Mexico climate change conference finishes ...

[parmenides3]

A characteristic response of a characteristic response The fact that it is Al Gore was a bad start...and there was no Clint Eastwood . I can see changes afoot...that's all I'll say on it. That paper was not tedious but needed some chewing but my first sentence says it all IMO, I read it more as a character assassination but certainly some points were 'enlightening'.

regards

BFTP

Fair enough. I didn't read it as a character assassination (boy, is there material for that on this paper, though), but as an assassination of the paper, but you and I are allowed to disagree on this. I can't, though, find a creditable science blog or website, apart from the well-known and obvious contenders, which gives this article much credence. Perhaps they don't feel it is necessary, as it was published in a rather unusual magazine which is not part of the scientific literature and is not peer-reviewed.

The page I directed you to seems to me to look, one by one, at a number of statements the author makes, and shows them to be false, either based on incorrect information or a fundamental misunderstanding of the science being used. The athor of the critique is very cynical, I'll grant you that, but he does seem to explain why he disagrees with the article in fairly clear terms. If you feel that his understanding of the science is wrong, as opposed to Jaworowski's (not easy for the likes of us ordinary mortals), then that is another matter.

That this article has been looked at, has been found wanting, and has been rejected is not, as your comment might imply, a consequence of bl00dy-minded, determined theory-trashing, simply because it is non-conformist; it is (or at least seems to be) because it is bad science - in simple terms, simply wrong.

:)P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Fair enough. I didn't read it as a character assassination (boy, is there material for that on this paper, though), but as an assassination of the paper, but you and I are allowed to disagree on this. I can't, though, find a creditable science blog or website, apart from the well-known and obvious contenders, which gives this article much credence. Perhaps they don't feel it is necessary, as it was published in a rather unusual magazine which is not part of the scientific literature and is not peer-reviewed.

:)P

Possibly/probably.

BFTP

[parmenides3]

Possibly/probably.

BFTP

Just thought I ought to add; please don't think that I am dismissing your concerns about AGW out of hand. Your doubts are perfectly legitimate and are shared by some climate scientists, as well as many people on NW. That there are genuine reasons to challenge some of the assumptions about climate change is beyond doubt. But I don't think you are going to have much luck looking for material which dismisses the theory outright. What is out there of this kind tends to be rather similar to the Jaworowski paper.

Can I suggest that you consider a couple of alternative issues: How much of the current temperature change is down to human (anthropogenic) influence? Do the climate models which are used to influence policy work properly? What confidence can we really have that temperatures are going to rise, globally, by 2-4C, by 2100?

These are all important questions and do not have simple answers. There is some good science going on at the moment which puts doubts on all these areas. If you can show where the uncertainties lie here, you will probably be more confident in your doubts, and, should you wish to, will probably win round a few people to sharing your point of view.

As ever, enjoying the exchange and the challenge,

:)P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

As ever, enjoying the exchange and the challenge,

:)P

P

Me too. The crap comment was in honesty meaning that I love my action/suspense movies and this isn't one of them but I responded like that to get, well exactly what I got. I was lookiong for good counter argument of my findings and sometimes for love or money one can't find it that say one can trust and accept. You dug up a good one and did a job for me :lol: Sorry for being a wee bit devious but it served a purpose...thanks Re your point on 'how much is caused' in my thoughts is the reality of it all and probably is a very good way forward.

kind regards

BFTP

Edited October 10, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[SP1986]

Can I suggest that you consider a couple of alternative issues: How much of the current temperature change is down to human (anthropogenic) influence? Do the climate models which are used to influence policy work properly? What confidence can we really have that temperatures are going to rise, globally, by 2-4C, by 2100?

As ever, enjoying the exchange and the challenge,

:)P

Good question, You have to be able to split the data from human and natural temperature effects, and I personally can't see how that's done, as it seems very difficult. I think there is a way of testing the effects of temperature on CO2 in the atmosphere, if there is that would be a great help in defining how much temperature is down to man.

It is absolutely certain that humans do have an effect on the warming, but how much is another thing altogether.

Even higher than that, 1-5C, the expected rise in temperatures according to the IPCC

[parmenides3]

Good question, You have to be able to split the data from human and natural temperature effects, and I personally can't see how that's done, as it seems very difficult. I think there is a way of testing the effects of temperature on CO2 in the atmosphere, if there is that would be a great help in defining how much temperature is down to man.

It is absolutely certain that humans do have an effect on the warming, but how much is another thing altogether.

Even higher than that, 1-5C, the expected rise in temperatures according to the IPCC

You'll be interested to know that Bill Gray, ace NOAA hurricane forecaster (retired) has just delivered a presentation to the George Marshall Institute on weather, hurricanes, climate and GW. This thanks to Climate Audit, which picked it up late last night. I've just been through it, and it is a most peculiar piece. Because of his reputation, Bill Gray's opinions are not likely to be ignored, and I predict, again, that there will be rumblings about this for a few days to come.

In it, as well as dealing with the issue of GW and hurricane prediction, Gray lays into the science community for jumping on the AGW bandwagon, and expresses the opinion that human induced GW will cause a further increase of ~0.3C, before the climate naturally enters another (slight) cooling phase, in the next ten years or so. There is no doubt that this part of his opinion will be heavily hyped by skeptics and heavily hammered by warmers.

the reason I say it is a peculiar piece is that, along with some sound material, especially about hurricanes, are a number of assumptions about GW which, to be frank, are simply repetitions of the well-known, existing skeptic criticisms of the theory. Most prominent among these are; the GCMs have no skill (his reasoning here is suspect); the GCMs overestimate GW by a factor of 5-10 times because they exaggerate the effects of clouds; the current warming phase is a function of the THC (this one really got me, personally; even from my own, non-scientist pov, what he says about the THC is in contradiction to the findings of several pieces of research).

But most of the presentation is, effectively, an op-ed style piece about how the governments of the world have conspired to produce a common enemy with which they can cow the populace into mindless obedience, how the science community and funders have ignored skepticism because it isn't fashionable, how the GCM teams have suppressed uncertainty because they are afraid of losing credibility; basically, how AGW is all some kind of huge conspiracy. (my apologies for all the paraphrasing, but it is a 42 page document).

What is irritating is that Bill Gray's piece is likely to provoke more reaction than it probably deserves, simply because of who he is. I am not pretending that I know more about weather forecasting or climate science than he does, but if even I can pick holes in his material, then when the 'heavies' get their teeth into it, there will be all kinds of a furore, stimulated, I am sure, by American media response and claims from the skeptics that this justifies their position, because it omes from such an eminent source.

If there is enough demand, I'll attach a (largish) file, so that others can read the original piece.

:)P

Edited October 12, 2006 by parmenides3

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

If there is enough demand, I'll attach a (largish) file, so that others can read the original piece.

:)P

P

PM the link to me would you? Interesting been reading up some articles that suggets that as the heat zone in the Pacific ocean goes above 28C then this triggers less cloud cover in this area [cirrus] and the heat is released like a pressure cooker to cool things off and that GCMs have not factored natural events like this into the equation as scientists don't really know why. The above is only supposition of what has happened NOT definitive I will add.

BFTP

[parmenides3]

P

PM the link to me would you? Interesting been reading up some articles that suggets that as the heat zone in the Pacific ocean goes above 28C then this triggers less cloud cover in this area [cirrus] and the heat is released like a pressure cooker to cool things off and that GCMs have not factored natural events like this into the equation as scientists don't really know why. The above is only supposition of what has happened NOT definitive I will add.

BFTP

No need; it's on http://climateaudit.org/ look down half a page on 'Bill Gray's presentation' and the link will take you straight to it. BTW: be careful not to assume that it is correct; what I have said so far is the 'polite' version...

:)P

[BrickFielder]

To promote some further discussion I thought i would bring up the subject of the other major greenhouse affect. Here I am talking about water vapour which probably accounts for 60-95% of all the greenhouse affect. A number of people have argued that water vapour rather than CO2 is the prime forcing for climate changes.

Water Vapour not CO2

Climatic effects of Water Vapour

Of course there are a number of holes in the argument and the realclimate discusses a number of these, although it should be noted in the comments below the real climate report that even they have made a number of mistakes.

Real Climate Calculating the greenhouse effect

Before we look at the rights and wrongs of this lets just look at some of the science behind it and more specifically the radiation budget.

The radiation budget

A large amount of uncertainty surrounds whether clouds act as a greenhouse gas warming the climate or as a reflective blanket preventing sunlight reaching the surface and cooling the climate.Current thinking is that high thin clouds produce a net heating affect while low thick cloud produce a cooling effect.

Clouds and Climate

There is strong evidence that inceased water vapour at higher levels has produced a net warming over Europe and this is why places like the UK have seen much more of an increase in temperatures than other parts of the northern hemisphere.

Water Vapour heats Europe

This may be attributable to emissions of methane although there are arguments that volcanic eruptions may play a part.

Methane is the prime forcing

Water Vapour and Volcanoes

I am not sure about these arguments but I do go along with the idea that we are producing more aerosols and particulates. These are the small nucleii around which water condenses out to form cloud.

Particulates and Clouds

Some of the latest thinking on water vapour suggests that this is particularly sensitive to air quality changes over asia and particularly southern china.

Recent Thinking

In all this I have not mentioned HFC's the replacement for the dreaded CFC's which may ironically be causing more warming than CFC's ever could. The point of the dicussion is not to belittle the affects of CO2 but to open up new avenues of discussion showing that we need to control all emissions rather than just CO2 and perhaps argue that European emission regulations may have a number of holes in them.

Bill Gray's stance on AGW is fairly well known and a number of people have pointed out errors in his thinking. I should also point out that his detractors have also made a number of errors. It is interesting that he has picked up increased northern blocking observed recently as a sign of a period of cooling as this has been much talked about.

Bill Gray Talk

The real Climate on Gray

[parmenides3]

Fabulous post, BrickF, Thanks. This is a great illustration of how much work is involved in trying to make sense of climate science. It also raises one of the more difficult questions about attribution of CC which, so far, has not been resolved; the role of clouds. One reason that this is a problem is that the GCMs don't 'know' how much effect cloud albedo has, or will have, on temperatures. At the moment, the assumption is that, taking what is known into consideration, clouds will probably have a small net positive effect on the radiation budget.

There is a lot of new material around this month about aerosols. Pielke Sr., for example, on Climate Science http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/ has argued for some time that these factors are not being properly considered by the climatology community, but especially by the people who influence policy on climate change. On the other hand, there are recent suggestions that, but for aerosol pollution, GW would be much worse.(!)

I'll dig out a couple of recent papers on the subject shortly; in the meantime, consider yourself invited to join the AHS. As a member, you can add 'AHS' to your name. Member number 4, should you accept.

PS; the methane situation is an interesting one, too, which is worthy of further study.

:)P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

BTW: be careful not to assume that it is correct; what I have said so far is the 'polite' version...

:)P

Not at all...thanks buddy...good stuff. BF interesting post

BFTP

[parmenides3]

A quick correction; it has been pointed out to me that Bill grays' presentation doesn't say +~0.3 before a cooling phase, but +~0.3 by 2100. Sorry if this caused any confusion.

:)P

[SP1986]

You'll be interested to know that Bill Gray, ace NOAA hurricane forecaster (retired) has just delivered a presentation to the George Marshall Institute on weather, hurricanes, climate and GW. This thanks to Climate Audit, which picked it up late last night. I've just been through it, and it is a most peculiar piece. Because of his reputation, Bill Gray's opinions are not likely to be ignored, and I predict, again, that there will be rumblings about this for a few days to come.

In it, as well as dealing with the issue of GW and hurricane prediction, Gray lays into the science community for jumping on the AGW bandwagon, and expresses the opinion that human induced GW will cause a further increase of ~0.3C, before the climate naturally enters another (slight) cooling phase, in the next ten years or so. There is no doubt that this part of his opinion will be heavily hyped by skeptics and heavily hammered by warmers.

the reason I say it is a peculiar piece is that, along with some sound material, especially about hurricanes, are a number of assumptions about GW which, to be frank, are simply repetitions of the well-known, existing skeptic criticisms of the theory. Most prominent among these are; the GCMs have no skill (his reasoning here is suspect); the GCMs overestimate GW by a factor of 5-10 times because they exaggerate the effects of clouds; the current warming phase is a function of the THC (this one really got me, personally; even from my own, non-scientist pov, what he says about the THC is in contradiction to the findings of several pieces of research).

But most of the presentation is, effectively, an op-ed style piece about how the governments of the world have conspired to produce a common enemy with which they can cow the populace into mindless obedience, how the science community and funders have ignored skepticism because it isn't fashionable, how the GCM teams have suppressed uncertainty because they are afraid of losing credibility; basically, how AGW is all some kind of huge conspiracy. (my apologies for all the paraphrasing, but it is a 42 page document).

What is irritating is that Bill Gray's piece is likely to provoke more reaction than it probably deserves, simply because of who he is. I am not pretending that I know more about weather forecasting or climate science than he does, but if even I can pick holes in his material, then when the 'heavies' get their teeth into it, there will be all kinds of a furore, stimulated, I am sure, by American media response and claims from the skeptics that this justifies their position, because it omes from such an eminent source.

If there is enough demand, I'll attach a (largish) file, so that others can read the original piece.

:)P

Interesting read even just the paraphrases! Unfortunately this is a major problem in the modern scientific world. On top of the lack of agreement over Global warming, there are the few scientists, theory based researchers (and I do have a sceptical eye for the researchers who go out there looking up theories), and yes I think Bill Gray is one of them, unless of course I've missed out on something... In this 42 page document, is there any sign of any numerical data? Might make his 'piece' a little more substantial if there is. I think what the climatologists, and people who are (and should) be associated with the research on global warming is more provocative documented thinking, that will just serve to generate more arguments between for and against global warming groups - not good for the future is it - ouch... when you think about it though, his document might seem worthless, in the grand scale of what's going on.

In fact I've just noticed the address for the document :lol:

ps on the spot, water causing warming. Well more particles within the water could cause a similar effect, heavier rain (similar to the effect of a thunderstorm) but that is just worthless theory

[parmenides3]

Interesting read even just the paraphrases! Unfortunately this is a major problem in the modern scientific world. On top of the lack of agreement over Global warming, there are the few scientists, theory based researchers (and I do have a sceptical eye for the researchers who go out there looking up theories), and yes I think Bill Gray is one of them, unless of course I've missed out on something... In this 42 page document, is there any sign of any numerical data? Might make his 'piece' a little more substantial if there is. I think what the climatologists, and people who are (and should) be associated with the research on global warming is more provocative documented thinking, that will just serve to generate more arguments between for and against global warming groups - not good for the future is it - ouch... when you think about it though, his document might seem worthless, in the grand scale of what's going on.

In fact I've just noticed the address for the document :lol:

ps on the spot, water causing warming. Well more particles within the water could cause a similar effect, heavier rain (similar to the effect of a thunderstorm) but that is just worthless theory

Bill Gray was the top man in hurricane prediction at NOAA for years; he has recently retired and handed over the reins to 26 year-old wunderkind Phil Klotzbach. He is well known in the USA as a 'public face' of weather. After Katrina' he was much in evidence, so his opinions can and do influence people.

What he isn't is a climatologist. Even as an amateur, I have read enough material, and am up-to-date enough of the data, to see that there are huge holes in his argument. Here is an example of something he says:

I judge the THC to have been generally weaker over the last century and especially over the 25-year period from 1970-1994.

(You'll have spotted the 'I judge'). Of the six or seven complete papers I have read on this, none comes to the conclusion that the THC has changed one bit in the last 100, or even thirty, years. Where localised phenomena have indicated possible circulation changes there is no certainty as to either cause or implication for the THC as a whole. The Great Salinity Anomaly of the late 60's/early 70's was a measurable change of Arctic freshwater outflow. Recent measurement of the Norwegian Atlantic Current showed warming and slowing, but no overall heat transport changes, for the last 10 years. Gray offers no supporting evidence for this 'judgment', because there is none. Yet he goes on to claim that this is one of the principle drivers in the recent climate change. To be able to do this, he needs to establish that the THC has weakened, and he can't.

There may be more discussion of this at some time, but having looked at it in more detail, I don't think most climate scientists would even bother responding to it. As you suggest, it probably isn't that significant.

:)P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

An interesting read I must say. He also states he is willing to debate with his critiques! He certainly has top qualifications and experience. I'll leave more qualified people take him on :lol: although I find his arguments quite reasonable and re the GFMs well his work within the NOAA he certainly was well placed to comment on such criteria.

I think this is a potential large thorn for the 'warmist' faction...we shall see as there isn't long to wait to see if his theory works

BFTP

[parmenides3]

An interesting read I must say. He also states he is willing to debate with his critiques! He certainly has top qualifications and experience. I'll leave more qualified people take him on :lol: although I find his arguments quite reasonable and re the GFMs well his work within the NOAA he certainly was well placed to comment on such criteria.

I think this is a potential large thorn for the 'warmist' faction...we shall see as there isn't long to wait to see if his theory works

BFTP

Honest, Blast, it isn't that great. This is pretty much the same thing as he said earlier this year, but with a review of the 2006 hurricane season thrown in. The comments I have seen from climate scientists so far put his ideas in the 'away with the fairies' category, which is perhaps a bit unfair, but if I can pick holes in his argument, without even considering the scientific basis in many cases, I wouldn't think there'd be too many scientists taking it seriously. A shame, really, as I thought I might be on to something with this one. It's always the same, every time I find a new non-conformist view, I end up being disappointed. This is not to say, as I pointed out earlier, that there aren't reasons to challenge the mainstream view, but I don't think this is a great example.

:)P

[Dawlish]

Bill Gray was the top man in hurricane prediction at NOAA for years; he has recently retired and handed over the reins to 26 year-old wunderkind Phil Klotzbach. He is well known in the USA as a 'public face' of weather. After Katrina' he was much in evidence, so his opinions can and do influence people.

What he isn't is a climatologist. Even as an amateur, I have read enough material, and am up-to-date enough of the data, to see that there are huge holes in his argument. Here is an example of something he says:

(You'll have spotted the 'I judge'). Of the six or seven complete papers I have read on this, none comes to the conclusion that the THC has changed one bit in the last 100, or even thirty, years. Where localised phenomena have indicated possible circulation changes there is no certainty as to either cause or implication for the THC as a whole. The Great Salinity Anomaly of the late 60's/early 70's was a measurable change of Arctic freshwater outflow. Recent measurement of the Norwegian Atlantic Current showed warming and slowing, but no overall heat transport changes, for the last 10 years. Gray offers no supporting evidence for this 'judgment', because there is none. Yet he goes on to claim that this is one of the principle drivers in the recent climate change. To be able to do this, he needs to establish that the THC has weakened, and he can't.

There may be more discussion of this at some time, but having looked at it in more detail, I don't think most climate scientists would even bother responding to it. As you suggest, it probably isn't that significant.

:)P

Yes, I agree, P3. Nothing that I have read points to a slowdown in the THC. It's a dreadful point to have made, as it is simply not true, as far as I can determine. It almost looks like a view that has been gleaned from press comment on recent research rather than the actual research, with the mitigating comments in the conclusions about not extrapolating the research to say that there has been any real weakening of the THC.

It is hard to see why a scientist should resort to that, except to make a point to the press (hacks, yuech!) and the general public, who may take it at face value, instead of checking. I'm sure that other climate scientists would dismiss it.

Paul

[parmenides3]

Yes, I agree, P3. Nothing that I have read points to a slowdown in the THC. It's a dreadful point to have made, as it is simply not true, as far as I can determine. It almost looks like a view that has been gleaned from press comment on recent research rather than the actual research, with the mitigating comments in the conclusions about not extrapolating the research to say that there has been any real weakening of the THC.

It is hard to see why a scientist should resort to that, except to make a point to the press (hacks, yuech!) and the general public, who may take it at face value, instead of checking. I'm sure that other climate scientists would dismiss it.

Paul

This is from earlier this year: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=295

I have no idea whether it's fair or not, but it certainly isn't very complementary. I know, Blast, apr for the course from certain websites. You should see some of the comments on Climate Audit!

:)P

[BrickFielder]

It is not really fair to dismiss all his thinking based on some incorrect assumptions about the THC. Even here it is not so clear cut about what is or is not happening with bryden et al reporting some remarkable changes to the THC even if the gulf stream is very stable and the total flow remains the same. A number of question marks hang over the bryden data in terms of whether a long enough monitoring period was used and whether a seasonal difference has been picked up.

Byrden et al discussed at the Realclimate

Looking at what Gray says specifically

Various global signals are starting to manifest themselves to indicate the start of a modest global cooling period in the coming years. These include:

a. An initial weakening of the Southern Hemisphere middle-latitude zonal winds and significant amounts of upper-ocean global cooling between 2003 and 2005 (Lyman et al. 2006).

b. The commencement of more North Atlantic and Aleutian region blocking patterns. These are indicative of strong Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC) conditions which, with a lag of 10-15 years, are typically associated with a modest global cooling. Such strong THC conditions and global cooling is associated with increased cold water upwelling in the middle latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere (Figure 5).

c. The last 9-year decrease in El Niño activity. Global cooling is typically associated with a significant reduction in El Niño frequency.

d. A recent increase in the rate of global rainfall and global surface evaporation cooling.

The above are valid facts, whether you interpret them as Gray does is questionable. His comments about the performance of GCM's have some basis in fact although I am not sure that you could argue that the GCM's may have equally underestimated warming.

1. Models assuming that an increase in the rate of global precipitation leads to an increase in upper-level water vapor and cloudiness. This is known as the positive water-vapor feedback effect. Observations indicate that from a global perspective this is not a valid assumption.

2. The GCMs inability to resolve individual cumulus scale convection at the scales found in nature. Individual convective elements currently must be parameterized in terms of the larger-scale circulation.

3. GCMs do not currently model the globe’s deep-water ocean circulation accurately.

I don't think I can really agree with him because he has made too many assumptions like assuming resolving cumulus scale convection will make an appreciable difference to the modelling results. I do think he has a valid point in that we do not have a handle on how much AGW is occuring. In the end his conclusions are not that AGW is not happening just that the possible affects are being exagerated. Lets remember he has been a expert on cumulus scale convection so at least some of what he says may have some bearing even if there are holes in some of his thinking.

Yes, some human-induced global warming has likely occurred from increased human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. But these increased greenhouse emissions should be expected to cause only a small rise in global mean temperature (~0.3oC for a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases).

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Honest, Blast, it isn't that great. This is pretty much the same thing as he said earlier this year, but with a review of the 2006 hurricane season thrown in. The comments I have seen from climate scientists so far put his ideas in the 'away with the fairies' category, which is perhaps a bit unfair, but if I can pick holes in his argument, without even considering the scientific basis in many cases, I wouldn't think there'd be too many scientists taking it seriously. A shame, really, as I thought I might be on to something with this one. It's always the same, every time I find a new non-conformist view, I end up being disappointed. This is not to say, as I pointed out earlier, that there aren't reasons to challenge the mainstream view, but I don't think this is a great example.

:)P

P

Maybe a point one can pickup on but he does have very creditable credentials and I re the THC I don't there is measurable evidence either way is there? As BF has pointed out there are good points made and a lot of scientists who say away with the fairies I would treat with great caution. A lot are like a hyena pack or an audience on say question time; when someone on the panel states something that is not in accord with the feelings of the audience that panellist gets barraged so much so that the point of view of the panellist gets drowned out. And many times it isn't a wrong point of view.

They do have big financial pot to protect As I said not long to wait according to him to see if he is onto something or not...remember onto something NOT wholly right. There are massive natural forces to deal with and I will go along with the models possibly being 'exaggerated'. If scientists cannot understand the system fully then how come a model can? I won't discount it as easily as you seem to have.

Why not contact him re your discrepancy and see if he will respond? Might be worth a shot getting a response

BFTP