Is the summer of 2007 a turning point?

[osmposm]

Also trying to commit any 'sceptic' to a day when they will change their mind and be forced into a 'backtrack climbdown' on their more measured and cautious approach strongly smacks of just another pressurised attempt to 'see the light' - almost like a religious conversion process. No-one likes to be forced to do anything, and IMO all this will do is strengthen the resolve of doubters, and do no good to constructive debate by widening further divisons of opinion - hence much better reason to just agree to disagree. I have no doubt that left to think for themselves such folk may (or may not) be able to change their mind of their own volition.

Tamara

That's probably true, Tamara - the first part, anyway. However, a significant element of a debate like this is not so much the attempt to change the mind of those who are already opposed (or at least strongly dubious), but to allow all the arguments in both directions to be publicly aired. Those that have no particular knowledge or opinion, and who read but don't join in the argument, can then decide which scenario, or combination of scenarios they favour.

I disagree that all this does "no good to constructive debate"; to my mind it is the very essence of constructive debate - for each proponent's point-of-view to be tested by rigorous (and vigorous!) questioning and opposing evidence. That is precisely how our judicial and political systems work: we do not expect a Tory speech to convert a Labour politician, but we do - or I do - expect them to challenge each other's beliefs, ideally with supporting evidence, and repeatedly. The people can then, periodically, make up their own minds. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the main reason for the current boredom with politics is that there is no real debate - essentially both sides agree with each other. Real opposing view holders with intellect - Tony Benn, or the late, great Dennis Skinner, even, dare I say it, Enoch Powell, before he became obsessed with race - are incredibly valuable and increasingly rare, so we seldom ever really test the assumptions any more. And I profoundly disagree with all of them!

And lest you doubt that opinions can be so formed, and open minds changed, I will tell you that three years ago I had no knowledge of, and little interest in Global Warming. If anything, I was slightly inclined to thinking it was all a bit of a fuss over nothing, and things would adjust sooner or later - or it probably wouldn't be as bad as suggested. By listening carefully to both sides of the argument, a great deal of it on here, I slowly became convinced that it was happening, that we were probably responsible for a lot of it, that it was likely to continue, and that the consequences were likely to be serious. But to do that I needed to hear both sides, and I needed to hear both sides doing their damnedest to disprove the other side.

Sorry, but God protect me from people who "agree to disagree" in a wonderful forum like this.

Keep calm(ish) - but keep arguing!!

Ossie

[Nick H]

the late, great Dennis Skinner

Ossie, the Beast of Bolsover, as far as I know, is still with us is he not?

[Gray-Wolf]

For at least the last four months the sun has been exceptionally 'quiet' with practically no sunspots to speak of. Can anyone concisely explain what,if any effect this might have on global temps? This quiet spell obviously cannot be compared with the approximate period 1645-1720 (the Maunder Minimum,which is associated with the 'little ice age' during that period). But what if it endured for very much longer?

NASA called for this cycle (when it gets going) to be one of the most 'active' since we first started observing the sun with telescopes. My greatest concern is the effect our weakening magnetic field may play on some of the carp that'll inevitably be thrown our way (and it's impact, via the excitation of upper atmospheric levels and their temps) and air pressure 'forcings' in the troposphere.

That and a the potential for temporary/repeated magnetic field reversal/s and their effects here on the surface.

Also, and no one responded last time I queried it so it's either more rambling or something that may need thinking about, if a neg. charged solar stream interacts with our magnetic field in such a way as to 'force' a current flow then won't there be some resistance to the flow ?(our atmosphere not being a 'superconductor') and the 'normal' heating that resistance produces?

If the solar 'Bursts' are repeated over a short period of time , or are long lasting in duration, could that prove to be a significant global temp. event?

Of course all our elect-trickery devices will frazzle (along with all the satellites facing the burst.....or just 'all the satellites' if it is a 24hr event)

2007? the start of cycle 24, maybe will prove a 'significant turning point'.........

[laserguy]

Thanks for your response to my query regarding sunspots Gray-Wolf. Further to that,there seems to be some confusion whether the next solar maximum (around 2011/2012),will be much stronger or weaker than usual. You say NASA expect it to be highly active but I've seen other reports saying the opposite. Isn't NASA the only source of info?? Forgive my ignorance,a genuine query!

[osmposm]

Ossie, the Beast of Bolsover, as far as I know, is still with us is he not?

Oh my god, I see he is. Deeply embarrassing, my apologies - not least to him (though I do think he's gone a bit quiet recently).

Wherever did I get the idea? Perhaps I was thinking of the much missed Tony Banks...or Tam Dalyell, who's alive but retired (and also much missed). The trouble these days is that you never even get past the selection committee unless you promise undying love for the Fuhrer and all his policies. So an even slightly independent-minded potential politician has to learn to lie convincingly right from the word go, or get nowhere at all. Depressing. Or maybe 'twas ever thus....?

[Stratos Ferric]

Yes - In my mind, I'm comparing it more and more to the difference between religion/faith and reason. The scientists vs the clergy etc. But religion is the opiate of the masses and provides comfort for many. We didn't ought to judge.

Much though I enjoyed Laserguy's roller-coaster ride story, and its happy ending, I do suspect that had I posted that analogy I'd have been (quite rightly) shot down in flames. Curing a medical complexity, which can often be "trial and error" in extreme situations (treat the symptoms not the cause), is hardly the same as predicting climatic change.

A more amusing analogy for me, re many of the circular arguments on here, is the behaviour of gamblers in the casino. Tamara may not like my question re "line in the sand", but it is quite real and pertinent in the casino, where the odds on all banked games are against the punter. You might win individual spins, but if you play for long enough everyone will eventually lose; this is mathematical certainty rendered by the presence of "0". You might bounce wildly up and down, and kid yourself that you're "on a roll", but the fact that casinos make money states, volubly and incontrovertibly, that the majority of people simply do not have the wherewithall to know that there is a "line in the sand", and that is one thing, above all else, that separates professional gamblers from careless amateurs. The latter will continue hoping that "the next card" will return my losses, and when it reduces them, rather than walk away, they'll stay and probably lose again.

To those above who have not carefully read my posts, I have not said that we are definitely going to continue warming; like the many sceptics above, I have agreed that we don't know. What I HAVE said is that that [warming] happens to be my belief. I do suspect that those who don't like my particular message have, on occasion, a tendency to see something that is NOT there. Have said all of the above, though, there is little substance in ANY argument to suggest that the odds of a return to the relative cool of the 60s is an evens shout.

Yes, you cannot predict with certainty the precise future on the basis of the past: you can, however, predict the likely bounds of plausible reality: that's how engineers design dams for flood protection, how buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes, and how Boeing design planes to withstand atmospheric stresses. Every now and then the projected limits are exceeded, but that's invariably by an event beyond the design limit. That's why ANY suggestion of a return to a winter like 1962/3 is, for all intents and purposes, laughable: it's not an absolute impossibility, but it would not be far from the statistical truth to suggest that you're as likely to die in a plane crash as you are to see a 1962/3 winter (or a 78/9) this year, or next, or for several years to come.

Yes Russia still gets cold, but it's a continetal interior: that's like saying the Pope's still religious.

We can still get relatively cold winters, and we're well overdue one, but the climatic system comes with a lot of inertia (if the earth stopped spinning tomorrow the ocean currents would continue to run for many years and the winds wouldn't stop blowing at all - though they would be very different). In the same way that on a roulette table with a bid limit you can't write off a big debt in one spin, so we can't bounce from very warm to cold in a single bound (without external forcing).

If anyone thinks that that's forcing an opinion down somebody's throat then I'm sorry. It might not be what some people wish for, but it is still quite reasonable fact. Facts, for all that they may be unpalatable to some, are facts nonetheless.

[suffolkboy_]

The media never helps matters by blowing everything way out of proportion. For example, on the news tonight one presenter said something along the lines of, "hurricane dean is a prime example of what global warming will throw at us in the future; hurricanes are becomeing more and more deadly". Well ofcourse hurricanes have become more deadly over the past 100 years, when a hurricane hit land 100 years ago it hit mostly uninhabited forest, but nowadays it hits a town with a population of thousands of people; hence a hurricane now causes alot more damage than it did, so is seen as "more powerfull".

The vast majority of people in the U.K have no idea of why the weather happens. I play bowls, and the number of old people who say to me, " this thunder must have come in with the tide", they don't have a clue. People just take what the media say as gospel.

Another thing which really gets on my nerves, is when people say that the melting of the north pole will cause sea levels to rise, NO IT WON'T!! The north pole is one whoping great ice cube, it is already displaceing it's mass of water. Try putting a large peice of ice in a bowl, marking the water level, wait for it to melt, then look at the water level, it won't change. It's not all doom and gloom, the earth is doing what it intends to, what we should be more worried about is the using up of fossil fuels, and what we will fuel ourselves with when it runs out. Don't worry about mother nauture, she knows what she's doing.

[Stratos Ferric]

As a well known strong "believer" in AGW I agree with this. Our climate has warmed but it hasn't warmed so much as to make a severe winter impossible. In fact I do believe a winter like 95-96 will happen again the future, perhaps even more severe than that. It may even be this winter. It's entirely possible, just more unlikely.

Very sensibly stated.

...but to allow all the arguments in both directions to be publicly aired. Those that have no particular knowledge or opinion, and who read but don't join in the argument, can then decide which scenario, or combination of scenarios they favour.

I disagree that all this does "no good to constructive debate"; to my mind it is the very essence of constructive debate - for each proponent's point-of-view to be tested by rigorous (and vigorous!) questioning and opposing evidence. ...

Keep calm(ish) - but keep arguing!!

Ossie

Yes, indeed. I enjoy all the well argued posts, and though some of them may lack any scientific rigour, many of the posts from the sceptical side of the argument are still thoughtful and not entirely without cause. As you say, I'd hate for them to be dismissed from these pages because one day, one of them might change my mind regarding the likely (warming) direction of our climate.

[TEITS]

It may even be this winter. It's entirely possible, just more unlikely.

Is it more unlikely though that is the question!.

If we are basing this on the lack of cold winters in recent years then IMO this would be foolish. Let me use this summer as an example again. Suppose a member on this forum posted a summer forecast in March and said that we would have the wettest summer since 1912 and that temps would be below average, I bet many members on this forum would say absolutely no chance because of GW!.

Don't get me wrong I do actually believe in GW but where im sceptical is how much effect it has had on our climate and are there other factors that could be causing our warming or is it a bit of both. The problem I have with science is like I said earlier and that is nobody knows exactly what drives our climate. There are so many variables to take into consideration and more importantly nobody understands how these variables interact with each other. This is why long range forecasting remains rather unreliable because although we use models these days if the programmer of the model doesn't fully understand all the variables then how on earth is a computer model supposed to predict the next 3 months!. If all the scientists/professional meteorlogists fully understood our climate then LRF would be much more reliable and the Met O summer forecast is a great example of how wrong they sometimes get it. So if they cannot predict the next 3months accurately what is the point of using science to predict the next 30yrs.

Edited August 21, 2007 by THE EYE IN THE SKY

[Les Penniston]

Is it more unlikely though that is the question!.

If we are basing this on the lack of cold winters in recent years then IMO this would be foolish. Let me use this summer as an example again. Suppose a member on this forum posted a summer forecast in March and said that we would have the wettest summer since 1912 and that temps would be below average, I bet many members on this forum would say absolutely no chance because of GW!.

Don't get me wrong I do actually believe in GW but where im sceptical is how much effect it has had on our climate and are there other factors that could be causing our warming or is it a bit of both. The problem I have with science is like I said earlier and that is nobody knows exactly what drives our climate. There are so many variables to take into consideration and more importantly nobody understands how these variables interact with each other. This is why long range forecasting remains rather unreliable because although we use models these days if the programmer of the model doesn't fully understand all the variables then how on earth is a computer model supposed to predict the next 3 months!. If all the scientists/professional meteorlogists fully understood our climate then LRF would be much more reliable and the Met O summer forecast is a great example of how wrong they sometimes get it. So if they cannot predict the next 3months accurately what is the point of using science to predict the next 30yrs.

Im sure they were predicting colder winters during the early 80s, and then after 87 it seemed to all change, have we been just unlucky,and are winters remembered more for large snowfall rather than long cold spells.

Les

[suffolkboy_]

Just out of interest. Who knows what happened about this huge future climate forecast , using other people's computers. I seem to remember that it was going to take a few years. As "The Eye in the Sky" said, we don't know very much about what drives climate at all, so what results we do get have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Les Penniston]

Just out of interest. Who knows what happened about this huge future climate forecast , using other people's computers. I seem to remember that it was going to take a few years. As "The Eye in the Sky" said, we don't know very much about what drives climate at all, so what results we do get have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Very true, over the past 1000 years the climate has been warmer and colder before cars and planes were about.

[suffolkboy_]

Very true, over the past 1000 years the climate has been warmer and colder before cars and planes were about.

Well, this is often my argument, we have been under ice sheets before, this is how alot of the valleys of the UK were created, there is very clear evindence of it. What caused these to receed back?.... a warming trend, global warming at that time?... Yes, caused by man?....no!

I'm sure it has been brought up many times before, but by taking ice cores it is very easy to look at how the amount of carbon-dioxide has changes over time, and there is a very, very clear pattern. \this I belive is probably causd by forest fires. What is to stop a forest fire taking over a giant amount of forest and burning for 20 years or more, there were no humans to put it out all those years ago! A huge amount of carbon-dioxide would have been produced, thus warming the earth via the greenhouse effect. The forest grows back, oxygen amounts increase more and more, until another forest fire. A giant cycle.

It may not be carbon dioxide at all. Who knows!?

Edited August 21, 2007 by suffolkboy_

[noggin]

I called it. And I'm an idiot.

Can I be an idiot too? I was almost spot on with my July CET "prediction". My below average August prediction is also looking quite good.

It's natural cycles. We are overdue for some coolness. IMVH (and non-scientific)O.

[suffolkboy_]

Can I be an idiot too? I was almost spot on with my July CET "prediction". My below average August prediction is also looking quite good.

It's natural cycles. We are overdue for some coolness. IMVH (and non-scientific)O.

Exactly, if you look at the CETs for the last 12 months, the above average months are way above, yet the below average months are only just below. This has been the general pattern for a long time unfortunately. I would love a run of below average months now.

[noggin]

the CETs for the last 12 months, the above average months are way above, yet the below average months are only just below

Just my NSO (non-scientific opinion!) here, but getting some below average months is a start for a possible cooldown. Time, as I always say, will tell. It's not as if we have had much in the way of raging heat this year.

[suffolkboy_]

Just my NSO (non-scientific opinion!) here, but getting some below average months is a start for a possible cooldown. Time, as I always say, will tell. It's not as if we have had much in the way of raging heat this year.

I personally don't think that a couple of cool months can signal a cool down, however, I think that if over the next 12 months we were to see say 9 or 10 months below average, we could possibly say that "global warming" was slowing down.

I personally think that the sea is the secret. The constant run of warm summers and mild winters aid in warming the giant storage heater known as the sea. As it continues to warm, any air mass near us are warmed. Its difficult to get out of that pattern. We need a run of cool summers to cool the sea down. However that energy has to go somewhere. There is alot we don't know about the workings of our climate.

[Bobby]

I personally don't think that a couple of cool months can signal a cool down, however, I think that if over the next 12 months we were to see say 9 or 10 months below average, we could possibly say that "global warming" was slowing down.

I personally think that the sea is the secret. The constant run of warm summers and mild winters aid in warming the giant storage heater known as the sea. As it continues to warm, any air mass near us are warmed. Its difficult to get out of that pattern. We need a run of cool summers to cool the sea down. However that energy has to go somewhere. There is alot we don't know about the workings of our climate.

No we couldn't! Even 9 or 10 months is completely and utterly insignificant in regards to long term climate trends. Even if we have 5 years of cooling, considering warming has been going on for a good 200 years, that to is far far too short a time scale to make any kind fo statement like "global warming is slowing". Maybe 10 or 15 years might be a start to suggest something, but a few months? No way.

[suffolkboy_]

No we couldn't! Even 9 or 10 months is completely and utterly insignificant in regards to long term climate trends. Even if we have 5 years of cooling, considering warming has been going on for a good 200 years, that to is far far too short a time scale to make any kind fo statement like "global warming is slowing". Maybe 10 or 15 years might be a start to suggest something, but a few months? No way.

Yes, point taken, \lthough if we were now to have a run of 10 months below CET, you can imagine all of the discussions which would be on this board. I think global warming does have to be looked at on a global scale, and yes, I am in no doubt that we are warming, although I don't believe that it is caused my humans, many will probably shoot me down for that saying i'm passing on the blame, however I beleive that there other causes, which we don't understand one bit.

[derrylynne]

No we couldn't! Even 9 or 10 months is completely and utterly insignificant in regards to long term climate trends. Even if we have 5 years of cooling, considering warming has been going on for a good 200 years, that to is far far too short a time scale to make any kind fo statement like "global warming is slowing". Maybe 10 or 15 years might be a start to suggest something, but a few months? No way.

And yet every heatwave - every year above average is announced as through global warming. It has long been apparent that pro GW will announce every event as proof of such. Even if we entered an ice age next century they would say it is prrof of nothing and it is still warming....

[Stratos Ferric]

No we couldn't! Even 9 or 10 months is completely and utterly insignificant in regards to long term climate trends. Even if we have 5 years of cooling, considering warming has been going on for a good 200 years, that to is far far too short a time scale to make any kind fo statement like "global warming is slowing". Maybe 10 or 15 years might be a start to suggest something, but a few months? No way.

Very much so. One data point is a point, two a line, and three the beginnings of a trend. The relevance of any given year can only be seen in proper context three or four years on, at the earliest. It's only two or so years ago that SM / Tamara and I were arguing about whether or not there was any merit of three years' decline in CET (albeit totalling about 0.1C which is really well within the +/- rounding error in any given year anyway): I remember one party being quite voluble that a decline was a decline and perhaps things had topped out. Then 2006 came along.

My eyes would have been popping out had last year's leap continued into this. The climate system does have considerable thermal inertia, hence why talk of a 1962/3 winter is hugely misguided, so on the one hand any slow down in warming might be expected to be slow to kick in, but we will only really know whether things have peaked, at least for now, in 2-3 years' time.

And yet every heatwave - every year above average is announced as through global warming. It has long been apparent that pro GW will announce every event as proof of such. Even if we entered an ice age next century they would say it is prrof of nothing and it is still warming....

It's not heatwaves that drive the debate. Taking last year, what was remarkable was that in 2005 the CET was very close to the all time ceiling (in a 350 year run of data), then we got a very big leap to a new all time mark. It's hard to conclude we aren't warming when temperatures generally, and long term trends, are all well above any levels previously measured. As ever, though, I'm open to alternative wisdom if you can find an explanation for a sustained and significant upward movement other than warming.

[JOHN.MAC]

perhaps it may give us a chance of a proper winter for a change

[TEITS]

Here is some interesting facts which I never knew about.

The general consensus believe that increased CO2 emissions are responsible for our current warming and the levels at the moment are around 380PPM (parts per million).

Now did you know that during the late Ordovician period (around 500million years ago) an ice age started around this period and yet the CO2 levels were around 4400ppm which is 12 times higher than today!!.

I'm open to alternative wisdom if you can find an explanation for a sustained and significant upward movement other than warming.

I have two alternative explainations and these are the solar cycles and Milankovitch cycles.

The two of these are the greatest contributors to climate change!.

[Red Raven]

Here is some interesting facts which I never knew about.

The general consensus believe that increased CO2 emissions are responsible for our current warming and the levels at the moment are around 380PPM (parts per million).

Now did you know that during the late Ordovician period (around 500million years ago) an ice age started around this period and yet the CO2 levels were around 4400ppm which is 12 times higher than today!!.

I have two alternative explainations and these are the solar cycles and Milankovitch cycles.

The two of these are the greatest contributors to climate change!.

Most of the land mass formed the huge continent of Gondwanaland at that time and areas such as land now around the Med where at the south pole so glaciation was to be expected, also a continent of this size would cool hugely during winters.

(isnt there 1 too many 0 on that 4400ppm?)

[TEITS]

(isnt there 1 too many 0 on that 4400ppm?)

Not according to this.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/...us_climate.html