Overhype on global warming

[jethro]

All of what you say P3 is valid, I'm not disputing any of it but as I said that is the science, complete, incomplete, whichever way you want to take it. My point is perception. The science can be as cast iron as you like but the man in the street will measure its' validity and therefore judgement on whether or not it is important for him personally to take any remedial action, or be compliant with any tax increases, based on what he personally is experiencing. Currently and recently it has been mild in the winter and warmer in the summer, if this were to change and in all probability it will; AGW has not over-ridden natural drivers yet, then the majority of people cajoled and encouraged by the hype and media, will dismiss AGW as baloney. My back yard will be the dominant factor not sea levels half way across the world.

When it comes to the models, I disagree completely with your stance, I have always maintained that their predictions can in no way accurately foretell the future when so many important, natural forces are not included, I'm not alone in my thinking. This link has been posted elsewhere but I will post it again in case you haven't seen it.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/20...of_climate.html

[HighPressure]

Thank you P3 for a most interesting and enlightening reply as always.

Jethro: I agree if you do not think Ozone depletion plays a significant role in GW then you will not factor in a significant effect upon its replenishment. This does make me feel uncomfortable especially when it is admitted that we do not have a full understanding between Ozone and atmosphere and although the effects maybe perceived as small a catalyst effect cannot be ruled out.

[The Eagle]

You know the predictions in the 70's have yet to be explained......Please Im waiting. BTW dont use a technological argument because they were equally confident in their predictions as they are now and modelling the climate has not progressed significantly since then. Modelling today of weather and climate is hopelessly out of date. So will someone please enlighten me as to exactly how we cannot forcast 5 days ahead properly and yet you people seem to be able to say to me that we are in a dire prediciment with 'Climate change'. Bare in mind the media uses this term regularly WITHOUT refering to 'man made' which is very interesting.

The problem is that everything that AGW fanatics say is speculation. It can be described as no more and no less because they have no solid evidence for these claims. Every 'expert' is compromised and failure to realise the cyclical nature of the climate is the most damning indictment of the media (and those who believe in AGW) in general. Either they are completely stupid people or they cannot (or will not) differentiate between weather and climate. This is the problem.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Darkman

[The Eagle]

Weather is random. As such it is unpredictable. This leads to weather events that could be described as freak. But then freak weather events have ALWAYS happened. Are we to seriously believe that Hurricanes or exceptionally warm weather is due to 'Climate change'!? Absolute rubbish. Such events have ALWAYS occurred. The difference being without the muppetry we see here and in the media. I challenge anyone to tell me that in 30 years time the predictions of the IPCC and others will be proved right. Of course no one will because they cant and hence they prefer to prophesise this propaganda to those who should know better. Its easy to come to uniformed opinions behind a computer screen. Your fooling nobody.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Darkman

[Devonian]

I think that Jethro has exhaustedly and repeatedly tried to explain to you why synoptical weather patterns and AGW are separate and very unequal contributory entities, views which I fully endorse - clearly to your annoyance, which is a pity.

Tamara

Actually, for me the whole problem is no one has explained why they think synoptics the drivers, they just state it

Weather is random. As such it is unpredictable. This leads to weather events that could be described as freak. But then freak weather events have ALWAYS happened. Are we to seriously believe that Hurricanes or exceptionally warm weather is due to 'Climate change'!? Absolute rubbish. Such events have ALWAYS occurred. The difference being without the muppetry we see here and in the media. I challenge anyone to tell me that in 30 years time the predictions of the IPCC and others will be proved right. Of course no one will because they cant and hence they prefer to prophesise this propaganda to those who should know better. Its easy to come to uniformed opinions behind a computer screen. Your fooling nobody.

Weather isn't random, it's driven by energy. If it were random it could snow in Devon tomorrow - will it?

You know the predictions in the 70's have yet to be explained......Please Im waiting. BTW dont use a technological argument because they were equally confident in their predictions as they are now and modelling the climate has not progressed significantly since then. Modelling today of weather and climate is hopelessly out of date. So will someone please enlighten me as to exactly how we cannot forcast 5 days ahead properly and yet you people seem to be able to say to me that we are in a dire prediciment with 'Climate change'.

Yes, because weather and climate are not the same thing - climate forecasts are of averages not absolutes. I can't forecast the height of an individual but I can forecast average male height if I know the inputs to it.

[parmenides3]

Darkman: I did answer your comments about the 1970s, several pages ago: did you not like my answer? You are not comparing like with like.

jethro, HP: thanks, I was already familiar with the Trenberth post, as it has been discussed a bit on the climate blogs. What does it say? It is an argument for initialising climate models, in other words, programming in known current observed data and running the models from there. This is a part of a discussion within climate science circles about whether climate modelling is an initial value problem or a boundary one; weather models work from initial values, climate models from boundary states.

Why does Trenberth say this is important? Because, as they stand, climate models are limited in the accuracy of their regional forecasts - no better than weather models are for forecasts beyond 15 days. He argues that climate models need to be developed so that they can be better predictive tools for regional climate projections. He also says, clearly, that the existing method works well for global forcings (CO2, Solar, GHGs...). Within this, you should note that the models don't claim to predict or forecast actual weather events, only the underlying trends, in other words, the likelihood that a summer in the southern UK will be warmer/dryer/wetter/cooler.

I'm curious, jethro, to know which natural forcings you think are not included in climate models; the current generation include solar, albedo, soot, ice albedo, vegetation variations (based on land use type), variations in ocean conditions and heat flux, the ozone layers, and several other natural elements, besides the man made forcing agents. They are hugely sophisticated. The technical document describing the formulae used in one of the Hadley models runs to 700-odd pages of almost pure maths, all of which is factored into the models.

OTOH, I agree pretty much with what you say about our response to GW: this is one of the problems that need to be addressed; GW is not simply visible, and evidence for it is not per se substantive, but statistical/ numerical (though, of course, the numbers come from the measured conditions). The stronger projected impacts of GW are decades away, and their timing and nature filled with uncertainty. One of the reasons scientists are worried is because they don't know exactly what will happen if temperatures rise by 3C, even though they can be fairly sure that, as things stand, our activities are leading us on a pathway where this rise is becoming increasingly likely.

So: we all need to find out what the real issues of GW are, we need to assume that all media pronouncements are at best misguided and sensationalist, with a few exceptions, and we need to understand that what the government does is not driven, yet, by a real understanding of, or commitment to, preventing the worst of future speculated scenarios. Then we need to understand what the scientists do, and what they are trying to do, with their research and their modelling. For those who are willing to make the effort, the IPCC contains a very large section detailing the reliability and the limitations of the climate models; these are well understood, yet, even so, there is a high level of confidence in the projection of future warming.

I am not advocating absolute faith in the output of climate models here; all I am trying to claim is that the models work well enough, and the physics is well enough understood, for us to be fairly sure that the current warming trend will continue for the next several decades unless something extreme happens. If anyone wishes to take issue with this claim, I will challenge you to provide a reason why we should doubt this, or why the temperature trend might or will reverse.

Regards,

:)P

Tamara; just seen your post; I'll try to respond a bit later, but you've asked a lot of questions. Have to go out for a while, now. :)P

Edited August 9, 2007 by parmenides3

[parmenides3]

Right, I'm back. I'll try to address some of your comments, Tamara, but there is so much there, I can't promise to do them all justice straight away.

First; your comment about the pressures on scientists and presuppositions seems to get to the heart of the problem; you don't know whether you can trust what they say, not only because there are doubts about the methods they use, but also because it isn't clear to you that they are unbiased, or balanced, in their work.

There is no question that scientific academia has its own internal politicking and pressures for publication, etc., but against this, you have to balance the point that the journals will not normally publish 'bad' science, ie., work where the data is skewed or the conclusions do not follow from the evidence. You also need to remember that one 'suspect' paper can ruin a scientist's reputation for life, so getting it right is the driving force behind most of the work that is done. Scientists are ordinary people with specialist jobs, so they have their own thoughts and opinions, but they also have a strong ethic of aspiration to truth. This is why fraudulent claims are so vilified, and why so much of what is published is couched in carefull, 'cover-my-a8s8' language.

It is also important to remember that, for many years now, some organisations have expended millions in 'grants' to scientists to demonstrate that GW is not caused by fossil fuel burning, or, at least, to cast doubt on this assertion. Whilst there is still much to learn and debate in climate science, the failure to find an alternative explanation which stands up to scientific scrutiny, along with an ever increasing body of evidence for the claim of AGW, now puts us in a position where the doubt, where there is any at all, revolves around more esoteric issues, such as the relative role of land-use change, the mechanics of aerosol forcing and feedback, or the accuracy of estimates of climate sensitivity. Note, too, that the 'IPCC-line' is very much middle of the road; 'sceptics' and 'alarmists' alike exist, with perhaps more alarmists than sceptics, and there now seems to be an increasing body of concern that the estimates of GW and its impacts are too conservative, if anything.

Your next comment draws my attention to the need to be a bit more precise in what I say. Rather than talk of 'greater' or 'lesser' forcings, we should really be thinking in terms of forcings which have a strong positive or negative signal, and those which have a comparatively weak one, as well as considering the forcings where no clear conclusion has yet been reached due to insufficient data (generally, the timescale of many observations is too short, as most of them are based on satellite-era technology). As far as the climate models are concerned, the details of what is included vary from one run to another; even with supercomputers running at terahertz and almost petahertz speeds, a full 300 year run (1900-2200) using all the physics and all the forcings and feedbacks can take several weeks, if not months. As a result, these are set up very carefully and a lot of work is done on the output; such an expensive procedure needs to be both as free from error as possible, and capable of extensive interpretation. But the full runs do include every known forcing and feedback, run at high resolutions, and including the best known physics and data available. So, the 'lesser' forcings (with weaker signals) are used, and analysed, extensively.

As far as I understand it (it gets a bit technical, here), there are formulae for most/all of the chemical and physical processes which affect the climate. Many of these have been derived from NWP models, others come from known physics or chemistry. Some of these formulae are known to be less than perfect, in that they don't reproduce observed conditions precisely enough, but the principles on which they are based is sound. The process of working out which forcings and feedbacks are in play is known as detection and attribution; it is a whole subset of climate science on its own. Detection and attribution studies generally 'play' with the known variables in all sorts of ways, until the model runs replicate observations reasonably accurately. This can be a complex process, too, as other forcings need to be programmed to respond in as lifelike a way as possible, and feedbacks need to be fed back into the whole process.

There have been several major detection and attribution studies done in the past several years, and they have all come up with broadly comparable results; the detail is often interestingly different, but the strength of the forcings and their signal values fall within a measurable range. This is why the IPCC table of climate forcings and feedbacks gives a range of possible values for each element. It also seems to work on the assumption that a roughly 'middle ground' between extremes, or, better, an ensemble comparison, yield the (statistically) most likely results. As well as the model runs, there are also statistical models, which are almost purely mathematical procedures which attempt to establish values for these elements by a process of first principle, rather than observation. There has been a bit of a trend recently to suggest that the most accurate estimates come from a combination of both approaches, run in ensemble, though the veracity of this has yet to be fully tested.

The question you ask me directly next is a bit confusing. I think this answers it: of the 1800 scientists I asked, about 8% were identifiable as contributors or lead authors of the IPCC AR4 WG1 report. As far as I could, I tried to include representatives to cover 'all climate scientists'. As the paper has been submitted and is awaiting approval for publication, I can't say much more about it at the moment, but I promise to provide more information if it does get accepted and published. The sum of all the negative 'forcings' you previously mentioned, Solar and synoptic (though synoptics are not actually forcings), would certainly be strong enough to provide seasonal and interannual variations in the weather. But it does get a bit complicated dealing with both the AO, ENSO and GW; I think this is confusing matters somewhat, as we are dealing with two different beasts here. As I understand your question, the conclusion that positive forcings outweigh negative ones is the IPCC line.

I'm no expert on the AO or synoptics, but these are drivers of weather, are they not, rather than climate forcings? As such, they produce effects which can be global, but which tend to be regional. Whilst weather models need to factor the AO and other synoptics in (initial conditions !), climate models need to be checked to see whether they models such phenomena accurately; in other words, whether the trends in AO patterns result from the input into the models. I get the impression that climate models do some of the synoptic trends reasonably well, but not others (like ENSO); this is why Trenberth thinks they need to have initial conditions values incorporated. The ECMWF is currently working on a 'combination' model, which starts climate runs from NWP model data; the aim is to provide reliable forecast for a range from 15 days all the way out to about five or ten years. Like the NASA models, it is experimental, and its skill is not yet known.

Following what I have said above, I don't know whether AO data is fed into climate models (though I can find out...), but I am sure that all solar variables, including the upcoming 'Gliessberg minimum', are intensely scrutinised, and invariably factored into the analyses; this is because the Sun is the source of almost all of the energy in the climate system, ans even small variations have an impact on climate. A models which did not include all known information about past and future solar variations would be of little use.

On the question of the ocean's response to climate change, there is a great deal of uncertainty. there simply is not enough reliable historical data on which to reach firm conclusions. But it is important to understand that some of the concerns of the last decade, like a potential 'shut down' of the THC, have been studied a great deal, due to the likely consequences of such an event. As things stand, the general agreement is that a slow down of circulation is likely, eventually, but a complete shut down is quite unlikely. Hadley's work on this (which is as good as any in the World) suggests that the most likely situation is that, if current trends continue, the UK and the North Atlantic may face a cooling effect in the latter part of the 21st century, but that, by then, the warming will have increased to such an extent that all this will do is 'return' our climate to current conditions, give or take, for a few years, after which, the underlying global warming will start heating us up again. This is not a strong projection: it is more like a 'best guess' (I hope this isn't misunderstood). The truth is, we simply don't know enough yet about the ocean systems or the freshening of NA water by Arctic influx, to be sure what might happen, or when. Again, this is a cause for concern; there is evidence that things in the Arctic are changing faster even than the models/scientists expected, and evidence that these changes are not likely to slow down, so almost anything is possible.

On your later comments, I'd remind you that the IPCC doesn't do any of the science; it is more like a 'summary' of all the different work going on all around the world. I'll not comment on its specific recommendations, as these are to do with policy and government, and are contentious, or whether their policyconclusions do, legitimately, follow from the science which they have in the WG1 report. I'd also point out that most of the debate pre-publication between the lead authors and governments was about the governments trying to 'soften' the language of the report, and the lead authors trying to hold on to the strength of the scientific data; the governments won, so the finsished report was negatively compromised, not an over-dramatisation.

At bottom, your doubts seem to be based on a belief that the scientific evidence is compromised by political interference, or pressure; is this correct? A small number of scientists might agree with you, but most would probably argue that their work is not about 'desired results', it is about getting to the truth of the matter, whoever or whatever this means in the bigger picture.

As far as rigour and thoroughness, the only thing I can suggest is that you read some of the open access papers in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, or Climate of the Past, or any one of a number of journals, and judge for yourself how careful and considered the vast majority of scientific work is.

I am not sure what to say about 'trusting' the climate models. They are not the final word, but they have been constructed with the greatest care and diligence. Their output is not absolutely reliable, but the trends and patterns of climate change they show are repeated time and time again, in a host of different experiments, and in a large number of studies. I do not suggest that we must 'trust' what they tell us without doubt or questioning, but I will say that, as far as whether or not it is likely to get warmer around the world over the next forty years is concerned, the case for this is very, very strong.

I know that I have only touched the surface on many of your intelligent and important observations, but look how much I have written already! Sorry for the oversights; they were coincidental. I don't know what your feelings will be about what I have tried to say here, but I will only conclude with the observation that, about a year ago, I entered into research on the subject with a vast ignorance and a huge set of misguided assumptions, and it has only been through long and considered research and debate that I have reached a point where I can say with some confidence that I am convinced that we face a real problem in the long term, that much of that problem is of our own making, and that AGW is the single largest threat to our grandchildren and their way of life tht currently exists. If this is understood as hype or exaggeration, then so be it; I'll continue to do my best to convince people that there really is a problem, and that they shouldn't trust what they read in the media.

Respectfully,

:)P

[Stratos Ferric]

Right, I'm back. I'll try to address some of your comments, Tamara, but there is so much there, I can't promise to do them all justice straight away.

...

Respectfully,

P

P3, one of the very best posts I've ever seen posted on N-W. Tamara is quite right to be grateful for such a considered and well constructed response.

The best argument I have seen for current models is that when supplied with historic data and known forcings they replicate reasonably well (within the available parameters for precision) the general change in the global climate since then and upto the present time. I haven't checked for evidence of this recently, but when I looked a few years ago this was certainly true, and I very much doubt that capability or understanding has gone backwards since.

You're quite correct to challenge Tamara's point re recent weather; the vageuries of the AO are just that, short-term synoptic variation as opposed to climatic substance. I would take an excpetionally warm or cold spell as no more than variation; what always matters is the period trend.

I do sometimes suspect that were we all still to ba around twenty years' time, and assuming temps have warmed by a further 1C or so by then, there would still be a body of people hanging onto prospects for something cooler, for whatever reason.

[Gray-Wolf]

Darkman, I'd love to live in your world of absolutes! In the 70's we were only in the starting ripples of the changes we have all lived through (global dimming, which was not recognised/quantified until the late 80's) .We all know we are in an interglacial and are as stumped as to the first signs of entering another glaciation as we are to recognising the full implications of our tinkering.

Would you have all of science mute until 'definite' are proven or, as we are, have folk postulate as to what they think may be occurring, with the evidence then available, at any given time?

Questions will always beg questions and the end result, as I see it, is knowledge.

How would you have things done so as to avoid these occasional misinterpretations?

Anyhoo, you'd better make peace with your gods as if all your up to is picking apart science whilst the planet frazzles you're gonna be caught up in it all (methinks)

[jethro]

P3, one of the very best posts I've ever seen posted on N-W. Tamara is quite right to be grateful for such a considered and well constructed response.

The best argument I have seen for current models is that when supplied with historic data and known forcings they replicate reasonably well (within the available parameters for precision) the general change in the global climate since then and upto the present time. I haven't checked for evidence of this recently, but when I looked a few years ago this was certainly true, and I very much doubt that capability or understanding has gone backwards since.

You're quite correct to challenge Tamara's point re recent weather; the vageuries of the AO are just that, short-term synoptic variation as opposed to climatic substance. I would take an excpetionally warm or cold spell as no more than variation; what always matters is the period trend.

I do sometimes suspect that were we all still to ba around twenty years' time, and assuming temps have warmed by a further 1C or so by then, there would still be a body of people hanging onto prospects for something cooler, for whatever reason.

SF, have to agree re P3's post, superb. But, Tamara was originally responding to my earlier posts about perception. I don't think anyone here is saying the AO, NAD, ENSO etc can account for current warming nor indeed mitigate any further warming. This discussion seems to be going down the usual route of why people agree with AGW and how most things have been covered in the research; however intelligently or politely it may be couched it is still "if you think it's natural, prove it". My original point was the weather in this country is what the man in the street measures their belief in AGW against. Weather in recent years, the warm summers and mild winters are not a reflection of AGW but a result of synoptics. These chop and change and the weather follows suit; the point being if or when synoptics deliver cooler winters and summers like this year, then all the science in the world won't convince Joe Bloggs. The media will lead the way with headlines of "What happened to global warming" if we get a cold, snowy winter. The linking of every weather event to climate change mis-informs on an almost daily basis but you have to have an interest, read some more in-depth stuff to realise the difference between weather and climate and I don't believe the general public have or are likely to.

[saint]

i think there is overhype on global warming but then alot of it is true so i am stuck is it overhype or not

[HighPressure]

I must echo the words above an excellent post from P3 there are some bits I would like to come back on later. It's good to have someone who has a great deal of knowledge stop and take the time to give such full and informed answers to questions.

Jethro: I know your initial question was about peoples perception but I also welcome the opportunity to gain some knowledge about climate models, do we need to have another topic or can we just allow this thread serve both purposes?

[parmenides3]

i think there is overhype on global warming but then alot of it is true so i am stuck is it overhype or not

Hi saint: there's no need to be stuck, because the two are not in conflict. I agree completely with jethro, that the media's tendency to attribute everything that happens with the weather as 'proof of our future in a GW world', is absolute rubbish; the only answer a sane scientist who works in met or climate science can give to the question ''are we ikely to see more of these sorts of extremes with more GW?" is 'Possibly', or 'probably'. That the weather patterns will change is fairly likely. What will happen to the UK weather in any given season will remain as variable as it ever has, with the proviso that Winter nights are very likely to be less cold, and there may be a North/South divide in the Summer (but where's the surprise in this?).

So; the media exaggerate the significance of our current weather; as jethro says, every time we get something 'unusual' (which is often not that unusual anyway), the same nonsense gets trotted out. I don't know whether our tendency to do the same is a reflection of the media's attitude, or if its the other way round. Either way, its a natural misunderstanding, but its still wrong.

This doesn't mean that GW is not happening, nor does it mean that GW is not going to be a problem, but in ways, and places, which we don't often see discussed, because they aren't dramatic and they aren't happening to us, here and now. If you want to address a proper question about the effects of GW, try: 'How are we going to house, feed, protect and enrich all 10 billion people on Earth in 60 years' time, if we don't manage to slow down the pace of climate change, and if to do so requires us to find new ways of generating energy?' This is what GW is really about.

Thank you to all for the kind words. I blush. But not for long.

:)P

[saint]

Hi saint: there's no need to be stuck, because the two are not in conflict. I agree completely with jethro, that the media's tendency to attribute everything that happens with the weather as 'proof of our future in a GW world', is absolute rubbish; the only answer a sane scientist who works in met or climate science can give to the question ''are we ikely to see more of these sorts of extremes with more GW?" is 'Possibly', or 'probably'. That the weather patterns will change is fairly likely. What will happen to the UK weather in any given season will remain as variable as it ever has, with the proviso that Winter nights are very likely to be less cold, and there may be a North/South divide in the Summer (but where's the surprise in this?).

So; the media exaggerate the significance of our current weather; as jethro says, every time we get something 'unusual' (which is often not that unusual anyway), the same nonsense gets trotted out. I don't know whether our tendency to do the same is a reflection of the media's attitude, or if its the other way round. Either way, its a natural misunderstanding, but its still wrong.

This doesn't mean that GW is not happening, nor does it mean that GW is not going to be a problem, but in ways, and places, which we don't often see discussed, because they aren't dramatic and they aren't happening to us, here and now. If you want to address a proper question about the effects of GW, try: 'How are we going to house, feed, protect and enrich all 10 billion people on Earth in 60 years' time, if we don't manage to slow down the pace of climate change, and if to do so requires us to find new ways of generating energy?' This is what GW is really about.

Thank you to all for the kind words. I blush. But not for long.

P

thanks p for solving my stuckness

saint

[parmenides3]

You're welcome. Do you have an opinion about jethro's comments which you'd like to share?

:)P

[saint]

You're welcome. Do you have an opinion about jethro's comments which you'd like to share?

P

well i agree with j and everyone else how say you posts are amazing which they are

saint

[parmenides3]

fine, thank you, but do you find the media helpful, aproblem, annoying, confusing, or what?

:)P

[saint]

fine, thank you, but do you find the media helpful, aproblem, annoying, confusing, or what?

P

most of the time very annoying

[Stratos Ferric]

...Weather in recent years, the warm summers and mild winters are not a reflection of AGW but a result of synoptics. These chop and change and the weather follows suit; the point being if or when synoptics deliver cooler winters and summers like this year, then all the science in the world won't convince Joe Bloggs. The media will lead the way with headlines of "What happened to global warming" if we get a cold, snowy winter. The linking of every weather event to climate change mis-informs on an almost daily basis but you have to have an interest, read some more in-depth stuff to realise the difference between weather and climate and I don't believe the general public have or are likely to.

I agree, but then the same is equally true of much of life. You only have to have a brief perusal of some of the responses in serious discussions on here to see the problem. Having an opinion is easy; having an informed opinion is rather different: alas, the one does not preclude the other.

Not sure I completely agree that the any sustained warm / cold is "just synoptics". The fact is that climate change would require significant change in the macro-scale circulation, something that TWS and I have often mentioned on here. That macro-scale change would force changes in the day-to-day synoptics, hence why I am increasingly inclined to roll my eyes when this site, in winter, is replete with "if only we had the right synoptics" type posts. The whole point of climate change is that synoptics change, and that's why the weather in, say, the Med, is different to what it is hereabouts.

Yes, there are always extremes at either end of the scale, but for there to be a trend in climate there has to be one in weather, and for that to be changing then so must be synoptics at the MACRO scale.

[jethro]

I must echo the words above an excellent post from P3 there are some bits I would like to come back on later. It's good to have someone who has a great deal of knowledge stop and take the time to give such full and informed answers to questions.

Jethro: I know your initial question was about peoples perception but I also welcome the opportunity to gain some knowledge about climate models, do we need to have another topic or can we just allow this thread serve both purposes?

I welcome the chance too. I just wanted to make absolutely sure that the discussion about synoptics and weather in this thread was entirely unconnected to any discussion about the validity of AGW. So many threads in the environment section begin on different topics but many end up following the same path of whether or not AGW is real, do the scientists/IPCC have all the answers. All valid discussions but I've enjoyed the more mature, interesting posts this thread has attracted, I'd be disappointed if the thread started to attract the usual volley of we're right, you're wrong. At the end of the day, no one will ever have all the answers and I doubt anyone here will live long enough to be able to give a hindcast review of these times. We're all going to have to work together and find some common ground eventually; this thread has revealed some common ground from both sides of the debate,just trying to foster the opportunity to explore this further. There are many more who read these threads than post and I often wonder if one of the reasons why more people don't post is because they are put off by the antagonism they degenerate into or perhaps because they haven't read or absorbed all the science referred to. I know when I first began posting I was shot down in flames, or at least felt as though I had been and it was intimidating taking on those who appeared to know so much more than I. This thread is about hype, you don't need to be qualified or have digested endless scientific questions in order to have an opinion on that; I want more opinions from more people. Anyway, enough from me, I'm off for a long weekend away, have fun folks.

[HighPressure]

Thanks for that Jethro, and I too welcome this thread staying adult as you say its not about right or wrong and its great to be able to have discussion with all sides because all have valid points. I have always been the type of person to question things, that does not mean I understand better or that I think the AGW supporters are wrong just that I need to form my own opinion.

As for hype, I stated before I think that this is something that AGW supporters should be wary of as if you get the reaction you want for the wrong reason's and those reason's disappear you could find yourself in real trouble. The answer to your original question is as others have stated a resounding YES, simply if the guy in the street's back yard is not flooded or scorched they will think GW has gone away.

As for models I found this on BBC tonight that might be of interest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6939347.stm

Edited August 10, 2007 by HighPressure

[Devonian]

I welcome the chance too. I just wanted to make absolutely sure that the discussion about synoptics and weather in this thread was entirely unconnected to any discussion about the validity of AGW. So many threads in the environment section begin on different topics but many end up following the same path of whether or not AGW is real, do the scientists/IPCC have all the answers. All valid discussions but I've enjoyed the more mature, interesting posts this thread has attracted, I'd be disappointed if the thread started to attract the usual volley of we're right, you're wrong. At the end of the day, no one will ever have all the answers and I doubt anyone here will live long enough to be able to give a hindcast review of these times. We're all going to have to work together and find some common ground eventually; this thread has revealed some common ground from both sides of the debate,just trying to foster the opportunity to explore this further. There are many more who read these threads than post and I often wonder if one of the reasons why more people don't post is because they are put off by the antagonism they degenerate into or perhaps because they haven't read or absorbed all the science referred to. I know when I first began posting I was shot down in flames, or at least felt as though I had been and it was intimidating taking on those who appeared to know so much more than I. This thread is about hype, you don't need to be qualified or have digested endless scientific questions in order to have an opinion on that; I want more opinions from more people. Anyway, enough from me, I'm off for a long weekend away, have fun folks.

Jethro, how can someone tell it's hype if they're not 'qualified' to be able to tell if it is?

I do agree with you in that I'd also rather not feel intimidated either, though for me by the insults some direct at 'warmers', and I'd also like to see less antagonism directed at said by some here. I'm being sincere here - I'm sick of it too. I'm sick of the disrespect show by some here towards scientists who have forgotten more than said people will ever know about climatology, I'm sick of the rubbishing, the - no, I better stop, I'll get accused of something or other

Edited August 10, 2007 by Devonian

[Stratos Ferric]

Stratos Ferric, I don't think they are just short term variation. AO cycles which have been plotted over the years have had a significant contribution to climatic trends. My point about the last year is a very valid one - such short term variations become very important when the effect of these teleconnectic cycles become extraploated over the longer term too, producing similar changes in pattern to the one we have seen over the last 12 months. Add up their potential similar effects over the much longer term and they form an integral element amongst all the other elements to make up 'climatic substance'. One cannot cherry pick the contributory elements to suit the purpose, which was one part of the theme of my post re climatic research yesterday to PM3

No-one knows exactly what is going to be happening in twenty years, Stratos Ferric, including yourself regrettably. So your further 1C plus rise in temps remains as speculative and equal and free to debate as the speculative projections the rest of us make. Whether we are 'informed' or 'not informed' as you may see it

No further from me on this line of reply: I look forward to being able to return to PM3 post , when time permits, rather than here.

Tamara

Tamara, there may well be a correlation between AO cycles and regional fluctuation in weather, but that does not for one moment mean that the AO is the driving mechanism, andy more than the flywheel in my car is the source of motive power for my drive shaft - even though the flywheel will only spin when the engine is running, and then in proportion to engine speed more or less. AO is a simply a statement of difference related to other synoptic scale features; the changes we're talking about are at the macro level. Yes, there may be occasional feedback eddies, but these are generally short-term and localised in scale.

I know you "don't think" they are short term variations, but the problem I always find myself facing in these discussions with you is my sense that your starting point is that you don't want them to be either. If you only ever go looking for one answer than that's the answer you'll see.

As I keep saying to the secptical community; be as sceptical as you like, but I continue to wonder at what point you draw the mental line in the sand such that you would concede that there might just be something in all the evidence of sustained warming. Or will you continue to reel out the same arguments even if the climate does warm by 1, 2 or 3C?

[parmenides3]

SF: I may be misunderstanding, but Tamara does have a point, though it may not be the one she thinks it is. Straying away from UK weather to the Arctic, the AO signal is significant in a number of ways. But there is a point here; the AO is, I believe, a description of a cyclical pattern of synoptics, but it is also a climate phenomenon which acts to drive weather and climate patterns around it. This is where I think the misunderstandings are happening. The AO is, AFAIK, not a climate forcing, but it is a climate driver. The distinction is important.

Therefore, what happens with the AO makes a difference to our experience of the weather. (I know, you know all this, but others don't). But when was the last time we saw a news headline which ran 'Wet Summer caused by change in AO signal'? (If this were the case).

I would say, though, that whilst a projection of a warming of 1C in the next X years is open to debate, to say it is as speculative as any other projection is to ignore, or reject, the body of evidence which supports it. Which, of course, is what you, Tamara, want to do. If it were the case that such projections, as put forward by scientists, were based on insufficient calculations, then the ground might be more even. My contention is that the grounds on which scientists base these projections is sufficient, whether they are complete or not, and the odds of them being wrong have reduced substantially in the past ten years, and continue to reduce as metric after metric indicates an ongoing process of warming, with no signals indicating a reversal. If we want to argue that further warming is unlikely, or that the projections are speculative, we need to have both a physical reason (like ocean heat uptake) and a mathematical/statistical reason, to indicate why such ideas might be wrong.

Though we are still hijacking jethro's original intention, to discuss hype, I have seen a decent essay recently about climate models, which I'll try to find and post for you to read. To those people who get annoyed, or confused, by the rubbish we hear on TV, my best recommendation is to do what Eli Rabett always suggests; RTFR, or 'read the f report'. Either read the actual science papers or, if you can't stand that thought, read the summaries by people who you trust to be fair in their summarising.

A side point; there is frequently talk of 'sides'; a 'we and them' mentality. Yes, there are people who think that GW is a serious problem, and those who think the problems are exaggerated. But this doesn't need to place any of us in a 'camp' or 'side', or engender any labels. We are all trying to understand for ourselves what is going on, and trying to do this against a background of 'noise' which makes deciding what is true or false, right or wrong, very hard. None of us has a monopoly on truth or certainty, all of us have a tendency to accept what supports our own prejudices and be sceptical about that which contradicts them. In other words, talk of 'sides' is redundant. The only people who benefit from polarising the debate are the extremists at both ends of the scale, who are seeking confrontation and using polemic, but whose interest are not in truth or understanding, but in bullying us into thinking like them.

So, my recommendation is that none of us assumes any 'stance' by others, that we banish into obscurity accusative usage of terms such as 'denialist' and 'environazi', and concentrate on what really matters; learning about what is actually happening to our climate/weather, and reasoning our way, together, to an open acceptance of differences which reflect the different people we are.

Is this all nonsense?

:)P

Edited August 10, 2007 by parmenides3

[VillagePlank]

A side point; there is frequently talk of 'sides'; a 'we and them' mentality. Yes, there are people who think that GW is a serious problem, and those who think the problems are exaggerated. But this doesn't need to place any of us in a 'camp' or 'side', or engender any labels. We are all trying to understand for ourselves what is going on, and trying to do this against a background of 'noise' which makes deciding what is true or false, right or wrong, very hard. None of us has a monopoly on truth or certainty, all of us have a tendency to accept what supports our own prejudices and be sceptical about that which contradicts them. In other words, talk of 'sides' is redundant. The only people who benefit from polarising the debate are the extremists at both ends of the scale, who are seeking confrontation and using polemic, but whose interest are not in truth or understanding, but in bullying us into thinking like them.

So, my recommendation is that none of us assumes any 'stance' by others, that we banish into obscurity accusative usage of terms such as 'denialist' and 'environazi', and concentrate on what really matters; learning about what is actually happening to our climate/weather, and reasoning our way, together, to an open acceptance of differences which reflect the different people we are.

An excellent perspective, P3