Global Warming

[parmenides3]

Tut tut... doubling...

This is over a month old, But I missed it at the time. Good old Roger Harribin. Need my old avatar back; we're all doomed, again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5303574.stm

Need I remind you; this is the 'journalist's version'

Edited October 3, 2006 by parmenides3

[Dawlish]

Tut tut... doubling...

This is over a month old, But I missed it at the time. Good old Roger Harribin. Need my old avatar back; we're all doomed, again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5303574.stm

Need I remind you; this is the 'journalist's version'

Yes, if the beeb says we're doomed, then we are! No doubt. Damn. What's been the point of sticking all that money in the pension pot?

Paul

[West is Best]

I promised a few lines on 'An Inconvenient Truth' ...

Well, cinematographically it's almost a film of a lecture. Not quite, because it's done quite well. But do NOT go expecting to see a typical sensationalist Hollywood style movie. It really isn't.

Secondly, it really is largely Al Gore's presentation of the scientific argument. If you hate Gore (not much to hate about him, but if you do) then not going to be your cup of tea.

Thirdly, it's hard science. It really is. The arguments are stacked up, and counter arguments are raised albeit in a fairly light-hearted way.

It's difficult to see how anyone other than the most deliberately obtuse, or those funded by an industrial giant, could be opposed to the findings of this film. AGW is here. The time for debate is over. The time for action is here. In this respect I found the analogy to the 1930's helpful. There are always going to be those who don't tow the prevailing scientific line, and that's fine and they find a disproportionate voice on fora like this (for various reasons), but they are reminiscent of those even up to 1939 who were trying to persuade the public that Adolf Hitler was a nice chap really, if you could only sit down and have a cup of tea with him.

[parmenides3]

I promised a few lines on 'An Inconvenient Truth' ...

Well, cinematographically it's almost a film of a lecture. Not quite, because it's done quite well. But do NOT go expecting to see a typical sensationalist Hollywood style movie. It really isn't.

Secondly, it really is largely Al Gore's presentation of the scientific argument. If you hate Gore (not much to hate about him, but if you do) then not going to be your cup of tea.

Thirdly, it's hard science. It really is. The arguments are stacked up, and counter arguments are raised albeit in a fairly light-hearted way.

It's difficult to see how anyone other than the most deliberately obtuse, or those funded by an industrial giant, could be opposed to the findings of this film. AGW is here. The time for debate is over. The time for action is here. In this respect I found the analogy to the 1930's helpful. There are always going to be those who don't tow the prevailing scientific line, and that's fine and they find a disproportionate voice on fora like this (for various reasons), but they are reminiscent of those even up to 1939 who were trying to persuade the public that Adolf Hitler was a nice chap really, if you could only sit down and have a cup of tea with him.

Thanks, WIB: it seem like, for you, it was a worthwhile trip to the cinema. One question: do you feel that the movie made any difference to your POV on GW?

:)P

[Dawlish]

Monthly update from the NOAA is out, for last month.

Globally, this September was the 2nd warmest recorded on land, the 4th warmest recorded for land and sea combined. NOAA comments:

Based on preliminary data, globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was fourth warmest on record for September 2006. September temperatures were above average in Alaska, Europe and most of Australia. Cooler-than-average conditions occurred in parts of southeastern China and much of the U.S.

Precipitation during September was above average in India, southern Brazil and most of the eastern U.S., with drier than average conditions eastern Asia, parts of eastern Europe and the U.S. Mississippi Valley.

ENSO conditions transitioned from neutral to a warm phase (El Niño), during September.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...lobal.html#Temp

It is now over 20 years, globally, since we had a single year which has fallen below the 1880-2006 mean. Jan-Sept 2005 lies the 5th warmest since records began.

Paul

[Mr Sleet]

Monthly update from the NOAA is out, for last month.

Globally, this September was the 2nd warmest recorded on land, the 4th warmest recorded for land and sea combined. NOAA comments:

Based on preliminary data, globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was fourth warmest on record for September 2006. September temperatures were above average in Alaska, Europe and most of Australia. Cooler-than-average conditions occurred in parts of southeastern China and much of the U.S.

Precipitation during September was above average in India, southern Brazil and most of the eastern U.S., with drier than average conditions eastern Asia, parts of eastern Europe and the U.S. Mississippi Valley.

ENSO conditions transitioned from neutral to a warm phase (El Niño), during September.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...lobal.html#Temp

It is now over 20 years, globally, since we had a single year which has fallen below the 1880-2006 mean. Jan-Sept 2005 lies the 5th warmest since records began.

Paul

I think it is clear that we have had an upward step which has now stabilised into a plateau, that's why no new records are being broken but bumping along on the top of this plateau means that statements like" the top ten warmest years since 1880 have all been in the last 20 years" will be true.Will it start heading up again or will it turn down ? Anyone's guess.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Gray-Wolf]

I think it is clear that we have had an upward step which has now stabilised into a plateau, that's why no new records are being broken but bumping along on the top of this plateau means that statements like" the top ten warmest years since 1880 have all been in the last 20 years" will be true.Will it start heading up again or will it turn down ? Anyone's guess.

I would tend to agree with that! it is not as though a new pattern has established though, it's almost as though a 'transition' is occuring and only when we're through the transition will we be able to discern any new weather realities.

As for why it's being so relatively stable, I think we must look to the oceans for that and I am concerned that once they are unable to 'soak up ' the extra energy then rapid rises will occur.

[WindWatcher]

Yesterdays episode of Hardtalk on BBC News24 was an interview about global warming with Prof. Chris Rapley, Director of BAS. I only caught the end of the interview when I woke during the night, but it seemed to be quite well balanced, but still very alarming.

Hopefully they will post the episode on line here to watch, but they seem about a week out of date already:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/

[Mr Sleet]

Yesterdays episode of Hardtalk on BBC News24 was an interview about global warming with Prof. Chris Rapley, Director of BAS. I only caught the end of the interview when I woke during the night, but it seemed to be quite well balanced, but still very alarming.

Hopefully they will post the episode on line here to watch, but they seem about a week out of date already:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/

Rapley isn't stupid, if there is " a problem" the Government won't cut the funds.

I wouldn't worry about it. In 10 years time the graph will be heading down and we'll be back to worrying about something else.

Nice website by the way. :blink:

Edited October 18, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[parmenides3]

I can understand the suggestion of a 'plateau' in reference to the global temperature anomalies, in the sense that, since 1998, the anomaly has not increased noticeably, but remember, this is during several years without a significant 'el Nino', and, regardless, the temperatures are still going up. a quick glance at many of the threads will show readily that what we thought of as 'normal' October weather in various parts of the world simply isn't happening this year.

It would be unrealistic to expect a warming trend to be precisely linear; interannual and seasonal variations make such a thing very unlikely, but saying 'it isn't getting warmer any faster at the moment' is not the same as saying 'it isn't getting any warmer'.

On the Global scale, it would surprising if this year did not also end up as one of the five warmest on record, with an anomaly close to or equal to every year since 2001.

:)P

[Mr Sleet]

I can understand the suggestion of a 'plateau' in reference to the global temperature anomalies, in the sense that, since 1998, the anomaly has not increased noticeably, but remember, this is during several years without a significant 'el Nino', and, regardless, the temperatures are still going up. a quick glance at many of the threads will show readily that what we thought of as 'normal' October weather in various parts of the world simply isn't happening this year.

It would be unrealistic to expect a warming trend to be precisely linear; interannual and seasonal variations make such a thing very unlikely, but saying 'it isn't getting warmer any faster at the moment' is not the same as saying 'it isn't getting any warmer'.

On the Global scale, it would surprising if this year did not also end up as one of the five warmest on record, with an anomaly close to or equal to every year since 2001.

:)P

[/quote

Not entirely convinced there P3

Edited October 18, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[parmenides3]

These are the CRU temperature graphs:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/

To me, they mostly look like they are still going upwards. Where's the plateau?

:)P

PS There's some other good stuff on the site: Climate Monitor Online; recommended.

[The Penguin]

That'll be what you call a trend then? (Not that a trend has any significance other than as a historical train of events,)

[parmenides3]

That'll be what you call a trend then? (Not that a trend has any significance other than as a historical train of events,)

Last year, the Global Anomaly (on the CRU data) was 0.47C. So this year, my guess is that it will be between 0.45 and 0.49C.

In the UK, the temperature has risen about 1C in the last 100 years. There was a 'hiccup' in the middle which is well-understood and accounted for. Either the Climate models are able to accurately model the trend for the next few years or they are not. But all of them do, even when they use a range of initial states and a range of variables. It is the models which give us the idea that this particular trend is significant, rather than a statistical quirk. Even if their is a (small) degree of uncertainty about how the climate will develop, is this an acceptable risk? If even politicians, businesses and insurers are starting to plan for a warmer world (and they are, in general, very slow to face long-term, complex changes), should not we, too?

:)P

[The Penguin]

Yes, but it's also risen by (only) 0.6C in the last thousand years.

I suppose the view on future climatic developments depends on whether the observer belongs to either the Chamberlain (WW2) or the Bliar (WMD)camp, ie, believes there is no immediate danger when there is, or believes there is an immediate danger when there is not.

Also, I wouldn't look to politicians, business or insurers for an impartial guide to the future when all of them will have figured out a way to make a quick profit out of the uncertainty we find ourselves in.

[parmenides3]

Yes, but it's also risen by (only) 0.6C in the last thousand years.

I suppose the view on future climatic developments depends on whether the observer belongs to either the Chamberlain (WW2) or the Bliar (WMD)camp, ie, believes there is no immediate danger when there is, or believes there is an immediate danger when there is not.

Also, I wouldn't look to politicians, business or insurers for an impartial guide to the future when all of them will have figured out a way to make a quick profit out of the uncertainty we find ourselves in.

(Note: interestingly Freudian typo on Mr. 'Bliar').

There are, of course, other camps to be in: believing that the danger is imaginary and being right, or believing it is real and being right. Accepting that the above mentioned persons may have an ulterior motive for seeing a danger which might be a phantom (though I would contest that any of them would act except under force majeure in this case, as they cannot benefit, in the long-term, from being right), what, then do we make of the almost universal agreement amongst scientists that the climate is warming, and the similarly great agreement amongst them that it is going to continue to rise? It is no good rejecting their testimony as being self-interested or biased; biased science has a fairly short shelf-life. These people must have a reason for their beliefs. Do we wish to believe that they are imagining a danger, or exaggerating it?

Even if we choose to doubt the evidence as presented by science (which we may choose to), it will still boil down to whether or not the climate models are accurately representing the most likely near future for us. There are reasons, still, to question the accuracy of the models, but are there likewise reasons to reject the validity of the methods? In other words, are they seeing what the data says, or what we want them to see?

In order to state, with confidence, that the current trend is not going to lead where the models say, we would have to establish that CO2, and other GHGs, along with the other forcing elements (the Sun, water vapour, clouds), is not causing the surface of the Earth to warm. My contention is that this cannot be done.

:)P

[Guest Viking141]

In order to state, with confidence, that the current trend is not going to lead where the models say, we would have to establish that CO2, and other GHGs, along with the other forcing elements (the Sun, water vapour, clouds), is not causing the surface of the Earth to warm. My contention is that this cannot be done.

:)P

Im sorry but I dont think it is at all a good idea to place so much faith in the ability of models to accurately predict future climate. If you want an example of the accuracy of models, just go to the "General Model Discussion" thread and look at what has happened over the last week-week and a half regarding a supposed Northerly and blast of arctic weather which did not materialise and yet was on the cards not 10 days ago with all the major models in agreement. If they cant accurately model what is going to happen in just 10 days how can we have any faith that they can accurately model what will happen years into the future? I think people need to get a sharp reality check and realise that models are not the all-singing all-dancing answer that they are cracked up to be. Models are just a VERY rough guide. They are not empirical evidence and have a nasty and often repeated habit of getting it very, very wrong.

[Devonian]

Im sorry but I dont think it is at all a good idea to place so much faith in the ability of models to accurately predict future climate. If you want an example of the accuracy of models, just go to the "General Model Discussion" thread and look at what has happened over the last week-week and a half regarding a supposed Northerly and blast of arctic weather which did not materialise and yet was on the cards not 10 days ago with all the major models in agreement. If they cant accurately model what is going to happen in just 10 days how can we have any faith that they can accurately model what will happen years into the future? I think people need to get a sharp reality check and realise that models are not the all-singing all-dancing answer that they are cracked up to be. Models are just a VERY rough guide. They are not empirical evidence and have a nasty and often repeated habit of getting it very, very wrong.

http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogsp...her-models.html

In other words weather and climate are NOT the same either as modelled or in reality.

[Guest Viking141]

http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogsp...her-models.html

In other words weather and climate are NOT the same either as modelled or in reality.

I never said they were. I was just pointing out that models, irrespective of 'what' they model are not the be-all and end-all they are sometimes portrayed as. An over-reliance on a modelled climate could lead us to absolutely wrong conclusions in either direction.

An Airfix model of a Spitfire is an accurate representation of a Spitfire, however, it is deficient in a number of respects and it is these deficiencies, down to the smallest rivet or bolt, which mean it will never truly recreate the real thing. Models cannot,by their very nature, model every little 'rivet'. It may, however, be this one missing 'rivet' that is the key, especially in something so complex as planetary climate.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Hi Viking.

I do see your point, and agree to some of it. I think the main difference is that CO2 levels are measurable, where weather, isnt? Maybe? Or have I just fluffed a post

[Devonian]

I never said they were. I was just pointing out that models, irrespective of 'what' they model are not the be-all and end-all they are sometimes portrayed as. An over-reliance on a modelled climate could lead us to absolutely wrong conclusions in either direction.

An Airfix model of a Spitfire is an accurate representation of a Spitfire, however, it is deficient in a number of respects and it is these deficiencies, down to the smallest rivet or bolt, which mean it will never truly recreate the real thing. Models cannot,by their very nature, model every little 'rivet'. It may, however, be this one missing 'rivet' that is the key, especially in something so complex as planetary climate.

But, you know it's a Spitfire. All we need to know is if it's an aircraft like a Spitfire, if it will warm by several degrees , we don't need to know all the rivets (if it will warm by 2.51C or 2.52C).

It's like a puzzle, when you have most of the pieces in place you can make out what it is - from the same site again.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Devonian

[Guest Viking141]

But, you know it's a Spitfire. All we need to know is if it's an aircraft like a Spitfire, if it will warm by several degrees , we don't need to know all the rivets (if it will warm by 2.51C or 2.52C).

It's like a puzzle, when you have most of the pieces in place you can make out what it is - from the same site again.

True and perhaps an Airfix model was a poor analogy. A better one perhaps would be something made of Meccano. Looks wonderful when you've finished it but woebetide you if you've missed out a vital nut,the whole thing could fall apart on you. We could be getting entirely the wrong answers.

Incidentally, to use your picture of fruit (the above link) you look at it and you think, delicious selction of fruit, yum yum. However, if you look at the apple on the far right has pieces missing, as does the apple in bottom centre, and the water melon. It may well be that these pieces, were they in place, would show that the fruit is actually rotten, not so yum yum, but then you wouldnt know that, would you, from the picture you have been given.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Viking141

[Turnedoutniceagain]

People who are saying that this year is only 11th warmest and that this is a sign of a cooldown needs to remember something else first.

The last few months have had La nina present which while weak does seem to have been enough to slightly reduce global temperatures. Now we have neutral condtions the temps overall should rise a little. combine La Nina with the present solar min occuring and for this year to be still close to the top 10 is still pretty amazing and a strong sign that GW is happening.

La Nina/El Nino - whatever. We're all doomed anyway, with the Indian & Chinese economies growing at their current rates, another 6 billion people will have fridges & cars in 25 yrs time.

Never mind, must nip out & empty my recycling bin

[parmenides3]

Im sorry but I dont think it is at all a good idea to place so much faith in the ability of models to accurately predict future climate. If you want an example of the accuracy of models, just go to the "General Model Discussion" thread and look at what has happened over the last week-week and a half regarding a supposed Northerly and blast of arctic weather which did not materialise and yet was on the cards not 10 days ago with all the major models in agreement. If they cant accurately model what is going to happen in just 10 days how can we have any faith that they can accurately model what will happen years into the future? I think people need to get a sharp reality check and realise that models are not the all-singing all-dancing answer that they are cracked up to be. Models are just a VERY rough guide. They are not empirical evidence and have a nasty and often repeated habit of getting it very, very wrong.

You'll have noticed that I didn't actually say anything about how accurate the models are (deliberately), but was trying to focus on what it is that climate models actually 'model'.

In essence, what they do is simply project forward from a base of known physics and known observation. They look at what causes the climate to cool, and what causes it to get warmer, they 'balance' the forcings of natural variation until they get a mixture which, when 'played backwards', accurately imitates our historical climate record (insofar as it is known). Then they add the effect of human impacts on the climate; CO2 (positive) and Sulphates (negative), etc.

They do this because, unless they add these human-induced forcings, they cannot get the models to accurately replicate the climate of the last sixty years or so. They then calculate the proportional difference the human additions make, and extrapolate forwards, using assumptions about how much of these gases will be in the atmosphere in the future. They use several 'scenarios', based on different assumptions about how we are going to act in the next fifty years or so.

In the scenario where Greenhouse emissions are 'frozen' close to current levels and steadily decreased over decades, they still show warming. In the scenario where industrial development continues rapidly without regulation, they show a lot more warming. most of the estimates discussed in 'general' discussions are based on a scenario somewhere in between these two.

Few, if any, of the scientific research takes the models as 'all-singing, all-dancing'; the researchers know their limitations, and do careful probability and statistical analyses of the result they get, and make conclusions based, for the most part, on subtle variations in experiments and conservative estimates of effects.

But then we get the Media. At every opportunity, the papers/news will tell us that disaster is looming, because it makes better copy. It is the media which is responsible, for the most part, for exaggerating the claims of scientists and imagining the 'worst-case' futures.

I believe that a lot of the doubts about GW come from a perfectly reasonable cynicism about the issue as presented by the Media. When I look at the science, however, I find it increasingly difficult to have doubts which I feel are well-founded.

Of course the models might be missing bits, but either they are able to capture the essential elements of climate, or they are not. As Andrew Dessler's post (linked to earlier) points out, climate models don't need to capture all of the vagaries of the weather in order to function, they only need to work on the Principal Components.

Hope this helps.

:)P

[Guest Mike W]

Was wondering if anyone might find this interesting to read, it's a very long read: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Gree...t_a_problem.htm

'The Real Carbon footprint calculator': http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/offset_calc.htm

Cosmic Ray's and earth's Climate:http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.htm

This one is about if it isn't us then what is it: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm

I don't have anything in the way of a for against these, just found it interesting really. Haven't read all of it though

Edited October 19, 2006 by Mike W