The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Anti-Mild]

Interesting, and, on the face of it, credible, article

And according to the archive on spaceweather.com it's been 104 days since the last cycle 24 sunspot and 56 days since the last cycle 23 sunspot.

In fact, I think there's only been 3 or 4 cycle 24 sunspots since the cycle began.

[trevw]

Interesting, and, on the face of it, credible, article

Definitely some interesting information linked to in the article.. If true in the short term we could be glad of our CO2 :-) probably don't want to have twice as much kicking around when things warm up again though...

It is a shame though (and both 'sides' of the argument are guilty of this I'm sure) that they feel the need to try and give the impression this completely debunks the entirety of existing science on AGW, largely by misrepresenting the science and then 'blowing it away' with their new info. No scientist I am aware of has suggested that variations in CO2 have a greater effect than variations in the Suns output. What I believe they have said was that over a certain period the known variations in natural forcings (including the sun) cannot by themselves have produced the warming we have seen, add increase in CO2 to the picture and you can explain the warming.

Also a few places on the globe having one off cold winters or poor summers are surely down to synoptics rather than sudden plunges in global temperature?

Some of the linked to articles even trot out the ol' "CO2 change lags temperature -just look at the ice cores" line.

That said, I would definitely be interested to read what follow up research is being done. Also where and how the drop in temps of 2degC was arrived at from the Amargh measurements..

Trev

[laserguy]

Also a few places on the globe having one off cold winters or poor summers are surely down to synoptics rather than sudden plunges in global temperature?

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=b...mp;issuedby=bou

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=B...&glossary=0

The above two reports, (provided by Lady Pakal over on the General Weather Discussion thread) don't exactly fall into the 'poor summer' category - they are off the scale low temperatures,the likes of which haven't been seen for over a hundred years. Two articles do not a proven case make,but I could link to literally hundreds of similar cases. Unlike the huge El Nino of 1998 and the resulting high global temp(though still behind 1934,depending on who exactly you want to believe),is the moribund La Nina solely responsible for such long-standing records to fall like nine-pins? I think not!

Everyone,ignore daft IPCC computer models,political interference,agendas and the (presumably) thousands of climate researchers latched onto the life-giving teat of funding to keep on coming out with the tired old twaddle that AGW will be the ruination of us. Instead,ask if a sub 1C warming in well over a hundred years is actually measurable on the global scale,let alone if it's outside natural variability and a result of us all getting on with day-to-day life. Look around at what is really,actually happening in the here and now and draw your own conclusions. I'm not saying the ice age cometh but global temps are going in the exact opposite direction (dismiss anything associated with Hansen,Gore etc who'll desperately try to kid you otherwise) to CO2 emissions. Cycles,cycles,cycles... Many folk look back on the astonishing winters of 'old' (70's,80's) and never infer that they were out of the ordinary. They were,otherwise they wouldn't be so infamous! In the same way,our current run of mild winters is out of the ordinary - stuff happens. Be patient snow lovers,the cycle will soon turn in your favour. Sun lovers have been spoiled over the summers of the 90's and 00's until last year. Normality,whatever that's supposed to mean,is being restored. The cycles come around.

Time to jump overboard the AGW airship,but has it gotten too high to jump? All aboard the cooling train and make it out to be a disaster on the scale of AGW,funding available at every platform. Although it's a given,it'll be hard work to slay the AGW behemoth once and for all. It's a mess,for sure.

[trevw]

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=b...mp;issuedby=bou

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=B...&glossary=0

The above two reports, (provided by Lady Pakal over on the General Weather Discussion thread) don't exactly fall into the 'poor summer' category - they are off the scale low temperatures,the likes of which haven't been seen for over a hundred years. Two articles do not a proven case make,but I could link to literally hundreds of similar cases. Unlike the huge El Nino of 1998 and the resulting high global temp(though still behind 1934,depending on who exactly you want to believe),is the moribund La Nina solely responsible for such long-standing records to fall like nine-pins? I think not!

But although global temps can be said to have plateaued or even dropped slightly if you take your start point as 1998 they are still relatively high as far as recent history is concerned (and this is taking AGW opponents data sources) so I'm not sure I understand what localized low temp records are supposed to prove to me other than interesting synoptics have occurred in those areas?

Maybe they could have been caused by the atmospheric changes resulting from large amounts of open water at the pole as we headed into winter?

[laserguy]

Maybe they could have been caused by the atmospheric changes resulting from large amounts of open water at the pole as we headed into winter?

Maybe! Who honestly knows,and more importantly what could it actually prognosticate in the long run? BFTP is of the opinion that widespread coolings of bygone times were always preceded by an ice-free Arctic. Care to jump in,BFTP?

[trevw]

Everyone,ignore daft IPCC computer models,political interference,agendas and the (presumably) thousands of climate researchers latched onto the life-giving teat of funding to keep on coming out with the tired old twaddle that AGW will be the ruination of us. Instead,ask if a sub 1C warming in well over a hundred years is actually measurable on the global scale,let alone if it's outside natural variability and a result of us all getting on with day-to-day life.

Daft Models? Somewhat dismissive? I'm fairly sure quite a bit of hard work goes into making them not tooo daft..

Political Interferance.. I'd be interested in evidence that there is more of this from the pro AGW side than from the against..

Pretty sure there is funding available for climate researchers from organisations and governments who don't really want AGW to exist as well..

A hundred years is a very short timescale as far as the climate is concerned.. I thought that was the reason for the concern, unless we are unlucky I don't expect AGW to be a huge issue in my lifetime, I think that is why the press struggle - they want to make the consequences or lack thereof of immediate interest rather than 50/100 years down the line.

For myself I am as yet unconvinced what the CO2/natural variation split was/is for the current warming trend, I believe CO2 was at least a significant contributor because I find the basic science convincing but the climate sensitivity calculations not so (perhaps due to lack of understanding on my part).

I am concerned though that people can seem to equate the world cooling due to a lull in solar output (if this happens) with proof of CO2 not having affected our climate.. I just don't see how one logically follows the other.

Trev

[laserguy]

Daft Models? Somewhat dismissive? I'm fairly sure quite a bit of hard work goes into making them not tooo daft..

Political Interferance.. I'd be interested in evidence that there is more of this from the pro AGW side than from the against..

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...nce-policy-4511

Have a read of this.

[Anti-Mild]

I have been forced to reassess my opinion of global warming due in the main to recent releases by NASA indicating that they expect no warming over the next decade. Couple this with no warming in the past decade, this would equate to 20 years of no warming - somewhat flying in the face of the alarmist predictions of the IPCC and Mr Gore, and in direct opposition to the skyrocketing levels of CO2.

In my layman's opinion, the predictions are falling apart at the seams, the scientists who suggest that the sun is the main driver and that sunspots (or lack of) will influence the world's climate in the coming decades are becoming more numerous (or more vociferous), and any new research condemning mankind's nasty CO2 production smacks of ill-disguised propaganda!

Then again, I'm just a layman - although as I said my stance has been changed from that of an AGW 'believer' to now feeling duped by the powers that be.

I suppose things will become clearer in 20 or 30 years !

[Android]

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=b...mp;issuedby=bou

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=B...&glossary=0

The above two reports, (provided by Lady Pakal over on the General Weather Discussion thread) don't exactly fall into the 'poor summer' category - they are off the scale low temperatures,the likes of which haven't been seen for over a hundred years. Two articles do not a proven case make,but I could link to literally hundreds of similar cases. Unlike the huge El Nino of 1998 and the resulting high global temp(though still behind 1934,depending on who exactly you want to believe),is the moribund La Nina solely responsible for such long-standing records to fall like nine-pins? I think not!

On their own these are meaningless weather events with no relevance to US climate, let alone global climate, let alone trends in either. One step to getting anywhere near the bigger picture would be to at least find out how common such events are.

If low records are broken by that extent just about every year at some time, somewhere in the US, then it happening in Denver this particular time isn't really meaningful so we can jump off right here. Then again if records broken by this extent have never been observed for 50 years then it is bears looking at, although still perhaps more for weather watchers than climate watchers to explain.

There's a relevant site here concerning US temperature records:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/

Which lists record high lows, record low highs, record high highs, etc for daily, monthly and all-time over selected period.

This gives a good overview of just how common record breaking temperatures (at both end of the spectrum) are. In just the first 17 days of August 2008 the number of daily records broken at some location is 1355, broken down as:

New daily lowest max temperature records broken: 457

New daily lowest min temperature records broken: 165

New daily highest max temperature records broken: 367

New daily highest min temperature records broken: 366

Now just in light of this the Denver record breaking makes up just a small fraction of all records broken so far in August - at both ends of the spectrum. The Denver record does stick out above most of those new records because it has broken the record by such a large amount (5F). But I do say most. Glancing down the first few days of August I see several new high max records which were at least 5F or more above the previous record.

The idea that the world is cooling based on fragmentary analysis is like claiming the dice in a casino are rigged just because you happened to see someone at some table roll snake-eyes twice in a row. I need to see a thorough wide-scale analysis demonstrating something stands out before I buy into this idea that August is freezing cold in the US, let alone in the entire world.

Edit: sorry I missed the 2nd link which shows Denver record low max breaking the previous by 9F not 5F. So 9F is the target.

Edited August 18, 2008 by Android

[Thundery wintry showers]

In addition, the point about 1934 refers to US temp, not global temp as inferred.

[HighPressure]

I am not sure if AGW is falling apart but I certainly think the IPCC's projections and therefore credibility is certainly about to be called into question. Whatever the science I as an individual look at prediction made previous to the event occurring and time and time again the IPCC fail to get it right. What they do is issue another amendment making excuses or setting back this Armageddon for a decade or so and of course this always means they are going to be right but never actually are?

As for the sceptics many have suggested global temps would start to fall and that's is exactly what they doing currently.

The use of trends is really useless in this argument because there are no set rules on where to start the trend or on how to average the data, it can simply be manipulated to give either up or down and I guess even a straight line if you want. Having done a lot of trend work one thing that stands out is the 1998 global mean it looks and acts like a spike in the data and simply ruins any calculations and becomes an ideal manipulating tool.

The upshot is simple the IPCC have to produce projections that can be seen to show some degree of accuracy on the short term in order to gain any credibility for their medium or long term trends.

[Android]

I just found a record break which dwarfs the Denver 9F.

For Aug 15th:

CHEYENNE WSFO AP, WY new record lowest max: 49.0F previous: *65.0F*. That's a record breaker by 16F!

[noggin]

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=ht...sl=es&tl=en

Victor Herrera of the National Autonomous University of Mexico...........lack of solar activity taking us towards a little ice-age.

It seems to me that a growing groundswell of opinion re a coming cooldown is, well.......growing!

The Sun is currently as dead as a doornail.

Strange how the media don't seem to pick up on this newsworthy subject. :huh:

[laserguy]

Strange how the media don't seem to pick up on this newsworthy subject. :huh:

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warmin...Dissonance.html

Someone's trying! As for me,I've given up pestering the BBC to show the other side of the coin. For some reason (?) they are as interested in other 'outlooks' as Hansen and Gore are.

[Anti-Mild]

What I cannot fathom is the lack of acknowledgement around the sunspot issue. There can be little doubt that the sun is currently very quiet and that Cycles 24 and 25 are predicted to be relatively inactive - indeed almost as inactive as the cycles during the Dalton minimum, and historically there can be no doubt of a link between sunspot numbers and climate, yet this major driver of climate, IMO, is glossed over and swept under the carpet.

Admittedly it is too soon to completely dismiss GW as bunkum but thankfully, more and more dissenting voices are starting to be heard. How long before we hear from the IPCC retracting their alarmist predictions? I think we may be waiting for a long time!

[laserguy]

On their own these are meaningless weather events with no relevance to US climate, let alone global climate, let alone trends in either. One step to getting anywhere near the bigger picture would be to at least find out how common such events are.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=l...mp;issuedby=LOT

Here we go again,they just keep on-a-coming! Few records for cold should be being set in an allegedly warming world,let alone a veritable avalanche( :huh: ) of them. Look at facts,not daft computer models.

TWS you're right - 1934 being the warmest US year recorded. However,the rest of the world was presumably not far behind. Off the top of my head I believe the highest temperature ever recorded anywhere was in 1922 in Libya. All the time inbetween those two examples and all the cumulative CO2.... If it was a brand product it would have the Trade Descriptions people after it's manufacturers for not 'doing as stated on the tin'!

[VillagePlank]

Look at facts,not daft computer models.

The facts of the matter are:

(i) The world has warmed for 50+ years

(ii) Recently, the world has cooled/plateaued for 10 years

That's a ratio of, at least, 5:1. You are betting on the 1.

Didn't even mention a computer model :huh:

Edited August 20, 2008 by VillagePlank

[trevw]

I still don't see why cooling/lack of warming caused by diminished solar radiation/internal climate variation disproves the theory that additional CO2 will result in a forcing of the climate, it may of course delay/negate any effects for a time and may also help us pin down how much of the recent warming was natural and how much anthropogenic?

That aside. For whatever reason the trend has (temporarily?) plateaued I would hope the opportunity is being taken by those who write the (Daft?) climate models to try and nail down the forcings and internal climate variations that are the cause. This will hopefully result in even more accurate models being available in n months/years time.. Will be interesting to see what if anything is said about this kind of thing from the major modeling groups.

Trev

[laserguy]

The facts of the matter are:

(i) The world has warmed for 50+ years

(ii) Recently, the world has cooled/plateaued for 10 years

(i). How many periods of 50+ years has the world cooled for,and from a high,non CO2-induced peak?

(ii) CO2 emissions haven't plateaued for the last ten years,far from it!

I always bet on outsiders - a method that has served me well so far!

[jethro]

I still don't see why cooling/lack of warming caused by diminished solar radiation/internal climate variation disproves the theory that additional CO2 will result in a forcing of the climate, it may of course delay/negate any effects for a time and may also help us pin down how much of the recent warming was natural and how much anthropogenic?

That aside. For whatever reason the trend has (temporarily?) plateaued I would hope the opportunity is being taken by those who write the (Daft?) climate models to try and nail down the forcings and internal climate variations that are the cause. This will hopefully result in even more accurate models being available in n months/years time.. Will be interesting to see what if anything is said about this kind of thing from the major modeling groups.

Trev

I'm not so sure that Solar impact is being used to disprove the theory of CO2; more that the role of CO2 has been seriously overstated. We've been led to believe that CO2 is the driving force behind temperature increases in recent years, that any changes in Solar output have a negligible impact on climate. If this is the case, then given that emissions have risen relentlessly, a downturn in Solar activity shouldn't have caused a downturn in temperatures.

TSI is the only measurement used to gauge Solar output from a climate perspective, using just the TSI cannot explain the increase in temperatures, you have to add in CO2 to make the figures add up - thus the powers that be have declared Solar output has a tiny effect upon temperatures.

That being said, adding CO2 doesn't make the figures add up either; you have to add in increased water vapour due to evaporation of warmer oceans, apparently creating clouds which trap heat, and thus the ever increasing effect. That doesn't add up either, it goes against all known physical, proven properties of CO2 (the more you add, the less effect it has) and the Aqua satellite tells us the reverse is happening with the clouds, but I digress too much...

Solar activity has been high during the period of increasing temperatures, Solar activity has been almost non-existent for the past two years or so, cycle 23 has been quieter than the previous two cycles; this quieter Sun has coincided with the plateauing/decline in temperatures.

That's either a hell of a coincidence, or as I'm inclined to believe, our understanding of the Sun and it's role in climate change is poorly understood. The fact that we use only the TSI as a measurement of activity/impact does not mean that it is the only important or relevant measurement to make - it's just the one we understand and can measure.

[VillagePlank]

(i). How many periods of 50+ years has the world cooled for,and from a high,non CO2-induced peak?

(ii) CO2 emissions haven't plateaued for the last ten years,far from it!

I always bet on outsiders - a method that has served me well so far!

(i) What's your recommended period, then?

(ii) Who mentioned CO2?

[laserguy]

(i) What's your recommended period, then?

(ii) Who mentioned CO2?

(i). It really is a case of 'take your pick' on that one!

(ii). Like I said on the Nature and Climate thread after Paul had a pop at me,it's almost impossible to mention climate change without CO2 being implied as the driver,these days.

[VillagePlank]

(i). It really is a case of 'take your pick' on that one!

(ii). Like I said on the Nature and Climate thread after Paul had a pop at me,it's almost impossible to mention climate change without CO2 being implied as the driver,these days.

(i) Indeed.

(ii) I, for one, particularly avoid the mention of CO2 and AGW for precisely that reason!

EDIT: ... because, once they're mentioned the notion of sensible discussion about what might be happening to the climate in the short, medium, or long term, is, more or less, over.

EDIT2: ... and, besides, if we (conveniently) ignore the controversial stuff, we can go back to the evidence much more easily, which is the numbers :huh:

Edited August 20, 2008 by VillagePlank

[beng]

The facts of the matter are:

(i) The world has warmed for 50+ years

(ii) Recently, the world has cooled/plateaued for 10 years

That's a ratio of, at least, 5:1. You are betting on the 1.

Didn't even mention a computer model

You're not being entirely accurate here. Records indicate warming from the mid 70s until 1998 - and then a plateau. It's possible (we'll never know) that temperatures would actually have plateaued earlier if Mt Pinutubo hadn't caused a significant cooling in the early 90s.

So we have around 30 years of warming there (ignoring the volcanic eruption), all during the positive phase of the PDO and all during active solar cycles.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Off the top of my head I believe the highest temperature ever recorded anywhere was in 1922 in Libya. All the time inbetween those two examples and all the cumulative CO2.... If it was a brand product it would have the Trade Descriptions people after it's manufacturers for not 'doing as stated on the tin'!

Well, you evidently haven't seen Philip Eden's article on the Libya reading- one which is, indeed, often used to argue that the whole AGW theory is nonsense. As it happens, the reading is distrusted by the Libyan authorities, and disproportionately high relative to nearby stations. Unfortunately I don't have a link to any such articles, but the point is, it's far more questionable than, say, the hotly debated 38.5C at Faversham on 10 August 2003 which the Met Office believe is legitimate, and Philip Eden doesn't.

I've got no idea whether or not the sunspots will fail or whether that's just at the extreme end of the range of possibilities. However, it doesn't, in itself, disprove the notion of anthropogenic input (whether via CO2 or otherwise!) into the climate system. What it shows is that there are natural forcings that, under favourable circumstances (or unfavourable, depending on which way you look at it!), can introduce warming or cooling that would over-ride any anthropogenic forcing.