Ice age on the way (merged threads)

[Stratos Ferric]

Is there anything in these articles that can be relied on (in your opinion) as fact or is it all pre fabricated politically manufactured propaganda?

Why can't a distiction be made between all the fact and fiction from both sides of the debate using evidence dirived from a variety of sources in order to come up with a fact based synopsis.

Is it really a case of we just don't know? Everyone has there own opinions be it general or fact based and it's just a matter of wait and see. We really won't know until it happens.

I suspect AM's comment is close to the button. I wouldn't say "all" the articles fro the non-AGW-warming lobby are pretty poor science, just all the ones I've seen. A good starting point is any site that claims warming per-sé is a myth should be canned; pretty much all of science now accepts the global climate is warming. Most science accepts that AGW is at least partly to blame, and the rump seems to coming to the view that the majority (though not all) of current warming may be man-made.

The problem with "making a distinction" is deciding who arbitrates. I always have huge problems with pretty much any science from the US simply because the whole political and scientific system over there is riddled with corporate self-interest. Personally, the articles I tend to "consume", are original research papers, or meta-analyses, where the authors are looking at data and presenting conclusions, NOT opinions. Any article (and they tend to beacon themselves clearly) that starts with a diatribe about "cost" or "Kyoto" or "we're being hoodwinked" strikes me as starting from a biased position.

What I cannot decide, and the same goes for people on here, is whether the "nay sayers" genuinely don't believe based on their own assessment of data (fair enough, but put forward robust arguments), don't believe because of religious bias (yes, there are one or a couPPle on here), don't believe because they can't bear the thought of no snow / have a juvenile attachment ot snow (try a bit of word association here and I bet you're thinking of the same person I am), or don't believe because they tend to accept the conspiracy theories. At least one person I can think of may fall in to two of those categories.

How do you know the facts are coming more from the pro-GW side?????

Because, as P3 alludes, I've yet to see a decent paper emanate from the "anti-" side. Nearly everything that comes from the doubters is derivative cherry picking / mis-representation, often written by journalists, occasionally be academics (or good imposters) with economic ties to corporate bodies who stand to suffer if economic action is taken to curb GG emissions.

Like P3, I'm more than happy to take on board any arguments and data, but let's make sure that articles we stand behind are good science.

[snowsure]

Because, as P3 alludes, I've yet to see a decent paper emanate from the "anti-" side.

As the peer-review progress takes about 12 months to complete then there is a great deal of system inertia regarding publication of such articles.

Once they start being submitted, and accepted, the great public will have to wait 12 months before being told about new cooling...unless of course articles are already there and waiting to be published?

On an unrelated note, have a look at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalextremes.html

It shows the worldwide extreme weather events on each continent.

Interesting to see that maximum temperature extremes have stood in place for quite a long time whereas minimum extremes have had new records set in the more recent past.

That must be a suprise to some of you. Or are they just interesting little events?

[parmenides3]

As the peer-review progress takes about 12 months to complete then there is a great deal of system inertia regarding publication of such articles.

Once they start being submitted, and accepted, the great public will have to wait 12 months before being told about new cooling...unless of course articles are already there and waiting to be published?

On an unrelated note, have a look at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalextremes.html

It shows the worldwide extreme weather events on each continent.

Interesting to see that maximum temperature extremes have stood in place for quite a long time whereas minimum extremes have had new records set in the more recent past.

That must be a suprise to some of you. Or are they just interesting little events?

This is a good spot, Snowsure, and, in part, a challenge. I suspect, though, that one of the reasons why the minimums are more recent is simply a function of the difficulty/lack of reliable measurement prior to the 1950s. I have no idea why there haven't been new maxima in the 'hot spots', but would remind you that climate change is expected to be less obvious at the latitudes where such events occur. However, in the temperate/sub Arctic zones, where GW effects are more obvious, records have been and are being broken in one place or another most years, now. A good challenge, nonetheless. P

[Dawlish]

Yes Mike, but it doesn't require that many funds to enable one to come-by a modicum of scientific awareness...Making daft and fallacious claims only obfuscates, and attracts attention; it doesn't further debate?

It could be this, it could be that; it could be all manner of things. So long as AGW (to where the evidence points?) can be safely discounted a priori, that is?

Absolutely correct, Pete!

Paul

[Stratos Ferric]

As the peer-review progress takes about 12 months to complete then there is a great deal of system inertia regarding publication of such articles.

Once they start being submitted, and accepted, the great public will have to wait 12 months before being told about new cooling...unless of course articles are already there and waiting to be published?

On an unrelated note, have a look at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalextremes.html

It shows the worldwide extreme weather events on each continent.

Interesting to see that maximum temperature extremes have stood in place for quite a long time whereas minimum extremes have had new records set in the more recent past.

Re the papers, OK to a point, research is always published in arrears, but accepting the lag it's not as if warming only started a year ago; this debate has been ongoing vigorously for 15 years at least, and before that within some communities more exposed to the data. On that basis, and accepting the "lag" argument, I'd still expect to be seeing some good quality research from, say, 2003 or 2004 (to be clear, "good quality research" is NOT IAN producing a list of the seven or eight glaciers around the world, from amongst the many thousands, which happen to be appearing to grow or flow more quickly) putting forward some "anti" arguments. There are plenty of derivative sites, like the one flagged up last night, but not a lot of good science or analysis.

That must be a suprise to some of you. Or are they just interesting little events?

SS,

Come on, surely even the most hardened GW disbeliever would have to admit that that's a ridiculously rose (or snow) tinted view of that data set. In addition, they are point data on the level of continents only. The general measured evidence of warming comes from comparing data within a single site, and then comparing the results across many sites on all continents. Almost invariably, the recent trends are upwards, and sometimes strongly upwards.

I would hasard that if you were to trawl ALL available records for all available sites, particularly those with a reasonably long record, you would find far more upside records being set at present than you would downside ones.

Edited August 31, 2006 by Stratos Ferric

[snowsure]

This is a good spot, Snowsure, and, in part, a challenge. I suspect, though, that one of the reasons why the minimums are more recent is simply a function of the difficulty/lack of reliable measurement prior to the 1950s. I have no idea why there haven't been new maxima in the 'hot spots', but would remind you that climate change is expected to be less obvious at the latitudes where such events occur. However, in the temperate/sub Arctic zones, where GW effects are more obvious, records have been and are being broken in one place or another most years, now. A good challenge, nonetheless. P

Thanks for the comments P. The following is also quite interesting:

Global temperature extremes have been found to exhibit no significant trend in interannual variability, but several studies suggest a significant decrease in intra-annual variability. There has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely-separated areas in recent decades. Widespread significant changes in extreme high temperature events have not been observed.

There is some indication of a decrease in day-to-day temperature variability in recent decades.

source http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html (Is the climate becoming more variable? section)

Back to the initial challenge:

Highest Lowest

Africa 1922 1935

N.America 1913 1947

Asia 1942 1933

Australia 1889 1994

Europe 1881 Not sure

S.America 1905 1907

Oceania 1912 1979

Antarctica 1974 1983

With the exception of Asia, all the highest temp events have occured BEFORE the lowest recorded temp events.

Whilst accepting some of your comments the facts speak for themselves.

[parmenides3]

Thanks for the comments P. The following is also quite interesting:

Global temperature extremes have been found to exhibit no significant trend in interannual variability, but several studies suggest a significant decrease in intra-annual variability. There has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely-separated areas in recent decades. Widespread significant changes in extreme high temperature events have not been observed.

There is some indication of a decrease in day-to-day temperature variability in recent decades.

source http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html (Is the climate becoming more variable? section)

Back to the initial challenge:

Highest Lowest

Africa 1922 1935

N.America 1913 1947

Asia 1942 1933

Australia 1889 1994

Europe 1881 Not sure

S.America 1905 1907

Oceania 1912 1979

Antarctica 1974 1983

With the exception of Asia, all the highest temp events have occured BEFORE the lowest recorded temp events.

Whilst accepting some of your comments the facts speak for themselves.

Definitely an interesting one, this, SS. Logic would suggest that if GW is predicted to cause more extreme weather events, then this should apply to temperatures as well. I'll do some checking.

With respect to the observed intra-annual and dy-to-day decreases, it might suggest that the climate is becoming more uniformly warm. This would be a reasonable expectation in relation to GW, if it ddidn't apparently contradict the other expectation, that GW will cause more extreme weather.

I'll get back to you on this.

P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Interesting points arising and well done snowsure, a good spot. Interesting to point too that the arctic was a good 1C on average warmer pre manmade CO2 increase [a la late 30s to 40s and the warm up was quicker, much quicker] to now. The arctic is one of the areas supposed to warm the most or feel the initial brunt of AGW...well what's gone on there? It is IMO clear to see that synoptics have played the major part in the arctic warming. IMO on both sides goal posts are moved too often.

It is interesting to see that in a 'warming' planet colder extremes are being experienced compared to heat extremes. Mind you we are supposed to get more extremes now aren't we

By the way did anyone watch the 'is this the worst weather ever' on ITV last night and how more extremes and worse winter episodes due to GW. It was about winter. Europe 1997...yep harsh, NE USA 2004...yep very harsh, Montreal ice storm 1998...yep very harsh, UK 2003.....what??????? When I saw that I thought they must be having a laugh. Some good people on there though Fish, MacCaskill, Giles, Wilson, Kettley, Davies

BFTP

Edited August 31, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[parmenides3]

So, Blast, the last thirty years of observed & measured sea ice melting is not an indicator that the Arctic is warming, then?

P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

So, Blast, the last thirty years of observed & measured sea ice melting is not an indicator that the Arctic is warming, then?

:lol: P

P

You misunderstand, it has warmed and is within my post!??? but it is NOT and repeat NOT as warm as the 30s/40s. It is of interest to me and surprise that we have seen more sea ice loss compared to then when it is not as warm. Doesn't make sense and all the answers that have cropped up in recent discussions the one that sticks out for me is the past accuracy of measurements compared to now

BFTP

[snowsure]

So, Blast, the last thirty years of observed & measured sea ice melting is not an indicator that the Arctic is warming, then?

P

Good point!

As you know, Carinthian is pointing to a slightly anomolous winter ahead. Am I right in thinking that?

[parmenides3]

P

You misunderstand, it has warmed and is within my post!??? but it is NOT and repeat NOT as warm as the 30s/40s. It is of interest to me and surprise that we have seen more sea ice loss compared to then when it is not as warm. Doesn't make sense and all the answers that have cropped up in recent discussions the one that sticks out for me is the past accuracy of measurements compared to now

BFTP

Sorry, old chap, I was being fatuous, not sarcastic. :lol: I think there was a phase change in the Arctic Oscillation in the 1950's, arguably triggered by the warming you mention. If so, this, plus the relative net precipitation, might account for the differences in ice level. Another possible explanation is the apparent warming around the edges of the Arctic, where the sea-ice is most vulnerable to weather/climate variation.

Snowsure: Some of his recent posts on the sea-ice thread do suggest the possibility of this, due to early formation of appropriate patterns, but the picture won't be clear for some time, as he says.

In response to your earlier post on temperature extremes. Whilst there have been no absolute records broken recently at the warm end, there have been an increasing number of record warm mean months, mean seasons, and mean years in the past few years. In addition to this, there are other weather records, relating to precipitation, typhoon occurrence, etc., which have also been broken recently. Many of these are localised; national or regional records, like the CET. This sort of pattern is consistent with a GW hypothesis.

I found two pieces on temperature extremes, both of which appear balanced, and neither of which imply a GW prejudice. They may not answer your question directly, but they do help explain how we can interpret the incidence of records.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...tures/#more-175

http://regclim.met.no/results/Benestad03_CR25-1.pdf

As always, :lol: P

[Stratos Ferric]

Thanks for the comments P. The following is also quite interesting:

Global temperature extremes have been found to exhibit no significant trend in interannual variability, but several studies suggest a significant decrease in intra-annual variability. There has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely-separated areas in recent decades. Widespread significant changes in extreme high temperature events have not been observed.

There is some indication of a decrease in day-to-day temperature variability in recent decades.

source http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html (Is the climate becoming more variable? section)

Back to the initial challenge:

Highest Lowest

Africa 1922 1935

N.America 1913 1947

Asia 1942 1933

Australia 1889 1994

Europe 1881 Not sure

S.America 1905 1907

Oceania 1912 1979

Antarctica 1974 1983

With the exception of Asia, all the highest temp events have occured BEFORE the lowest recorded temp events.

Whilst accepting some of your comments the facts speak for themselves.

SS,

It's poor use of stats. That would be like me measuring the tallest and shortest person on each continent and inferring from that whether the population as a whole were growing or shrinking. In statistical terms the sample is simply too small to draw any meaningful inferences from. Generally speaking, when sampling, you'd look for at least 30 data points of a type, and ideally 100 or more. Once you get much past 100 additional data don't really change anything, so long as your sampling method is OK.

[parmenides3]

Thanks for that, SF. It's pretty much what Benestad was saying in the links, but much clearer.

P

[Stratos Ferric]

Interesting points arising and well done snowsure, a good spot. Interesting to point too that the arctic was a good 1C on average warmer pre manmade CO2 increase [a la late 30s to 40s and the warm up was quicker, much quicker] to now. The arctic is one of the areas supposed to warm the most or feel the initial brunt of AGW...well what's gone on there? It is IMO clear to see that synoptics have played the major part in the arctic warming. IMO on both sides goal posts are moved too often.

It is interesting to see that in a 'warming' planet colder extremes are being experienced compared to heat extremes. Mind you we are supposed to get more extremes now aren't we

By the way did anyone watch the 'is this the worst weather ever' on ITV last night and how more extremes and worse winter episodes due to GW. It was about winter. Europe 1997...yep harsh, NE USA 2004...yep very harsh, Montreal ice storm 1998...yep very harsh, UK 2003.....what??????? When I saw that I thought they must be having a laugh. Some good people on there though Fish, MacCaskill, Giles, Wilson, Kettley, Davies

BFTP

The picture isn't quite so clear. AS I recall the Arctic has warmed in places and cooled in others. The Antarctic, apparently, has warmed; both of these are based on data that is not the most up to date, and certainly don't reflect my sense from the anomalies I observe, so this merits checking. It's certainly a fair challenge, though not conclusive proof against warming. The anti G-W community tend to alight on the fact that the early models of warming suggested that the poles would warm the most. This doesn't appear to have been the case (thus far). Of itself it doesn't disprove warming (let's be clear, there is no dispute that the measured record, and environmental evidence, support considerable recent warming), but it does legitimately question the accuracy with which we can model potential impacts of anthropogenic activity.

[parmenides3]

The picture isn't quite so clear. AS I recall the Arctic has warmed in places and cooled in others. The Antarctic, apparently, has warmed; both of these are based on data that is not the most up to date, and certainly don't reflect my sense from the anomalies I observe, so this merits checking. It's certainly a fair challenge, though not conclusive proof against warming. The anti G-W community tend to alight on the fact that the early models of warming suggested that the poles would warm the most. This doesn't appear to have been the case (thus far). Of itself it doesn't disprove warming (let's be clear, there is no dispute that the measured record, and environmental evidence, support considerable recent warming), but it does legitimately question the accuracy with which we can model potential impacts of anthropogenic activity.

Recent article on Realclimate: 'Is the antarctic climate changing?', reports on two contemporary papers. Would it spoil it for you if I told you what they concluded?

P

[Stratos Ferric]

Thanks for that, SF. It's pretty much what Benestad was saying in the links, but much clearer.

P

That Benestad paper is fairly technical and, again, seems more interested in validating stats than making a climatic argument - which is actually arguably a good thing since it suggests no starting bias or hypothesis to prove. Benestad's summary makes interesting reading, and really just reaffirms some of the muddiness in debate on here to which one or two of us draw attention, particularly regarding the movement up and down within the general upward trend in temperature in the last century. He also points out spatial variability as a factor, and the density of data points in space, as well as time.

His main summary is that there is a case for the higher incidence in maximum temperature records being indicative of a warming trend overall, as opposed to being a statistical blip, but he does acknowledge that within this there is still noise in the data.

Recent article on Realclimate: 'Is the antarctic climate changing?', reports on two contemporary papers. Would it spoil it for you if I told you what they concluded?

P

The title of the site doesn't sound promising, but give us the links man anyway!

[parmenides3]

http://www.realclimate.org

IMO, it's one of the best sites I have found on Climatology & the GW debate, not least because it is, by and large, fair.

P

[Stratos Ferric]

http://www.realclimate.org

IMO, it's one of the best sites I have found on Climatology & the GW debate, not least because it is, by and large, fair.

P

On the basis of a quick scan I have to agree. Straight down the middle with some good knwledgeable contributions in the discussion threads, and lots of priary referencing to technical sources - as opposed, say, to rightwingrantingloonyUSsnowstormanydaynow.com.

Just had a quick browse through the discussion on ice sheets - are they growing or declining. Much the same as on here, except with some verifiable facts thrown in.

----

In fact, just been looking through the interesting thread on global temperature change, and one respondent (who makes his living maintaining met equipment) observes a lot of issues in compiling the long term series. What particularly caught my eye was a point I'd made elsewhere recently, that measuring temperature to within 0.1C is, as he puts it, "still the stuff of white coats". All those reporting the cooling in the CET over recent years, and particularly those reporting data to 2dps (bless 'em) - please take note.

Edited August 31, 2006 by Stratos Ferric

[crimsone]

With regards to max and min temperatures - purely because I'm not sure I follow this conversation any more, would diurnal effects be relevant in such a way to make the example of the Sahara relevant as a concept, whene the temperature in inhospitably hot during the day while being well below zero at night? Or am I on the wrong track with that?

[Stratos Ferric]

With regards to max and min temperatures - purely because I'm not sure I follow this conversation any more, would diurnal effects be relevant in such a way to make the example of the Sahara relevant as a concept, whene the temperature in inhospitably hot during the day while being well below zero at night? Or am I on the wrong track with that?

It depends what "concept" you're talking about. I think you need to clarify your pondering a little more.

[crimsone]

The ponderings are a little vague even in my own mind, but if you could try to understand where I may have been looking...

Perhaps the max and min recorded temperatures recorded in various areas of the world could be skewed by the same effect - ie, as the planet warms, the days become hotter as an overall trend, and so the nights become cooler as an overall trend. Thus, figures that show a minimum temperature some 50 years or more after a maximum recorded temperature don't nessecarily disprove that the planet is warming, due to what I can only dub the "sahara diurnal heating analogy"? (if it exists, I dare say the effect already has a proper name )

Edited August 31, 2006 by crimsone

[parmenides3]

The ponderings are a little vague even in my own mind, but if you could try to understand where I may have been looking...

Perhaps the max and min recorded temperatures recorded in various areas of the world could be skewed by the same effect - ie, as the planet warms, the days become hotter as an overall trend, and so the nights become cooler as an overall trend. Thus, figures that show a minimum temperature some 50 years or more after a maximum recorded temperature don't nessecarily disprove that the planet is warming, due to what I can only dub the "sahara diurnal heating analogy"? (if it exists, I dare say the effect already has a proper name )

I think I know what you're getting at, crimsone and, as far as I know, the answer is no; if anything, the diurnal temperature range is lessening, in other words, it's on average warmer during the day and on average warmer during the night as well. One reason this is important is that it shows that cloud albedo cannot be accountable for all of the increased effect, as it doesn't function at night.

P

[Stratos Ferric]

The ponderings are a little vague even in my own mind, but if you could try to understand where I may have been looking...

Perhaps the max and min recorded temperatures recorded in various areas of the world could be skewed by the same effect - ie, as the planet warms, the days become hotter as an overall trend, and so the nights become cooler as an overall trend. Thus, figures that show a minimum temperature some 50 years or more after a maximum recorded temperature don't nessecarily disprove that the planet is warming, due to what I can only dub the "sahara diurnal heating analogy"? (if it exists, I dare say the effect already has a proper name )

That assumes a relationship that I'm not aware of i.e. hotter days = colder nights. One thing in particular tends to legislate against this which is the driver for our seasons, i.e. variation in daylight. In summer longer days are warmer for two reasons - one, the net warming is greater than the cooling, and second the sun's angle is higher, so incoming radiation is more concentrated. In any case a load of other factors interfere, like cloud. The Sahara does get cold in winter, but distance from the sea, and the sandy surface are the prime factors.

All other things being equal it HAS to be the case that in a warming trend, more upside than downside records will be set. If you casre to go see the papers P3 flagged up there's one or two good pictures that illustrate the point well.

I think I know what you're getting at, crimsone and, as far as I know, the answer is no; if anything, the diurnal temperature range is lessening, in other words, it's on average warmer during the day and on average warmer during the night as well. One reason this is important is that it shows that cloud albedo cannot be accountable for all of the increased effect, as it doesn't function at night.

P

I am of the view that one factor in the recent UK warming, given that winter and nights (minima) are warming disproportionately, is increased cloudiness. Cloud at night serves to reduce re-radiation, keeping the boundary layers warm.

As you state, the evidence seems to be that overall diurnal ranges are decreasing. Of itself one driver for this would be the same cloudiness, and this was always one hypothesis of early GW modelling.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think the greater diurnal ranges are generally associated with warm months in this country. In summer it is because warm months tend to be associated with below-average cloud cover, thus less cloud albedo (which tends to result in cooler days and warmer nights) and so diurnal ranges are greater. In winter, warm months are not necessarily generally sunny (though there is a positive correlation in the SE and negative in the NW), but they tend to be associated with frequent Atlantic depressions and variable airmasses, thus more variation between warm and cold over short periods, thus higher mean diurnal ranges.

However, as some posts have suggested above, the warmer days = colder nights would probably only work if cloud amounts decreased. Certainly in Russia there is particularly strong evidence that the change towards a more positive NAO in winter has caused mild cloudy months in Moscow, where temperature anomalies wrt 1961-90 are often 2C higher by night than by day.

Re the Arctic, it may be true that it was warmer in the 1930s and 1940s, and that it didn't warm significantly until after 2002. Unfortunately the area has seen a big surge in winter temperatures since then, and with the amount of sea-ice at a much lower baseline, there is greater chance of the change being irreversible in that region.