The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[VillagePlank]

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.

Yup - the detail.

Climate isn't about the detail. It's about averages and numbers.

Edited August 20, 2008 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

Yup - the detail.

Climate isn't about the detail. It's about averages and numbers.

Wouldn't we need to know the detail? Without detail, surely all that's left is an idea of the sum total, without the foggiest of how that total was made up.

I know you like to work on the basis of numbers, but I don't personally think such a large subject as climate, can be reduced to simple sums.

[laserguy]

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.

"Will the warming trends that have been witnessed the past decade contribute to higher daily global maximum temperatures in the future? Possibly, but keep in mind that according to climate change models, the places projected to warm up the most are not the desert areas. The last decade has been witness to several of the warmest years in the past millennium. However, the record highest temperature ever measured in the U.S (134 degrees F at Death Valley, CA in July of 1913), and the hottest temperature ever recorded anywhere on the globe (136 F at Al' Aziziyah, Libya in September of 1922) occurred well before global warming was a buzzword, and despite the recent series of warm years, globally, these records have not seriously threatened.

Can the temperature ever exceed 136 F? In all likelihood it already has, somewhere. It would be truly amazing if the thermometer in Al' Aziziyah was placed at the exact spot on the Earth's surface that happened to have the hottest temperature ever. On that sizzling September day in 1922, the vicinity near Al Aziziyah was certainly extremely hot, but since there were few meteorological stations nearby, it's highly improbable that this particular point was indeed the hottest spot........"

Found this after a five second 'search', quoted by those nice people at NASA. TWS I have to say that your comment above is one of the finest examples of hair-splitting I've ever encountered! As this quote implies,it almost,nay certainly is not the highest temp ever,just the highest recorded one. It can't be that wde of the mark anyway,as if it's got anything to do with the bigger picture of climate change. Exactly the same applies to actual,and recorded low temps too of course - we can't have a thermometer plonked on every square metre of the Earth!

(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".

The post I refer to here is now invalid,since it has been removed without notification,and consequently without reason. I have to say I'm dismayed by that,since it wasn't by any stretch of the imagination inflammatory,incendiary or likely to cause offence to anyone in any way - merely my take on why it is difficult to talk about climate change without reference to CO2,these days. Ah well. I'm very slightly miffed to be honest,as it is perfectly well known that there are posters on here who speak with utter conviction as to the way climate is headed and they also 'know' without doubt that humanity is behind it all and we're all going to die if we don't 'change'. Village Plank - IMO and FWIW I think you are amongst the,if not the most level headed poster on here and I do admire your restraint! Wish I could say the same about myself,but alas...

One more thing... concerning the public regularly being told by those great climate gods who pop up on tv or whatever to tell us that the world has warmed by 0.004C in 5 years,or some such arbitrary figure. Much is made of recent anecdotal and documented severe cold events,the reality of which are indisputable. An isolated event or a brief cluster of events mean nothing. But each event in itself is a reference point,a concrete record of events occuring now with increasing severity and duration in many and varied locations around the world. Join the dots to see what's going down. What's causing this? Was the outgoing La Nina so strong as to topple records going back over a century? No of course not. The ongoing and ever lengthening solar minimum? Well the AGW clan have always maintained (oh yes they have) that the CO2 'signal' is stronger than TSI variance/sunspot activity influence. Funny how the sun is now being viewed with increasing suspicion now it's taking a break from it's recent workout and having a little snooze. If,and when it awakes from it's slumber,AGW (?!?) will be back with a vengeance,sigh...

[VillagePlank]

Wouldn't we need to know the detail? Without detail, surely all that's left is an idea of the sum total, without the foggiest of how that total was made up. I know you like to work on the basis of numbers, but I don't personally think such a large subject as climate, can be reduced to simple sums.

Well, I am interested in weather and climate. Weather is the detail, climate is the summary. Climate, being an average of the weather, means that a change in the weather of long periods of time, means a change in the climate.

Climate is the weather averaged over long periods of time. Try, this. Weather, of course, is a simple tuple of {Temperature, Water, Wind} and a point in time can be described by instance of that set. (Actually, you'd need to extend that set to include a point in space, too)

Simple sums for simple me

[jethro]

Well, I am interested in weather and climate. Weather is the detail, climate is the summary. Climate, being an average of the weather, means that a change in the weather of long periods of time, means a change in the climate.

Climate is the weather averaged over long periods of time. Try, this. Weather, of course, is a simple tuple of {Temperature, Water, Wind} and a point in time can be described by instance of that set. (Actually, you'd need to extend that set to include a point in space, too)

Simple sums for simple me

I'm aware of all of that.

Averaging weather to get a picture of climate does come down to simple sums; you then come up with, we live with a temperate climate because of our location. Nothing new there.

That doesn't however reveal why our climate may have changed and as this is the "climate change" section of the forum, I'm afraid IMO it needs a tad more detail. Simply saying we're warmer or cooler doesn't explore the reasons. We've cooled over the last twelve months, plateaued over the last ten years - why? Purely looking at the numbers doesn't tell us the answers, it just tells us we have. Slotting that data into a thirty year time span to produce a trend doesn't tell us much either; a single year of cooler temps could simply be explained away as a glitch but we have ten years of data now. Saying the trend is still upwards doesn't reveal the answer. The last twelve months could reasonably be explained as La Nina, but the last ten years? If we look at the overall numbers alone then it is quite reasonable to say "global warming has stopped".

The devil is in the detail (IMHO).

[VillagePlank]

I'm aware of all of that.

Averaging weather to get a picture of climate does come down to simple sums; you then come up with, we live with a temperate climate because of our location. Nothing new there.

That doesn't however reveal why our climate may have changed and as this is the "climate change" section of the forum, I'm afraid IMO it needs a tad more detail. Simply saying we're warmer or cooler doesn't explore the reasons. We've cooled over the last twelve months, plateaued over the last ten years - why? Purely looking at the numbers doesn't tell us the answers, it just tells us we have. Slotting that data into a thirty year time span to produce a trend doesn't tell us much either; a single year of cooler temps could simply be explained away as a glitch but we have ten years of data now. Saying the trend is still upwards doesn't reveal the answer. The last twelve months could reasonably be explained as La Nina, but the last ten years? If we look at the overall numbers alone then it is quite reasonable to say "global warming has stopped".

The devil is in the detail (IMHO).

Indeed. But is ten years enough to be symbolic or representative of climate? The numbers (without the detail) tell you to wait and see. An intriguing blip, perhaps. Indeed, when the numbers show a clear trend, then it's time to investigate.

The devil is certainly in the details, and boy, haven't we seen that around here! FWIW I think the numbers drive the debate. We don't sit around arguing that last night was cooler than tonight therefore the climate is warming.

Climate is the sum of all things that make the weather over a protracted period of time. If, for instance, you are investigating sun spots, then you are investigating cumulative effects on our weather that eventually make it into summary statistics (called climate) Indeed prediction of sun spots has no physical basis (as far as I am aware) rather it is based on a pure mathematical analysis of the data at hand without reference to physical phenomena (apart from the numbers themselves)

But, alas, we digress. Me be happy to just disagree on this one, being that this, to me, appears to be solely a matter of opinion

Edited August 21, 2008 by VillagePlank

[stewfox]

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.

The attached table shows no evidence of any global warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weath...e_ever_recorded

A few years ago there was talk of 2-6c or global temp rises over next 50/100 yrs. Whats it now ?

A warmer planet would suggest more recent heat records

[jethro]

But, alas, we digress. Me be happy to just disagree on this one, being that this, to me, appears to be solely a matter of opinion

Absolutely, we have similar views on many things, just not this particular point. It is only a difference of opinion, upon which I'm happy to agree to disagree

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think the post about Libya's reading was grossly misinterpreted. I was not suggesting that the reading should be discarded because a high temperature probably occurred somewhere else but wasn't measured, I was referring to evidence that the station that recorded the 58C in 1922 regularly read anomalously high on sunny days by of order 3-4C.

As for Stewfox's comment, a more important comparison would be of the high records vs. the low records. Seems that less of the low records occurred in recent years. Of course, you could argue that this alone doesn't prove "global warming", and may have a point, but in that case, it equally applies that relative lack of recent high records doesn't disprove "global warming" either.

Once again (repeating the obvious is getting rather tiresome), the "plateau" over the last 10 years is distorted by the exceptional El Nino of 1998. The trend over 1999-2008 (connecting two La Nina years) has still been upward, but admittedly at a rate of nearer 0.1C/decade rather than the 0.2-0.3C/decade rate of the 1990s. So, from there, there may be signs that the background warming trend is slowing, but the trend is still upwards for now, if we look at even the recent past and factor out the bias caused by El Nino/La Nina.

[Chris Knight]

If only we could get away from temperature.

It means different things depending on the medium we experience it in.

It means different things to other organisms too.

Air temperatures of 37C are HOT to the human skin.

Water temperatures of 37C are pleasantly equitemperate to the human skin.

The heat content of air and water is totally different.

The amount of water vapour in the air at 37C makes a huge difference physiologically.

At 37C near 100% humidity, for humans, it is stifling. At 37C, 10 % humidity, the low atmospheric water content allows us to sweat off the moisture keeping us cool. We find breathing easier.

It is different for plants.

At 37C, with 10% humidity they get stressed because they transpire excessively, and wilt, unless they have specific adaptation to dry conditions. At 100% they can avoid transpiration and use all available water to help them grow.

The heat content of the atmosphere increases with the available humidity at the same temperature. The heat content of the atmosphere increases with the pressure.

The physics of weather and climate needs to be focussed on the heat, not the temperature.

Now who can tell me, what has been the change in the mean heat content of the planet over the last hundred years,in a graphical format, and are we cooling or warming?

[VillagePlank]

If only we could get away from temperature.

It means different things depending on the medium we experience it in.

It means different things to other organisms too.

Air temperatures of 37C are HOT to the human skin.

Water temperatures of 37C are pleasantly equitemperate to the human skin.

The heat content of air and water is totally different.

The amount of water vapour in the air at 37C makes a huge difference physiologically.

At 37C near 100% humidity, for humans, it is stifling. At 37C, 10 % humidity, the low atmospheric water content allows us to sweat off the moisture keeping us cool. We find breathing easier.

It is different for plants.

At 37C, with 10% humidity they get stressed because they transpire excessively, and wilt, unless they have specific adaptation to dry conditions. At 100% they can avoid transpiration and use all available water to help them grow.

The heat content of the atmosphere increases with the available humidity at the same temperature. The heat content of the atmosphere increases with the pressure.

The physics of weather and climate needs to be focussed on the heat, not the temperature.

Now who can tell me, what has been the change in the mean heat content of the planet over the last hundred years,in a graphical format, and are we cooling or warming?

Cut to the chase and talk of radiation, relatively.

[laserguy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...ming-blame.html

Hmm,not entirely sure if this is the right place for this,but here goes.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't have a problem with John Kettley's assertions in that article- the extent of cloud and rain is not unprecedented and in any case it is unwise to blame individual weather extremes on "global warming".

[laserguy]

I don't have a problem with John Kettley's assertions in that article- the extent of cloud and rain is not unprecedented and in any case it is unwise to blame individual weather extremes on "global warming".

Agreed,but here's the salient bit of the article:

"These conditions are not unique and are more like the poor August weather Britain saw during the Twenties and Sixties.

It is more likely a stark reminder that the warming trend we recorded in the last part of the 20th Century has now stalled. Globally, 1998 remains the warmest of the last 150 years".

[noggin]

Agreed,but here's the salient bit of the article:

"These conditions are not unique and are more like the poor August weather Britain saw during the Twenties and Sixties.

It is more likely a stark reminder that the warming trend we recorded in the last part of the 20th Century has now stalled. Globally, 1998 remains the warmest of the last 150 years".

I can vouch for the wet Summers of the 1960s. Only the other day (before Mr Kettley's words) I told my daughters (aged 16 and 20) how this Summer was just like the Summers of my childhood.

I can't vouch for the 1920s, though.........any takers?

Thinking about it further....the 60s were wet....they were snowy, too! Oooooh....I wonder......

[laserguy]

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/letter...win_demands.pdf

Look at this! I can just see those concerned at the Beeb right now on the 'phone: "Al,Al! Whadd'we do,whadd'we say"?!

[SP1986]

My take on it is this. The warming has not stopped, the people that say it has stopped are in large those who also say that you cannot take 100 years as a trend. It is warming the science proves this, I have witnessed academia in publication and they do not satisfy what the government ask for, they do it because they have an interest in it.

The problem is that if the governments were not involved the GW debate would be alot easier and less problematic. But no one trusts politicians and that is the ultimate point, and so because politicans have become involved in the global warming, no one trusts the evidence.

I have read some journals on the matter, astracts, conclusions even some the whole way through, and they are sure that the world is warming and will continue to warm, that together with an integlacial rebound still occurring there is no reason to doubt it.

Runaway global warming should it occur does not involve year after year breaking records, runaway global warming could occur slowly, and may consist of rises and declines in world temperatures.

[HighPressure]

Runaway global warming should it occur does not involve year after year breaking records, runaway global warming could occur slowly, and may consist of rises and declines in world temperatures.

Totally agree but I am afraid that many advocators of AGW including government and media spin machines have chosen to use every weather event as a basis for their argument. It is these people who are now getting what they deserve on the matter, you just cannot have it both ways!

[noggin]

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/letter...win_demands.pdf

Look at this! I can just see those concerned at the Beeb right now on the 'phone: "Al,Al! Whadd'we do,whadd'we say"?!

It'll certainly be very interesting to watch this definitive "history of climate change over the past 30 years" programme which the Beeb have lined up for the Autumn. It appears that it it will be a "warts and all", "no stone left unturned" programme!

We shall see. :o

[Anti-Mild]

It'll certainly be very interesting to watch this definitive "history of climate change over the past 30 years" programme which the Beeb have lined up for the Autumn. It appears that it it will be a "warts and all", "no stone left unturned" programme!

We shall see. B)

As a confirmed cynic, I am almost certain that the BBC programme will be thinly veiled propaganda with an unbalanced view of the current situation and little or no reference to the past, or forecasted, decade of no-warming.

Whether this stance is justified or right I would not like to say - we all know about the evidence for AGW, but there is also a growing train of thought that believes we will go the other way. As I said though, I do not expect the Beeb to acknowledge these new hypotheses.

[SP1986]

Totally agree but I am afraid that many advocators of AGW including government and media spin machines have chosen to use every weather event as a basis for their argument. It is these people who are now getting what they deserve on the matter, you just cannot have it both ways!

I dont think it's the fault of scientists who came up with the idea in the first place, it was probably a very genuine study which happened to get in the wrong hands. If it is ultimately wrong then it will be governments and spin doctors who get the blame, and quite rightly so, I don't think the original studies are to blame. However I personally wouldn't completely discount global warming yet. There are many ways in which the globe could continue warming even without the spin etc. I dont mind if the world warms, I'm sure we'll all find a way to adapt, I just wish that the governments would keep out of it and that funding could come from some appropriate source that are trying to seek the truth rather than use it for their own gain.

Yes I do think warming is occurring and do believe that even a warming world still goes through cool cycles like now for example but I question the political involvement and what it actually does for the whole debate.

[laserguy]

As a confirmed cynic, I am almost certain that the BBC programme will be thinly veiled propaganda with an unbalanced view of the current situation and little or no reference to the past, or forecasted, decade of no-warming.

Whether this stance is justified or right I would not like to say - we all know about the evidence for AGW, but there is also a growing train of thought that believes we will go the other way. As I said though, I do not expect the Beeb to acknowledge these new hypotheses.

Indeed. I certainly won't be watching - I've had my fill of AGW garbage (and you just know that the conclusion will be that it is us lot that are changing the climate these days and we're all going to fry or enter an ice age from the same stimuli),and frankly I've better things to do. In the extremely unlikely event of them not pointing the finger at humanity for the ongoing non-warming situation,or referencing the protracted temp plateau and very recent cooling,I guess I'll read about it on here in due course. Bet they don't put much effort into telling us how the 'hockey stick',which was responsible for sparking much of the AGW hysteria (that's if there has ever actually been any except from the very vocal and persistent enviro zealots) among the uninterested was a work of manipulation and has long been discredited.

[noggin]

Indeed. I certainly won't be watching - I've had my fill of AGW garbage

You won't be watching it? Really and truly? Resistance is futile, y'know, Laserguy! Bet you 50 pence that you do!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Totally agree but I am afraid that many advocators of AGW including government and media spin machines have chosen to use every weather event as a basis for their argument. It is these people who are now getting what they deserve on the matter, you just cannot have it both ways!

This is true, but the problem is, the more measured climate scientists etc. are often finding themselves lumped together with the spin machines.

I have to admit thinking at times that the BBC's coverage of climate change is biased- and I say this as someone who broadly agrees with the IPCC's general stance on the issue. This particularly applies to the news coverage, both TV and online, and they also seem keen on making motorists feel guilty about it.

I don't see anything wrong with John Kettley's article- the globe has, indeed, not warmed significantly since 1998, and it is, indeed, highly unlikely that Britain will ever end up with a Mediterranean climate, even if global temperatures rise by several degrees. But that, in itself, does not disprove the notion of some anthropogenic contribution to the overall 20th century warming. The problem lies not in what's stated, but rather what some members have been making of it.

Of course there's plenty of room for argument, but the reason why I quoted the IPCC is because they acknowledge the amount of uncertainty involved. Their projections are for a warming of between 1.1 and 6.4C in the 21st century- the former can probably be coped with and even used to our advantage, but the latter would almost certainly be catastrophic.

[HighPressure]

I would certainly agree the world has been warming but stop short on saying that it still is, for in order to be sure of that science has to fully understand what causes both warming and cooling and by its own admission it does not. However it is spun the scientific consensus says 'probably' still warming and 'probably' set to continue. The IPCC have placed a probability figure of 95% on this but science does not as a probability cannot be set against what is unknown and this is where science ends and spin starts. I would wager that we do not have anywhere near a 95% understanding of climate and all factors which influence it and I would quite happily have a tenner on non warming at 20/1 against?

This perceived weight of opinion makes it very difficult for alternative scientific views to be given any sort of credibility like a pupil trying to tell his teacher he is wrong?