The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[wysiwyg]

I think that if you go back before the 1970s we have to acknowledge that global temperatures were far more difficult to quantify because large areas of the globe were unmonitored. The HADCET graph that Chris Knight produced is very interesting and as VP says could well explain why climatologists of the day were considering a cooling phase. (Incidentally CK you might want to check the key on the graph )

I'm not sure that growing season is particularly valid as a measure of global (or even local) climate. We have been capable of effective irrigation, hybridisation and other innovative ways to increase crop yields for a long time (since the ancient egyptians). What growing season length may tell us is something about how severe the weather was in the transition between winter and summer (I don't know - just hypothesising!).

Wysi

[Chris Knight]

I think that if you go back before the 1970s we have to acknowledge that global temperatures were far more difficult to quantify because large areas of the globe were unmonitored. The HADCET graph that Chris Knight produced is very interesting and as VP says could well explain why climatologists of the day were considering a cooling phase. (Incidentally CK you might want to check the key on the graph )

I'm not sure that growing season is particularly valid as a measure of global (or even local) climate. We have been capable of effective irrigation, hybridisation and other innovative ways to increase crop yields for a long time (since the ancient egyptians). What growing season length may tell us is something about how severe the weather was in the transition between winter and summer (I don't know - just hypothesising!).

Wysi

Thanks Wysi. Good points.

The seasonal data series labels should have read dark blue for winter, pink for spring, green for autumn, and yellow for summer. The trends were OK tho.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Chris Knight

[Gray-Wolf]

Why is Chris regaling us with graphs from the 'global cooling' period ?

I'd have thought that before the phenomena was sufficiently described all sorts of notions as to it's significance abounded (unlike todays consensus)

[wysiwyg]

Why is Chris regaling us with graphs from the 'global cooling' period ?

I'd have thought that before the phenomena was sufficiently described all sorts of notions as to it's significance abounded (unlike todays consensus)

Read back a bit further and you will see the post by Mr Data regarding a report in the Times from 1975. No offence but there are people here who enjoy this discussion regardless of their standpoint on GW.

In terms of the 70s cooling period - it probably was noticed during the 'birth' of techniques we now regard as normal and accepted. Anecdotal evidence (eg growing season length) was still considered as a good measure of global climate change.

What interests me is that the cooling between 1940 and 1970 was very small compared to the warming seen since the 1980s. However, the issues that still keep me sceptical relate to the very fact that we are comparing relatively accurate, widespread recent tempertaure and CO₂ data (satellites, bouys and weather ballons/aircraft data) with global data that is largely either, anecdotal or, derived from proxy. We have come a long way in thirty years or so in terms of modelling and future predictions but in my view we still have a long way to go with regards to how we find out what the temperature and CO₂ levels used to be.

Wysi :wacko:

Edited March 20, 2008 by wysiwyg

[SnowBear]

I wonder what the thoughts and theories would be if we were still using the data and techniques of that time?

[HighPressure]

I don't know if its been mentioned on here already but I wonder if any of you saw the documentary on the National Geographic channel last night 'Saved by the Sun'?

I just wondered what peoples views were on it? I found it quite interesting especially with the way it almost dismissed human CO2 as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things with the Sun being almost totally responsible for every aspect of Earths climate.

I was surprised how little is known about the Sun's actual effects on Earth climate which in turn begs the question how can AGW be suggested with the certainty it is? In fact it appears that even the experts who believe in AGW don't believe in runaway theories or that the climate can be irreversible change by humans.

I am honestly trying to square the circle here as, what I have on paper is that Human cause GW by its GHG emissions. The Sun dictates the Earth's climate and has been responsible for many sudden climate changes in the past although we do not fully understand the reasons exactly why? I am not a denier but I just cannot get my head around the first statement if the second is true.

On another note I thought that UV was a very interesting topic when you factor in Ozone depletion.

[SnowBear]

Caught the very end of that program HP, didn't realise it was on but am going to try and watch it in full as soon as I can!

Looks very interesting.

[Bobby]

Obviously the Sun is the main factor in our climate - it warms us from about -270c to about +13c. Nothing else comes remotely close to that big an effect. But CO2 only has to raise the temperature by another 2c and that could have huge effects on human civilisation. So it depends on what you class "irrelevant" as.

I stopped watching a lot of the documentary channels on Sky anyway when a good chunk of the programs became about ghosts and UFOs. I think saying that human CO2 doesn't have m

Edited March 20, 2008 by Magpie

[wysiwyg]

I stopped watching a lot of the documentary channels on Sky anyway when a good chunk of the programs became about ghosts and UFOs. I think saying that human CO2 doesn't have m

Yeah I watched one the other week about solar storms and they had this dramatic graphic of a coronal mass ejection complete with implausible sound effects which they must have played 30 times during the program. Along with incessantly repeating the same facts over and over I reckon there was about 10 minutes of interesting material in the 1 hour (50 mins minus ads).

[HighPressure]

Obviously the Sun is the main factor in our climate - it warms us from about -270c to about +13c. Nothing else comes remotely close to that big an effect. But CO2 only has to raise the temperature by another 2c and that could have huge effects on human civilisation. So it depends on what you class "irrelevant" as.

I stopped watching a lot of the documentary channels on Sky anyway when a good chunk of the programs became about ghosts and UFOs. I think saying that human CO2 doesn't have m

Don't get me wrong it was not anti AGW at all and maybe 'irrelevant' is not be the right word, it was well balanced and introduced some fascinating issues (I thought). The programme was really saying is that maybe the Sun's influence will save us from ourselves rather then saying humans were not responsible. But as I said above it did leave me questions about how AGW will play out, that's not to say we should not reduce our emissions because we should. My interest is in how, what and why our climate is currently warming and being an inquisitive old sod, I am not entirely happy with 'its CO2 what did it we all stop thinking now' approach especially when we encounter unknown after unknown.

If there is such a thing as neutral in this debate I am trying to stay it, the prog is really worth a watch.

Edited March 20, 2008 by HighPressure

[Devonian]

If faced with the previous 30 years UK temperature record, I hardly think that any climatologist in the UK in 1975 would disagree that things seemed to be getting cooler. I don't think we can cherry-pick just one year, Dev.

Hang on Chris, you seriously saying to me that 'any climatologist in the UK in 1975 would disagree that things seemed to be getting cooler' on trends of hundredths of a degree per quater while we still see people here denying it's warmed up by about full degree since at a rate ten times faster? LOL

C'mon

Oh, and it wasn't me who picked the year, but another nice try ...

I don't know if its been mentioned on here already but I wonder if any of you saw the documentary on the National Geographic channel last night 'Saved by the Sun'?

I just wondered what peoples views were on it? I found it quite interesting especially with the way it almost dismissed human CO2 as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things with the Sun being almost totally responsible for every aspect of Earths climate.

I was surprised how little is known about the Sun's actual effects on Earth climate which in turn begs the question how can AGW be suggested with the certainty it is? In fact it appears that even the experts who believe in AGW don't believe in runaway theories or that the climate can be irreversible change by humans.

I am honestly trying to square the circle here as, what I have on paper is that Human cause GW by its GHG emissions. The Sun dictates the Earth's climate and has been responsible for many sudden climate changes in the past although we do not fully understand the reasons exactly why? I am not a denier but I just cannot get my head around the first statement if the second is true.

On another note I thought that UV was a very interesting topic when you factor in Ozone depletion.

What amazes me is that people/progaammes can say something like 'I was surprised how little is known about the Sun's actual effects on Earth climate' but not also say that means it's effect could be smaller than we think

Some current research suggests the Sun's role is indeed less than we thought.

Superb point. Take yourself back to 1970(ish) On the statistical evidence available at the time, and factoring in the nonsense that a lot people around here spout off about ('hey -look at the last thirty years') - we (meaning I) need to know that if you were around in the 1970's what would you have made of the evidence before you, then?

With hindsight I'd think flat line compared with the last 30 years...

[Hiya]

Hang on Chris, you seriously saying to me that 'any climatologist in the UK in 1975 would disagree that things seemed to be getting cooler' on trends of hundredths of a degree per quater while we still see people here denying it's warmed up by about full degree since at a rate ten times faster? LOL

C'mon

I hope CK doesn't mind but I have the data at hand so I shall post it to show.

Last century the warming was in hundredths of a degree, so using you logic that isn't significant enough? Yet we hear you banging the drum about it.

Second point, the warming over the last thirty years is comparable with the cooling of the period shown on CK's graph, so it isn't ten times faster? If the warming now is alarming what was the cooling then? Hindsight is a wonderful thing to just shrug it off as a blip.

Congratulations, you have annoyed me.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Hiya

[Devonian]

I hope CK doesn't mind but I have the data at hand so I shall post it to show.

Last century the warming was in hundredths of a degree, so using you logic that isn't significant enough? Yet we hear you banging the drum about it.

I'm interested in and concerned about AGW.. The G stands for something. The CET is but one small part of the globe. I didn't say 'not significant' I drew attention to those saying 1C in 30 years isn't significant.

EDIT: my quote of Chris might have been unintentionally misleading, since I clipped part of his sentence off for brevity. I'm saying if climatologist were clear about the trend in the 70's it must be much more clear over the last 30, yet people still claim it isn't.

Second point, the warming over the last thirty years is comparable with the cooling of the period shown on CK's graph, so it isn't ten times faster? If the warming now is alarming what was the cooling then? Hindsight is a wonderful thing to just shrug it off as a blip.

Congratulations, you have annoyed me.

???

But your graph shows it's warmed by a degree in the last 30 as I said. Nowhere does it cool like that or at that rate.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Devonian

[Chris Knight]

Hang on Chris, you seriously saying to me that 'any climatologist in the UK in 1975 would disagree that things seemed to be getting cooler' on trends of hundredths of a degree per quater while we still see people here denying it's warmed up by about full degree since at a rate ten times faster? LOL

C'mon

Oh, and it wasn't me who picked the year, but another nice try ...

What amazes me is that people/progaammes can say something like 'I was surprised how little is known about the Sun's actual effects on Earth climate' but not also say that means it's effect could be smaller than we think

Some current research suggests the Sun's role is indeed less than we thought.

With hindsight I'd think flat line compared with the last 30 years...

No it was a tenth of a degree a decade:

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I don't know if its been mentioned on here already but I wonder if any of you saw the documentary on the National Geographic channel last night 'Saved by the Sun'?

I just wondered what peoples views were on it? I found it quite interesting especially with the way it almost dismissed human CO2 as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things with the Sun being almost totally responsible for every aspect of Earths climate.

HP

It is ALL to do with the sun....do some research on soalr cycles, perturbation cycles, Dalton, Maunder, Wolf, Gleisberg minimas...Milankovitch, Landscheidt to name but a few solar connections. Its enough to start with trust me but the 'fits' of climate change and effect are very snug :lol:

A very simple example...someone on the model thread today said folk should get out as in the sun the weather feels pleasant pity about the wind. In cloudy weather [reduced sunshine hence reduced solar effect the weather was very cold. The sun is the controller...no doubt

BFTP

[Devonian]

I don't know if its been mentioned on here already but I wonder if any of you saw the documentary on the National Geographic channel last night 'Saved by the Sun'?

I just wondered what peoples views were on it? I found it quite interesting especially with the way it almost dismissed human CO2 as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things with the Sun being almost totally responsible for every aspect of Earths climate.

HP

It is ALL to do with the sun....do some research on soalr cycles, perturbation cycles, Dalton, Maunder, Wolf, Gleisberg minimas...Milankovitch, Landscheidt to name but a few solar connections. Its enough to start with trust me but the 'fits' of climate change and effect are very snug

A very simple example...someone on the model thread today said folk should get out as in the sun the weather feels pleasant pity about the wind. In cloudy weather [reduced sunshine hence reduced solar effect the weather was very cold. The sun is the controller...no doubt

BFTP

If it is 'all' to do with the Sun and there is 'no doubt' then you can prove it? Well, no you can't because it's a fundamental scientific truth that without the GH effect this planet would be a frozen ice ball, Sun or not.

[Admiral_Bobski]

If it is 'all' to do with the Sun and there is 'no doubt' then you can prove it? Well, no you can't because it's a fundamental scientific truth that without the GH effect this planet would be a frozen ice ball, Sun or not.

Actually that's not quite true. The side of the Earth pointed away from the Sun would be a bit a nippy, but the side pointed toward the Sun would be rather on the warm side. We can look at the Moon for confirmation of this fact, where daytime temperatures can easily top 100C and nighttime temps can drop below -173C. A bit of primary school maths gives the Moon an average temperature of -36.5C.

So yes, the average temperature of the Earth would be well below zero (I think -33C is often quoted), but let us not diminish the impact of the Sun - the extremes of temperature in any 24 hour period would be enormous.

CB

[Devonian]

Actually that's not quite true. The side of the Earth pointed away from the Sun would be a bit a nippy, but the side pointed toward the Sun would be rather on the warm side. We can look at the Moon for confirmation of this fact, where daytime temperatures can easily top 100C and nighttime temps can drop below -173C. A bit of primary school maths gives the Moon an average temperature of -36.5C.

So yes, the average temperature of the Earth would be well below zero (I think -33C is often quoted), but let us not diminish the impact of the Sun - the extremes of temperature in any 24 hour period would be enormous.

CB

Possibly.

But, I did say 'without the GH effect' I wasn't thinking without an atmosphere. So, and here I am guessing, with a mostly nitrogen oxygen atmosphere I think we'd still see winds? But I think the oxygen would, without life, soon be removed.

Still, it's an interesting thought path. Take away the gh effect completely (which means no WV and no CO₂) and this would be a very very different planet.

Whatever, the GH effect is not something to be experimented with.

[VillagePlank]

No it was a tenth of a degree a decade:

This point remains and is, as yet, unanswered, if you were typing away, on here,, at the period denoted at end of this graph, would you be concerned about the imminent ice-age? I haven't done the 'compared to a fixed mean' anomaly graph, yet, but what's the chances that it would look like the inverse of the hockey stick graph?

[wysiwyg]

This point remains and is, as yet, unanswered, if you were typing away, on here,, at the period denoted at end of this graph, would you be concerned about the imminent ice-age? I haven't done the 'compared to a fixed mean' anomaly graph, yet, but what's the chances that it would look like the inverse of the hockey stick graph?

Given that we would have already known that we were overdue an ice age then it is not beyond the realms of reason that certain people may well have viewed the above data as significant in that sense. Clearly the primary concern expressed in the Times article was the impact on growing seasons and perhaps the concern related to the fact that we also were aware that 'mini' ice ages were possible. Imo the effects of significant cooling would be far worse than significant warming as seen by the eyes of those studying climate impact in the mid 70s.

I'm not sure about the part you quoted regarding anomolies and hockey sticks - perhaps when you get a chance to plot the graph you mentioned it will be clearer what your latter statement was getting at.

Still, it's an interesting thought path. Take away the gh effect completely (which means no WV and no CO₂) and this would be a very very different planet.

Whatever, the GH effect is not something to be experimented with.

WRT the first statement I personally think that the water vapour is key here. Water has some very unique properties compared to other atmospheric gases and is likely to be by far the larger regulator of global temperature when compared to CO₂ simply due to the fact that it can exist in the atmosphere in all three phases at the same time. It will be interesting to see the results of the CERN experiments relating to cloud formation and ionisation by high energy cosmic and solar activity.

Point 2 - agreed and given that we live in a greenhouse it would be a good idea to use it as one and start planting stuff instead of chopping it down or poisoning the water it lives in.

Wysi

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

If it is 'all' to do with the Sun and there is 'no doubt' then you can prove it? Well, no you can't because it's a fundamental scientific truth that without the GH effect this planet would be a frozen ice ball, Sun or not.

Ok yes GHG keep our planet at temps where we survive even in darkness when sun is not around, but the fluctiations in temp are not governed by them, the sun takes the lead and controls the climate of its satellites through variation in the solar output, the tilt of our planet and our path around the sun. So should be more accurate and clear in my post, but so shopuld you as Captain has picked up on

So Dev over 10 years now of no net gain in the earth's temperature yet CO2 is increasing day by day. Why aren't we warming Hmm solar minimum kicking in, perturbation cycle, biggest global temp drop from year to year just been recorded........

BFTP

Edited March 22, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[laserguy]

HP

It is ALL to do with the sun....do some research on soalr cycles, perturbation cycles, Dalton, Maunder, Wolf, Gleisberg minimas...Milankovitch, Landscheidt to name but a few solar connections. Its enough to start with trust me but the 'fits' of climate change and effect are very snug...

BFTP

All these natural factors and more,which are far from being fully understood,but hey let's blame a gas which naturally comprises an almost imperceptible portion of atmosphere,let alone the minute proportion of which is provided by us. The decline of solar activity is already showing it's hand and making a mockery of CO2 and it's mythical effect. AGW believers are the new 'deniers',now trying desperately,and failing,to make the case stand up.

[Devonian]

All these natural factors and more,which are far from being fully understood,but hey let's blame a gas which naturally comprises an almost imperceptible portion of atmosphere,let alone the minute proportion of which is provided by us. The decline of solar activity is already showing it's hand and making a mockery of CO2 and it's mythical effect. AGW believers are the new 'deniers',now trying desperately,and failing,to make the case stand up.

< response in kind mode >

Humm, so you deny the natural GH effect of ~31/33C? And instead you worship at the alter of the Sun? Why are you so desperate that the Sun be the cause? It makes a mockery of several hundred years of increasinf understanding to deny the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

< / response in kind mode >

LG, lets be honest, where does all this religious imagery, all these attempts to discredit each other using words rather then data, evidence, and science get us? I am prepared to listen to anything, but I DO know enough to be able to see through arm waving. Present the evidence that these 'far from fully understood' natural factors are known by you to be the cause of the warming seen. Then, please refute the really rather well understood physics of ghg's. I'm all eyes.

WRT the first statement I personally think that the water vapour is key here. Water has some very unique properties compared to other atmospheric gases and is likely to be by far the larger regulator of global temperature when compared to CO₂ simply due to the fact that it can exist in the atmosphere in all three phases at the same time. It will be interesting to see the results of the CERN experiments relating to cloud formation and ionisation by high energy cosmic and solar activity.

Wysi

I'm entirely happy that WV is a ghg, but, what I can't see is how WV drives as opposed to follows temperature.

The globe warms a little, the atmosphere can hold more WV and so there is some feedback warming. Or, it cools a little, the atmosphere can only hold less WV so there is feedback cooling. But, the energy for weather comes from the Sun (easy LG, I've not finished yet ) and, secondly, ghg's, (by impeading outwardbound LW radiation they effectively add to the energy in the atmosphere available for weather). But, how can WV drive climate? By 'drive' I mean WV first temperature second? How can that happen? Again, I'm open to evidence,but as far as i can see, WV is a response to climate not the other way around.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Devonian

[wysiwyg]

I'm entirely happy that WV is a ghg, but, what I can't see is how WV drives as opposed to follows temperature.

The globe warms a little, the atmosphere can hold more WV and so there is some feedback warming. Or, it cools a little, the atmosphere can only hold less WV so there is feedback cooling. But, the energy for weather comes from the Sun (easy LG, I've not finished yet ) and, secondly, ghg's, (by impeading outwardbound LW radiation they effectively add to the energy in the atmosphere available for weather). But, how can WV drive climate? By 'drive' I mean WV first temperature second? How can that happen? Again, I'm open to evidence,but as far as i can see, WV is a response to climate not the other way around.

I concede the point that WV on it's own probably does not have a much greater effect on global temperature than CO_2. However, I did try to state that water per se is a more powerful regulator of global temperature. (sorry if I was misleading)

The fact that water exists in the atmosphere in all three phases is the key to this. Water evapourates at the earth's surface, as it rises it cools into clouds (of liquid and ice). So there are two very short term cooling effects, evaporation at low levels which causes a phase change from liquid to vapour and then at a much higher altitude heat is lost from the water to the high atmosphere as it reverts back to liquid and solid (ice). On a longer timescale precipitation is trapped in ice at the poles. Heat absorbed at the pole to melt ice translates into oceanic current activity. There are plenty of mechanisms that indicate water as a global temperature regulator. Factor in potential solar shielding and reflection by clouds and I think there is enough evidence to show that water is key to our climate and not just a spectator.

The fact is that the sun provides all the heat energy that exists on Earth. When we have been further away from the sun we have been covered in ice and as we have moved closer we have warmed. These are monmental climate changes (that dwarf the recent rise) caused by relatively small perturbations in our proximity to the sun. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we have changed position in the solar system. However, I also think that to dismiss solar activty as not being significant in terms of climate change is a little hasty. It seems to me that solar activity is likely to be the thorn in the side of the AGW argument given that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the sun's activity has correlated well with global temperature and climate in the past, well before we started increasing the amount of CO₂ in our atmosphere.

Wysi

[HighPressure]

I have no problem accepting CO2 is a GHG and its presence in the atmosphere causes a degree of warming under all solar influences, but that's not the question.

The question surrounds the fact that the IPCC quote reducing CO2 emissions will reduce GW, and this is where I point the finger at 'believers' you want the change in behaviour so its down to you to put the evidence on the table. The facts are that Solar, Ozone depletion, Cosmic and other effects are not fully understood and therefore the IPCC are putting forward claims it cannot provide evidence for?

As devils advocate, I can find nothing to suggest that our present CO2 emissions will not have a positive effect on our climate in say 100 years time?