Global Not-warming-as-much-as-they-say

[Brrr]

Fascinating discussion - even though some of it is a bit too scientific for me :blush: !....

......but to throw in a slightly different persepective having read all your discussions....(inc p3)

Surely the fact that it is well documented that many species are reacting to GW in terms of migratory habits etc. (and NOT just because of habitat invasion by us), and (quite suprisingly) even genetically altering according to this article Gene-altered flies testify to global warming http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9896...al-warming.html

There's also evidence that plants are reacting similarly - see Shifting plant phenology (i.e., timing of flowering and other developmental events) in recent decades establishes that species and ecosystems are already responding to global environmental change http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0...ourcetype=HWCIT

This MUST SURELY indicate there is global warming going on - though I get the impression that this debate is turning more into more of a WHY GW rather than querying its existance at all.

Belinda

[Devonian]

Is it a better graph though. Your graph shows satellite temperatures, but it does not include the polar orbiting satelites. The graph I displayed is from NASA and is looking at troposphere temperatures not surface temperatures.

The Latest charts and some explanations about discrepancies

Hang on, the graph I present graphs the same data as your one BUT includes another interpretation of the data (by RSS) and, for comparison, the surface record. It's polar orbiting satellites both times :blush:

The critique of Zbigniew Jaworowski is specifically about his work claiming that historical CO2 records

based on ice cores were wrong and in this respect he deserved the critique. Later work is much more based on Henrik Svensmark's work, who's work is largely respected.

NASA link

Method comparisons

Adjusted Adjusted data shows cooling

References

A reanalysis of the MSU Channel 2 Tropospheric Temperature Record. 2003 Mears Schabel and Wentz.

These three links are WAY out of date. They don't cover the change from version 5.1 to version 5.2 of the UAH analysis, nor mention the RSS analysis of the raw data. The graph I presented does....

[Gray-Wolf]

The magic roundabout that is global warming! The edible Doormouse was introduced to the UK by the Romans, the Roman period includes a supposed 'warm period' with vineculture etc. flourishing in ther U.K. and Alpine glaciers retreating to the point that Villas are built where they once flowed (and then the Villas then being overwhelmed at the 'cool down' only to be re-revealed at the start of our current 'warm up')yet the Doormouse was still restricted to the south of England during that time. Now, because of global/local warming, a programme is ongoing to establish a colony of Doormice into Cumbria which, they assure us, will become a perfect environment for them as the climate warms.......

I'm sure that if you look through the animal records throughout all the 'hot' and 'cold' periods in recent history none will have caused any insect/mammal/reptiles to either die out or relocate due to temperature stresses in the way that todays beasties are needing to do. Doesn't that indicate something to you all out there?? never mind ice cores just check out the genetic history of our critters since the retreat of the last ice sheets and map out any Genetic 'pinches' that indicate species die back through the oft quoted periods of changes. I'm sure that the general 'cycles' of the planets atmosphere are something that nature caters for in general and it is only 'major changes' (ice ages,heat ups) that lead to extinctions (however the changes are generated).

So the global average temp. rise is being 'refined' by better modelling yet still it is the critters that are responding on the ground to the local changes which can be far in excess of the predicted global average changes.

As an aside, this is a 'global average' that has been reduced a degree or so is not a local prediction. If Englands summers became warmer by 30 degress and its winters colder by 30 degrees how would this vast change in climate be represented in a yearly average??? :blush:

Edit; Lies, Damn lies and statistics.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[BrickFielder]

These three links are WAY out of date. They don't cover the change from version 5.1 to version 5.2 of the UAH analysis, nor mention the RSS analysis of the raw data. The graph I presented does....

Yes those charts are out of date. I think this illustrates fairly well that graphs and explantions on the internet are not always accurate , current or in line with current thinking and what information there is may be subject to reanalysis.

Version 5.2 I think is the version corrected to allow for the orbit change of the satelites amongst other things. No I did not mention the RSS or CS analysis both of which I feel in some respects are superceeded. The leading people in this area I believe are Carl Mears and Frank Wentz who I think were responsible for the RSS analysis. The latest analysis I could find is in the following link although there is some subsequent work on diurnal heating which affects the results which was published in 2005.

A Reanalysis of the MSU Channel 2 Tropospheric Temperature Record

Surely the fact that it is well documented that many species are reacting to GW in terms of migratory habits etc. (and NOT just because of habitat invasion by us), and (quite suprisingly) even genetically altering according to this article Gene-altered flies testify to global warming

I think there is one step too many in this analysis. The facts are that the species have altered on 2 continents and there is a statistical likelihood that this is linked to warmer conditions. That warming may be due to natural cycles or sunspot activity and for the large part would appear to be due to synoptic changes which may or may not be due to global warming. The link to global warming is weak and the article actually makes no mention of global warming just links the change to climate change. Similarly the second article "Diverse responses of phenology to global changes in a grassland ecosystem" mentions changes in the environment without mentioning global warming.

The question for me is not whether we are affecting climate but by how much. Simple synoptic pattern changes and sunspot activity changes may account for many of the things we attribute to global warming and lead to localized climate change.Statistically it looks to me like the link between temperature and sunspot activity is very strong and could swamp any anthropological warming which makes graphs showing change open to a number of interpretations. It is also possible that those natural cycles are acting to negate the affects of global warming in which case we are grossly underestimating the affects we are having.I am not sure we have a quantifyable understanding of anthropological affects and feel surprised when others are so sure.

Edited September 7, 2006 by BrickFielder

[Guest Viking141]

Can I first say that I too am thoroughly impressed by the extremely high standard of the debate on this thread. Well done chaps.

:blush:

Heres a question. If species are reacting and adapting to global warming (there is another item on this on the BBC website today)

BBC link

is it possible we are heading towards a natural disaster of a kind not currently expected? What I mean by this is consider if the outcome of the current warming trend is (as has happened before) a sudden cool down on species which have adapted themselves for a warming climate. Is there any research to show that previous mass extinctions may be related to such a climate shift. Has the possibility even been considered?

[parmenides3]

Thank you all for introducing another important idea onto this thread. There is so much concern about the impact of climate change on ecosystems & biodiversity that many countries have introduced programmes specifically aimed at this. And don't think it's just about 'fluffy bunny' eco-fears: much of the research is very pragmatic, looking at the impact of species habitat and relocation, soil moisture and microflora changes (for example) which have direct impacts on our ability to feed ourselves. The USA has a well-funded invasive species programme, the USGS is a gateway to a lot of data and research, as is Earthnet, funded by the World Resources Institute.

Much of this type of research on climate change - the impacts side - is highly regionalised. Much of the work is aimed at investigating or clarifying the current state of the ecosphere and the possible changes, an example being the concern about the future of the Amazon, which, on model projections, is endangered by reduced rainfall and long-term soil moisture loss.

When you look more holistically, at a range of different studies, it is hard to get away from the conclusion that there are a lot of local changes happening very quickly. Whilst some insect species can adapt through natural selection, larger species cannot, in the timescales we are dealing with.

The most obviously affected part of the world is the Arctic. The ACIA 2004 & 2005 have documented a huge number of climate-related changes to the environment which, if taken on through a GW scenario, suggest drastic and possibly irreversible change within decades; the process has already begun.

I suspect there would be very few botanists, biologists or their like, who would deny that the climate's recent and likely future shifts are indicative of a potential 'disaster', regionally, which we have little power to avert.

In answer to your question, Viking, there are records of the kind of problems you suggest- newly adjusted species being 'caught out' by sudden shifts in climate, but, again, the historic timescale are measured in centuries more often than decades.

If anyone wants to look at the kind of changes and speed of processes that we are dealing with here, have a look at the ACIA.

P

[wolves78]

No need to look at change as when you look at the whole picture the earth seems to have its own 30 year cycle

[Brrr]

The most obviously affected part of the world is the Arctic. The ACIA 2004 & 2005 have documented a huge number of climate-related changes to the environment which, if taken on through a GW scenario, suggest drastic and possibly irreversible change within decades; the process has already begun.

I suspect there would be very few botanists, biologists or their like, who would deny that the climate's recent and likely future shifts are indicative of a potential 'disaster', regionally, which we have little power to avert.

P

P - do read my answer - I read yours !.

I did read the ACIA report highlights - exec summary .... tbh...having watched so many documentaries and read so many articles about this particular geographical area of the earth, I can barely bring myself to read another tome on the whole affair.

As I said when bringing up this element of the debate, are we now all in agreeance that GW is taking place, and are we merely arguing (or should I say discussing) the cause at this stage?

Whilst I appreciate this is a technical discussion, reading through the debate, it has become blatantly apparent to me that we need to gain a more complete technical understanding of climate change (and therefore hopefully reach majority consensus as to why), and to do this, we need a scientific investigative body that is independent of all countries and their individual political interests or company affiliations. A global scientific council if you like.

For our global council we would need to elect x number of scientific representatives from each major polluting country, and each person that is elected would have to meet strict criteria on their historical affiliations. This body should then be allowed to decree the 'green rules' that all major polluting countries HAVE to abide by if that is what is required.

I say this, because as many will appreciate (& some have already said) NO Government is going to do itself out of votes in the short term to attempt to rectify a potential or distant threat - and essentially most individuals are utterly self absorbed and only vote for personal short term gain.. regardless of what they say when being polled or questioned in a debate such as this. People will also do very little on an individual basis unless it comes down from on high... so again, although the Government probably need to bring in the rules to force us to be greener, they won't because of the voting and economical impact.

And of course, it isn't viable for one country to become 'green' if another does not, as on the global playing field they are economically shooting themselves in the foot as it were.

Just a few thoughts on the matter.

Belinda

Edited September 8, 2006 by Brrr

[Guest Viking141]

Thank you all for introducing another important idea onto this thread. There is so much concern about the impact of climate change on ecosystems & biodiversity that many countries have introduced programmes specifically aimed at this. And don't think it's just about 'fluffy bunny' eco-fears: much of the research is very pragmatic, looking at the impact of species habitat and relocation, soil moisture and microflora changes (for example) which have direct impacts on our ability to feed ourselves. The USA has a well-funded invasive species programme, the USGS is a gateway to a lot of data and research, as is Earthnet, funded by the World Resources Institute.

Much of this type of research on climate change - the impacts side - is highly regionalised. Much of the work is aimed at investigating or clarifying the current state of the ecosphere and the possible changes, an example being the concern about the future of the Amazon, which, on model projections, is endangered by reduced rainfall and long-term soil moisture loss.

When you look more holistically, at a range of different studies, it is hard to get away from the conclusion that there are a lot of local changes happening very quickly. Whilst some insect species can adapt through natural selection, larger species cannot, in the timescales we are dealing with.

The most obviously affected part of the world is the Arctic. The ACIA 2004 & 2005 have documented a huge number of climate-related changes to the environment which, if taken on through a GW scenario, suggest drastic and possibly irreversible change within decades; the process has already begun.

I suspect there would be very few botanists, biologists or their like, who would deny that the climate's recent and likely future shifts are indicative of a potential 'disaster', regionally, which we have little power to avert.

In answer to your question, Viking, there are records of the kind of problems you suggest- newly adjusted species being 'caught out' by sudden shifts in climate, but, again, the historic timescale are measured in centuries more often than decades.

If anyone wants to look at the kind of changes and speed of processes that we are dealing with here, have a look at the ACIA.

P

Hi P3

Excellent answer as always! One question though. I appreciate what you are saying about previous climate shifts taking place over centuries, however, previous events have not had the amount of human influence as we are seeing now. If humans can "speed up" the warming phase what is to prevent an associated cool down also happening on a greatly enhanced timescale, i.e. decades rather than centuries. Surely if the warming we are currently experiencing is unprecedented (something I am quite willing to accept) then what is stop the planets reaction to that being equally as unprecedented? Maybe the "Day After Tomorrow" isn't so far fetched after all?

[VillagePlank]

Given that the warming trend has been there since the start of the Industrial Revolution there has certainly been enough time for some species to adapt to warming climates, and become dependent upon such warming.

It is enough to worry about our own species survival, but when it comes to managing other species, mankind, I'm afraid, is a dismal failure. We should fence of huge tracts of land and let nature do it's bit.

All of this environmentalist management talk, in my opinion, is nonsense; and even worse it panders to worst aspects of political correctness.It also presumes that we are somehow above nature. There is a case that we are no longer subject to evolution (that'll wait for another debate) but we are certainly subject to the vagueries and whims of the natural world which, in the main, are the the physical processes that abound upon living on such and active planet.

Our joint interests is survival; if we look after the health of ourselves, and limit pollution (whether CO2, toxic fumes, whatever) we will, by default, help the biosphere of our joint home, planet Earth.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Wilson

[Chili Pepper]

"You and SF know your stuff, here P3. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that this is one of the best discussions currently on netweather."

Hi Dawlish,

To put this in to some sort of perspective what Fergus, ooppps sorry, Parmenides3, knew about this subject at the beginning of July would have fitted comfortably on the back of a fag packet. That's the power of the internet and the high standard of the level of debate on here from you guys............I can't get the wretched man off the ruddy computer!!! He never ceases to astound me.....

Chili (P3's OH)

[parmenides3]

Brrr: Belinda, I do read your posts, but my replies often include information intended for other readers of the posts as well as any individual I respond to. Sorry if you thought I wasn't paying attention.

Viking: that wasn't quite the point I was making, though Wilson responds to it well. The intention was not to imply that warming/cooling couldn't happen rapidly, but that adaptation, in most species, doesn't.

There's a lot of material on the UKCIP monthly press cuttings pages on the subject of climate impacts (no surprise, there). They very conveniently produce a monthly summary of the most important climate papers in a few pages; good reading, unbiased.

Wilson: I don't think the talk is all about environmental management; a lot of it is also about adaptive strategies for projected change. Of course we can adapt, as can 'Nature', but if we're planting our crops in the wrong places, and the wrong type of nature turns up, we are going to be in a bit of a pickle; I don't feel we can be as dismissive as you seem to be, here.

Dawlish: The 'Hockey Stick'. As well as the UKCIP site I mentioned above, check out the latest Pielke offering on Climate Science. My questions might be included in the comments later on.

Chili: wait 'till you get home...

P

[Dawlish]

"You and SF know your stuff, here P3. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that this is one of the best discussions currently on netweather."

Hi Dawlish,

To put this in to some sort of perspective what Fergus, ooppps sorry, Parmenides3, knew about this subject at the beginning of July would have fitted comfortably on the back of a fag packet. That's the power of the internet and the high standard of the level of debate on here from you guys............I can't get the wretched man off the ruddy computer!!! He never ceases to astound me.....

Chili (P3's OH)

Heh, heh! We're just a very bad influence, but the Internet really does allow you to become knowledgeable about some arcane subjects very quickly! I'll have to stop telling him he knows a bit, then he might go into a huff and leave the comp alone! addiction is a terrible thing!

Paulxx

[parmenides3]

Heh, heh! We're just a very bad influence, but the Internet really does allow you to become knowledgeable about some arcane subjects very quickly! I'll have to stop telling him he knows a bit, then he might go into a huff and leave the comp alone! addiction is a terrible thing!

Paulxx

Too late. Way, way too late... Bad luck!

[Chili Pepper]

Heh, heh! We're just a very bad influence, but the Internet really does allow you to become knowledgeable about some arcane subjects very quickly! I'll have to stop telling him he knows a bit, then he might go into a huff and leave the comp alone! addiction is a terrible thing!

Paulxx

Hello Dawlish et al,

On the contrary, Paul (sorry, Dawlish), on the contrary - very, very good influence. He finds it mentally stimulating and to think I was the person who introduced him to this website in the first place and the concept of discussing "weather" ...... Have you seen the number of posts he has made since July? Anyway, I've been told to "foxtrot oscar" off the computer by Ferg so he can read some links he's found on Climate Science...........but thanks for your reponse

Heh, heh right back at you

Kind regards

Chili (a dedicated Netweather "lurker")

xxxxxx

[Brrr]

Hi Dawlish,

To put this in to some sort of perspective what Fergus, ooppps sorry, Parmenides3, knew about this subject at the beginning of July would have fitted comfortably on the back of a fag packet. That's the power of the internet and the high standard of the level of debate on here from you guys............I can't get the wretched man off the ruddy computer!!! He never ceases to astound me.....

Chili (P3's OH)

LOL .....Indeed.... I had the pleasure of phoning up some 'technical expert' the other day to sort out a PC problem... the 'technical expert' EVEN admitted to me that he was Googling the problem I had with my PC to sort it out!!!... making the comment 'you can just about find the answer to anything on here!' (hmm, I could get a job there then!).

Thanks P3 for reading my post!.

Back on topic......

Belinda

Edited September 9, 2006 by Brrr

[snowsure]

I was looking through a good book today called "Fragile Earth". Worth a look if you get the chance. About 99% of the content shows that the world is changing as most people are expecting (de-forestation, increased desertification, decreased ice cover.)

It is quite surprising, though, to see that the Franz Josef glacier in NZ is currently advancing. It appears to be a cyclical type of advancing/retreating glacier so not one of these that is advancing due to increased lubrication from melt water.

What's going on with that one then?

[parmenides3]

I was looking through a good book today called "Fragile Earth". Worth a look if you get the chance. About 99% of the content shows that the world is changing as most people are expecting (de-forestation, increased desertification, decreased ice cover.)

It is quite surprising, though, to see that the Franz Josef glacier in NZ is currently advancing. It appears to be a cyclical type of advancing/retreating glacier so not one of these that is advancing due to increased lubrication from melt water.

What's going on with that one then?

Nice find, Snowsure. The Franz Josef Glacier is a bit of a 'one-off'. It's fed by huge amounts of precipitation over the Southern Alps (up to 30 metres a year), and makes its way through tropical forest to the sea. I imagine that, for it to retreat, we'd need to see a change in the NZ precip. patterns, rather than a warming of the environment, but that's only a guess.

P

[snowsure]

Nice find, Snowsure. The Franz Josef Glacier is a bit of a 'one-off'. It's fed by huge amounts of precipitation over the Southern Alps (up to 30 metres a year), and makes its way through tropical forest to the sea. I imagine that, for it to retreat, we'd need to see a change in the NZ precip. patterns, rather than a warming of the environment, but that's only a guess.

P

Thanks P3.

30m per year! Wow!

http://www.glaciercountry.co.nz/glaciers.asp?id=12 for those not sure what this is about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glacier...Balance_Map.png for an interesting look at the number of retreating glaciers (also notice the advancing ones!)

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Thanks P3.

30m per year! Wow!

http://www.glaciercountry.co.nz/glaciers.asp?id=12 for those not sure what this is about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glacier...Balance_Map.png for an interesting look at the number of retreating glaciers (also notice the advancing ones!)

Snowsure

How about this then:-

Although meteorological data for the past century show that winter

temperatures have been rising in parts of the Western Himalaya,

Karakoram, and Hindu Kush mountain ranges, the region's winter

snowfall, which feeds the glaciers, has been increasing. And average

summer temperatures, which melt snow and glaciers, have been

dropping.

"One of the surprising results we found was a downward trend in

summer temperatures," said David Archer, study co-author and a

hydrologist at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom.

BFTP

Edited September 19, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[snowsure]

Snowsure

How about this then:-

Although meteorological data for the past century show that winter

temperatures have been rising in parts of the Western Himalaya,

Karakoram, and Hindu Kush mountain ranges, the region's winter

snowfall, which feeds the glaciers, has been increasing. And average

summer temperatures, which melt snow and glaciers, have been

dropping.

"One of the surprising results we found was a downward trend in

summer temperatures," said David Archer, study co-author and a

hydrologist at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom.

BFTP

Thanks BFTP

Time to do some web-digging for more info.

Any chance of a link for that one?

SS

[Mr Sleet]

http://www.dangly.co.uk/ABD/poppycock.pdf

I see Prof Bellamy doesn't think much of AGW.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Dawlish]

http://www.dangly.co.uk/ABD/poppycock.pdf

I see Prof Bellamy doesn't think much of AGW.

Read the article. David Bellamy is completely confusing AGW and GW all the way through the article and the silly paper is compounding it further by putting it in the title. He ought to know better. He talks about natural cycles and then talks about AGW as being a falsehood, in the same paragraphs as talking about GW. The article is not worth the future bog paper its written on. Quoting articles from the Daily Mail, without any scientific provenance is going to get this debate nowhere. It is completely unbalanced and ignores the science in favour of promoting a celebrity's viewpoint.

Paul

Edited October 2, 2006 by Dawlish

[Mr Sleet]

Read the article. David Bellamy is completely confusing AGW and GW all the way through the article and the silly paper is compounding it further by putting it in the title. He ought to know better. He talks about natural cycles and then talks about AGW as being a falsehood, in the same paragraphs as talking about GW. The article is not worth the future bog paper its written on. Quoting articles from the Daily Mail, without any scientific provenance is going to get this debate nowhere. It is completely unbalanced and ignores the science in favour of promoting a celebrity's viewpoint.

Paul

Ooos sorry, I'll ask for the mods to remove it right away.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Mr Sleet]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm

Professor of geology not convinced either ...