Yet another year of exceptional global warmth

[Bobby]

It does not appear that part believing or leaving the door open to any views from either camp is seen as a position you can legitimately take

That I think is wrong. Certainly for me. Science is about leaving the door open to other views, NOTHING in science is certain, not even the theory of gravity or the laws of motion. Just because someone doesn't accept your views doesn't mean they are not open minded and aren't exploring the possibilities, they just don't believe the views are correct.

If there was a major discovery finding some previously unknown source that can explain the changes in the climate then I doubt there will be many climate scientists who would simply dismiss it if it was valid.

I really wish personal things like this would be left out of this debate.

the science is incomplete much remains to be understood and researched.

So are basically all scientific theories. That's not an argument against it. We just have to use the evidence we have to make the best judgment we can which is what the scientists do.

[Gray-Wolf]

GW: the assumption that the old cycle does not function in the way it used to is a fine example of what I said in my earlier post. There is absolutely no evidence or scientific support for this assumption. There is ample evidence that the Arctic has been warmer in the last couple of decades but that is such a short time snap, it proves very little. As you are aware there have been papers (peer reviewed) from well respected authors which say catagorically, this has happened before, there are cycles at play here. I know you have seen this before as I've linked to it in a few threads:

How many 'long cycles do you need to see to accept change?

The ice 'oop north' will be all but dead by the end of next summer (09) and the 'changed dynamics' of both the open waters but also the river outflows will radically change eventually all the ocean basins (nothing can occur in isolation in a closed system). meanwhile you would rather sit and wait another 70yrs to watch another cycle play out?

The 'divisions' between AGW believers seem to be emerging as we enter the period of rapid change. Some talk in terms of 'limiting emissions' and 'carbon allowances' whilst others ,me included, see an approaching catastrophy that cannot be stopped as the ice sheets /shelves catastrophically collapse.

As I've prattled on about the impact of a minor (but rapid) sea level rise (over a season) putting greater dynamic stresses on where Ice shelves attach to the sea bed/land surface and their subsequent failure (adding a few metres over a season) I cannot see any 'long game' before the developed nations are failing and falling ......certainly not enough time for even a few El-Nino/La nina cycles to elapse!

[jethro]

How many 'long cycles do you need to see to accept change?

The ice 'oop north' will be all but dead by the end of next summer (09) and the 'changed dynamics' of both the open waters but also the river outflows will radically change eventually all the ocean basins (nothing can occur in isolation in a closed system). meanwhile you would rather sit and wait another 70yrs to watch another cycle play out?

The 'divisions' between AGW believers seem to be emerging as we enter the period of rapid change. Some talk in terms of 'limiting emissions' and 'carbon allowances' whilst others ,me included, see an approaching catastrophy that cannot be stopped as the ice sheets /shelves catastrophically collapse.

As I've prattled on about the impact of a minor (but rapid) sea level rise (over a season) putting greater dynamic stresses on where Ice shelves attach to the sea bed/land surface and their subsequent failure (adding a few metres over a season) I cannot see any 'long game' before the developed nations are failing and falling ......certainly not enough time for even a few El-Nino/La nina cycles to elapse!

Why would we need to wait for another long cycle to play out in order to gauge this? As is discussed in the Polyakov papers, this extent of ice loss has been experienced before; not in the dim and distant past but in the earlier decades of the 20th century. Why would drastic ice loss have such a radical impact upon a system this time round, when it did not the last time? How can we have gone from a situation very similar to today's ice volume, to a situation of much greater ice concentration in a short time span from the 30's to the 70's and yet not expect the same in the future? The ice loss in the early 20th century did not change the dynamics to the extent that the ice disappeared completely, never to be seen again. The river outflows and ocean basins were not radically changed, why would they be this time around?

With the greatest of respect GW, I have provided peer reviewed, scientific papers from a well respected, leading authority to explain and support my point of view; you seem reluctant to discuss this paper despite me posting it several times. I have asked before if you could possibly find time to read it and post your thoughts, any chance you could do that so that we may discuss this further?

[Gray-Wolf]

As you can see from the above the cold water anom over the Antarctic/pacific Ridge is back and in full force (as over the past 2 southern summers) again it is 'in front of itself' this season. No papers on this phenomena yet.

So far as your paper was concerned I'd posted (on one of these here threads) the photographic evidence of the onset of ice melt (mainly Greenland/Alaskan melt) from the 30's prior to the 'globally dimmed' period (where the rapid retreat slowed) The 'revitalisation' ,in the 70's/80's ,of the polar/arctic melt has more to do with the clean air act than any multidecadal 'cycle' (but may have been a 'driven' cycle due to the warming comfirmed by these 'early' observations).

It would seem a lot clearer to me if what we had started to witness (driven by global temp hikes) in the 30's was the start of what is being completed today with a similar 'Artic Gyre' ,driven by incursions through Bearing of pacific waters, and their exit through Greenland/Sweden with only the 'dimmed years' halting the process.

We have never ,historically, had out multiyear ice down to the levels it has reached over this summer and ,more worryingly, it's move away from the protection of Greenlands northern shores.

As with any of this you need be patient as ,I'm sure, this coming summer will confirm that something very not good is happening to our world that has no precedence in our planets cycles and must be laid at our door. Eventually our impacts will over-ride ALL other cycles and so it's impact will not be augmented by background cycles.

12 months?

Edited December 28, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20071227...-6323e80_1.html

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071227/tts-...-c1b2fc3_1.html

All happened before eh?

Edited December 28, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7141635.stm

or maybe we are seeing something man made and new?

[Stratos Ferric]

Stratos, I am at a complete loss as to what else to say to clarify my position. No one else on here has ever raised this question, everyone else appears to understand completely. I would question my own communication skills but a degree in English, a career in publishing, a flourishing free-lance side-line of magazine articles and several published books to my name confirms to me that I do not lack in these skills. All I can suggest is, if you are still puzzled then perhaps you could PM me and we could thrash out in private, a sentence or two which clarifies my position in terms communicable to yourself. I think it does the forum and these threads a dis-service to endlessly have these personal conversations and mis-understandings littering up the pages.

Getting back to your post: I haven't limited discussions to 29 years, quite the opposite. It is yourself who uses the rolling thirty year average, I as I said earlier I think taking a thirty year snap shot of climate will give an in-accurate picture when trying to decifer natural climate drivers when these cycles do not comply to that time span. We need to base the picture on a longer time span to judge how much warmer or cooler we have been during the positive and negative aspects of these cycles, only then can we see how much of the current warming is AGW.

Rolling out the "all climate is CO2 related"; you said in an earlier post which I was replying to that I say I believe some of it is man-made but only ever argue from a natural driver point of view, you said this confuses my stance. I was merely pointing out that you in turn do exactly the same thing, you say not all of the warming is due to CO2 and yet you only argue from this perspective. This accusation can be levelled at both of us.

Your last point: yes I did say "And there are those such as myself who question AGW because the science still has questions to be asked". Now you are confusing me. My stance is as I said, I believe some of the recent warming can be laid at our feet, some of the warming can be laid at the feet of natural drivers. By definition this means I do not think or believe AGW is the answer to all of it. By the same token you also say you think some of it to be caused by natural drivers. To not have questions on AGW would indicate I believe everything is man-made and as I've already said this isn't my stance it follows there must be questions. As in life, none of this is black and white. Surely it is possible to believe that increased emissions can be responsible for some of the warming but not believe it is responsible for it all? I thought you said this was your stance too. There are many unanswered questions in the science, there is still a very great deal we have inadequate knowledge of, therefore I question the accepted wisdom from the IPCC that the science is a done deal. Surely that is the logical position to take when faced with incomplete research, records and evidence?

Getting back to the papers I linked to earlier today, what are your thoughts on the climate shift in 1976? What are your thoughts on the Arctic ice loss given the evidence for cylical changes provided by Polyakov?

Jethro,

thank you for persisting. First up, never take silence as complete understanding: I am fairly sure that I am not in fact alone in being bemused by the apparent contradictions in some of your arguments. I am sure that you have fantastic communication skills, but that's not the same as necessarily debating a position clearly.

Saying that not all warning is anthropogenic is NOT the same as questioning the science of AGW. I think that you might be using AGW generically (i.e. for all warming - when in fact GW is the better term). If one is questioning AGW (what you said) then I would take this to mean questioning the whole basis of man's ability to change the climate, irrespective of the extent to which that might be happening. To be clear: I have no doubt about AGW, what I agree is that NOT ALL of the current warming might be anthropogenic. My reading of your words is that you accept some of the warming is anthropogenic (we are in agreement here then) but that you still doubt the science behind AGW (I cannot see that you can both accept the warming yet doubt the science behind the warming - either we're having a warming effect or we're not). Perhaps what you're really arguing is just that you don't believe that ALL of GW is AGW. If, on the other hand, you're saying you don't really accept the science behind warming then I don't see how you can legitimately and consistently state that you accept man's impact. That's the inconsistency I don't get. It's not the clarity of individual comments you make, so much as the inconsistency behind them that I struggle with.

Re the thirty year series I'm sorry, here I'm at a loss, and perhaps this bears out my point about confusing communications skills with the fundamentals of science. Thirty year rolling averages are the standard global reference for climate. A thirty year rolling mean does not mean that the limit to how far we go back IS thirty years, it just means that when we plot data we are smoothing out across a long time period - longer than mere short term fluctuations in the weather could effect.

Polyakov may show a time when the arctic was warmer, but here is another recurrent pattern in some of the arguments on here: the assumption that because variables A, B and C have existed previously in a particular configuration before, the same configuration must occur this time (hence the argument about CO2 leadking or lagging, for example). The arctic MIGHT have been as warm before: so what. What we know for sure is that back then the world was nothing like as warm as it is now. If previous warming was localised then the whole biosphere could easily readjust to restor the equilibrium: that is no longer the case. As G-W says, the whole dynamic in the arctic is difference now and what is causing the melt now is almost certainly very different to what caused previous melt.

[Gray-Wolf]

The only other 'warming epoch's' as shown by the glacial/fluvial deposits from lakes in Greenland show 'ice free' periods prior to the last ice age. No ice retreat since. In so far as the 'Arctic Gyre' it has only been noted recently as an explanation for the circulation which now seems ever more apparent over 'high summer' be it wind (anticyclonic) or wave (influx from Bearing) is still hotly disputed. The 'rotation ' of the ice this year was put down to 'unfavourable synoptics' (clear skies and H.P. dominated) but it could have as easily been Pacific input from Bearing (as the ice melted rapidly facing bearing and the initial motion was based around Bearing).

The paper is trying to fit a theory to observations but it is sparse in evidence at best! surely periodic (multidecadal) switches to near ice free conditions would lead to the type of fluvial deposits that are now being deposited in the high arctic? surely the deposits/vegetation/diatoms within these deposits would show a neat section of striping from glacial sands/gravel to fluvial varves /clay and organics?

Take a section from now back to the 50's and you will see just that change. prior to that it is before the onset of the last ice age that these deposits become apparent in the lake deposits.Why?

[jethro]

So, to sum up then; I've got one person explaining the difference between AGW and GW and how I need to firm up my debating skills. And I have another person posting media articles about unprecedented things happening in the Arctic but the unprecedented period used is post satellite era ie: thirty years.

Mmm, and the point to continuing this is?

You both win ok. I bow out, I've lost interest now. And no, I'm not throwing my toys out the pram, I'm not in a strop or anything else even remotely similar, I'm just exceedingly bored.

Edited December 28, 2007 by pottyprof

[Gray-Wolf]

So, to sum up then; I've got one person explaining the difference between AGW and GW and how I need to firm up my debating skills. And I have another person posting media articles about unprecedented things happening in the Arctic but the unprecedented period used is post satellite era ie: thirty years.

Mmm, and the point to continuing this is?

You both win OK. I bow out, I've lost interest now. And no, I'm not throwing my toys out the pram, I'm not in a strop or anything else even remotely similar, I'm just exceedingly bored.

With the wealth of recent observations of the decline in polar ice and the number of papers the unprecedented ice loss has 'blown out of the water (70yrs before ice free???) do not choose to feel picked upon because you chose a duffer to quote!

I was mistaken in my understanding that the 'Ice free arctic in 5 to 6 years' was a result of putting this years data in the model, it was not, the model was only current up to 2006......we'd be in my 3 to 3 yr ball park figure if they did that!!!

Jethro, you will see enough (in our country) over the next 2 to 3 yrs to know that we (human beings) have not ever witnessed this phenomina before (no short or long cycle here) but worry not! you could have done nothing to alter your fate over the past 10yrs (apart from take sensible precautions to see you through the social disorder/breakdown.......)

Happy New Year anyone?

[Chris Knight]

Can anyone supply evidence that the Earth have ever been " ice free ".

I doubt that there has ever been enough greenhouse warming or enough solar forcing to present an ice-free Earth.

[Gray-Wolf]

Over the 4.5billion years that the earth has been trying to 'organise herself' with the heavier elements at the core and the lighter gaseous ones out into the atmosphere and beyond, there have been periods of ice free Earth.

With the configuration of landmasses (as they moved across the face of the globe in different combinations) the amount of free oxygen/co2/nitrogen ,the solar input, the moons gravitational effect,impact events,volcanic episodes we have had many differing 'versions' of our planet. We have been an icy ball from pole to pole and we have been ice free. Areas that lay under polar regions at various times show the microscopic evidence of former 'life' in the open oceans/ice free landmasses but the sedimentary rocks also attest to their depositional environment so give a clear indication of polar temps across a vast range of our planets existence. Od course there was two periods when all the crustal areas were molten!

Edited December 28, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Chris Knight]

Over the 4.5billion years that the earth has been trying to 'organise herself' with the heavier elements at the core and the lighter gaseous ones out into the atmosphere and beyond, there have been periods of ice free Earth.

With the configuration of landmasses (as they moved across the face of the globe in different combinations) the amount of free oxygen/co2/nitrogen ,the solar input, the moons gravitational effect,impact events,volcanic episodes we have had many differing 'versions' of our planet. We have been an icy ball from pole to pole and we have been ice free. Areas that lay under polar regions at various times show the microscopic evidence of former 'life' in the open oceans/ice free landmasses but the sedimentary rocks also attest to their depositional environment so give a clear indication of polar temps across a vast range of our planets existence. Od course there was two periods when all the crustal areas were molten!

That's a nice overview, but is there any evidence that the earth has ever been "ice free"?

Edited December 28, 2007 by Chris Knight

[Gray-Wolf]

That's a nice overview, but is there any evidence that the earth has ever been "ice free"?

If you accept 'continental drift' then the geological record holds the evidence for both extreme states of our planet having occured in our geological past.

The phases (early on) of a fully molten crust and the later disruption and melting of the crust after the proto planet that helped create the moon impacted would suggest an ice free status but 'proof' from those instances would be impossible to come by!

[Calrissian]

If you accept 'continental drift' then the geological record holds the evidence for both extreme states of our planet having occured in our geological past.

The phases (early on) of a fully molten crust and the later disruption and melting of the crust after the proto planet that helped create the moon impacted would suggest an ice free status but 'proof' from those instances would be impossible to come by!

Unless someone can invent an FTL capable starship, jump 4.5 billion light years away. Then use a really good exo-solar telescope, and look back towards Earth.

That would clarify the history of early Earth.

----

Calrissian: time for another viewing of BSG Razor

[Gray-Wolf]

So that was the year that was! 2nd warmest on record I hear! so much for a slow down/cooling!

[Chris Knight]

So that was the year that was! 2nd warmest on record I hear! so much for a slow down/cooling!

Not really surprising, considering the warming in the Arctic last year.

The "Where's Waldo" threads on ClimateAudit.org, seems to show that Waldo (warming temperature records) mostly come from high northerly latitudes, with the rest of the world presenting little in the way of a warming signal if regional records are examined, and UHI contamination is removed.

But it ain't Global!

[Stratos Ferric]

Not really surprising, considering the warming in the Arctic last year.

The "Where's Waldo" threads on ClimateAudit.org, seems to show that Waldo (warming temperature records) mostly come from high northerly latitudes, with the rest of the world presenting little in the way of a warming signal if regional records are examined, and UHI contamination is removed.

But it ain't Global!

As I've said elsewhere tonight, with a warming trend projected even at, say, an excessive 4C per century, that's only 0.04C per annum. At that rate you simply aren't going to get new records set every year - annual variation is much wider than that in most sub-tropical climatic regimes. What does Waldo say about record minima being set? The current warming, certainly in the UK, is more driven by increasing minima than it is by increasing maxima.

The models and theory all agree that warmth will initially concentrate at the poles, because the energy fluxes from hot to cold, in the same way that water poured in a dish will first act to level out pits in the surface of the dish.

[Chris Knight]

As I've said elsewhere tonight, with a warming trend projected even at, say, an excessive 4C per century, that's only 0.04C per annum. At that rate you simply aren't going to get new records set every year - annual variation is much wider than that in most sub-tropical climatic regimes. What does Waldo say about record minima being set? The current warming, certainly in the UK, is more driven by increasing minima than it is by increasing maxima.

The models and theory all agree that warmth will initially concentrate at the poles, because the energy fluxes from hot to cold, in the same way that water poured in a dish will first act to level out pits in the surface of the dish.

The point about minima (and by extension, maxima) is well taken.

Unfortunately all the emphasis that drives the climate debate seems to be about means.

Every year though, record maxima and minima are set in probably thousands of locations around the globe at various times of the year, and this is taken as "noise" - outlying points on a general trend, and lost in the averaging process at regional, temporal, hemispheric, and finally global levels, confounding any indicators of specific trends into some meaningless global melange.

At the other extreme, these means are compared back in time with other temporal means, subtracted from the other, in order to filter out seasonal variability to show the remaining noise, which is referred to as the anomaly.

And this is still believed to be good science.

[Stratos Ferric]

The point about minima (and by extension, maxima) is well taken.

Unfortunately all the emphasis that drives the climate debate seems to be about means.

Every year though, record maxima and minima are set in probably thousands of locations around the globe at various times of the year, and this is taken as "noise" - outlying points on a general trend, and lost in the averaging process at regional, temporal, hemispheric, and finally global levels, confounding any indicators of specific trends into some meaningless global melange.

At the other extreme, these means are compared back in time with other temporal means, subtracted from the other, in order to filter out seasonal variability to show the remaining noise, which is referred to as the anomaly.

And this is still believed to be good science.

Well, over time means cancel out the natural short-term oscillation I guess. We keep saying it, but the proper context of any given year is only framed several years downstream.

[pottyprof]

Chris.. I have to agree with SF on this one. The point about warmer minima is for me, a worrying trend. It is probably the main reason why I am slowly moving away from the fence. I'm not totally convinced but even a 10 year mean is showing an upward trend, where the maxima are showing a levelling out. Something underlying there for sure..

[Stratos Ferric]

Chris.. I have to agree with SF on this one. The point about warmer minima is for me, a worrying trend. It is probably the main reason why I am slowly moving away from the fence. I'm not totally convinced but even a 10 year mean is showing an upward trend, where the maxima are showing a levelling out. Something underlying there for sure..

Although, I have to say, that there is a logical maximum for winter minima, at least until the seas become much warmer: they cannot rise for ever. I can see summers getting hotter though. A point often discussed on here is that the main problem for winter minima might be increased cloudiness: the recent anticyclonic spells showed that we can still get to average, and slightly below, with the clearer skies. What we have lacked in recent years is the additional bite of a sustained genuinely cold airmass, which is a "must" for a very cold month.

[Chris Knight]

Chris.. I have to agree with SF on this one. The point about warmer minima is for me, a worrying trend. It is probably the main reason why I am slowly moving away from the fence. I'm not totally convinced but even a 10 year mean is showing an upward trend, where the maxima are showing a levelling out. Something underlying there for sure..

Yes, it is annoying how those few pesky hot summer days, or cold winter spells really spoil the symmetry of the plot:

Otherwise it would be quite easy to see the solar maxima and minima imposed on the annual variation!

[Mr Sleet]

Perhaps I should have asked, when originally posting this link, if anyone would care to comment on what the graphs are showing?

Anybody?

BTW, Magpie , isn't your thread title just a teensy-weensy bit tabloidesque? Not a red-top journalist are you?!

These graphs are showing what in reality is happening/has happened - global temps stopped rising in 1998 and have hit a plateau since. Maybe coming down a little.

That's a nice overview, but is there any evidence that the earth has ever been "ice free"?

It's quite easy to find Chris. Earth has ben ice free for around 90% of it's history. This was reiterated on the recent Beeb "Power of the Planet " series. Ice ages are not the norm - in fact we are in one at the moment, being geologically defined as they are as the presence of ice anywhere on the planet.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Mr Sleet

[Guest Mike W]

I thought Ice Ages are in fact the norm, cetainly I remember hearing that in documentaires, as it's surprising to hear, I think though they only say it's been the norm since the land masses have been in the posistions they are in now. Most ntoable documentarie I remember about Ice Ages was Earth Story,ep. 6 I think. It showed that ICe Ages have occured for long way back, the earliest being to be around I think 3 billion years ago, well between 2 -3 billion anyay. I have it on DVD so will look at it when I have time.Off topic but Ic an never understand why Pangea is always used when talking about the continents being one super continent, surely Gondwana is a better eaxample, I agre Pangea can I supose be used, but Gondwana is more blatent, alot more joined together than Pangea was.