Jethro, Interesting read. Y.S

Starry Skies 2 + 3+ 4 is not settled. Co2 is a greenhouse gas and will warm the climate, whether it is a major forcing factor is quite another matter as you well know. There are other theories that can explain the majority of the 20th century warming (PDO / SOLAR etc) that cannot be easily dismissed, particularly when the IPCC'S own projections are currently way off the actual mark and there is so much uncertainty over role of clouds in the much needed positive feedback effects. If in the next 5-10 years we see a resumption of warming even with low solar activity and a -PDO / AMO, the perhaps your statements will hold greater weight ...... but right now the jury is still well out. A more bent stick means that the world has seen large temperature swings in the past (that could be explained by natural cycles) ...... and opens the argument as to whether we are in one of them now. This basically implies that the climate is more often in a period of flux than not. A straight hockey stick (hopelessly flawed as produced my Mann) implies that the 20th century warming is unprecedented in around 2000 years and therefore man's greenhouse gas emissions are likely to blame and are overpowering any possible cyclical factors. That is .... the power of CO2 forcing is overwhelming any background signals there are. Y.S

Yes, you are correct, but both have statistical qualifications. Y.S

Hi Folks, You are both correct (in my opinion). (don't want to stir up a hornet's nest again, but McIntyre and Mkindrick are professional statatiscians ........ Mann (at least at the time of the 98/99 papers ..... was not). Y.S Hi Kold, Yeah, it will be interesting to watch what happens over the latter part of this year. Its particularly noteworthy that the CPC models are backing his earlier thoughts (if on the extreme side of the equation). Y.S

Hi TWS, Fair summation. For those of us that subscribe to the PDO and other cycles impact on the global temperature scene, it is the secondary impacts on cloud formation that can have an added impact to the climate system (as this is the primary mechanism of altering albedo). Of course I think its just plain common sense that cycles of warm and cold water appearing over such a vast surface is bound to have some direct impact due to heat transfer and distribution to the land. Y.S

Hi Folks, Don't want to interrupt the dooms-day posts too much ....... but you've always got to look on the bright side of life ....... ...... perhaps we may be about to see a change in pattern .... PDO from +ve and Northern hemispheric warmth to PDO negative and a colder out-look (much as has been touted as a possibility on previous threads) ... and with it the possible start of a recovery in Arctic ice ...... perhaps ... perhaps not Guess we have to wait and see. http://www.accuweath...ummers-cake.asp http://www.accuweath...y-worldwide.asp http://www.accuweather.com/video/110914873001/more-on-the-coming-cooling.asp Y.S

Hi All, Just posted this in the News thread, but guess it may be more suited here: http://www.accuweather.com/video/110914873001/more-on-the-coming-cooling.asp Mr Bastadi's take on the above posted maps and also his thoughts on cooling. Y.S