The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Thundery wintry showers]

I would like to point out that these are US temperature trends not global temperature trends.

[Gray-Wolf]

U.S. Temps? aren't there a recent cluster of 'highest temp' records coming out of the U.S. at the moment?

[Roger J Smith]

I was commenting on another thread that in North America, we have so many new weather stations opening up that any spell of reasonably warm or cold weather (of which there are lots) will set plenty of daily records at the newer stations. They don't mean much, a record since 1990 could be a degree or two above or below normal in some cases.

The warm spell at the moment is not that noteworthy and any daily records that it happens to set will probably be at stations that were not open back when real records were set at longer-term stations in their region. For example, I would be willing to bet that somewhere in IL or IN could be near 80 F at this time of year, but a shorter-term station might set a daily record at 68 or 70 F. Means nothing, this is the air mass temperature for the sort of air mass you might call modified Pacific or over-run tropical, if the sun were to come out in a direct feed from the Gulf of Mexico it would go into the high 70s or near 80 F.

One of the biggest problems in this whole climate change debate is getting a really good fix on what constitutes "long-term stable stations of record" because there has been a tendency for airport weather stations to be relocated within the airports as they grow, and also a tendency for long-term midtown stations to close down for budget reasons or poor exposure.

But where I can identify truly uncontaminated long-term weather stations in the records, a surprising (to you at least) number of daily record highs were set a long time back into the past. The daily minimum records do generally show an upward drift in values and a downward drift in frequency. But it's a rather subtle thing, a matter of one or two degrees on the very coldest nights.

[Gray-Wolf]

Seeing as the planet is now running above the CO2 levels that the IPCC post as the 'worse case scenario' and global Carbon sinks were 3% less functional than when last measured I'm really hoping that you guys who see no problems with CO2 are correct.

It would also appear that Methane levels will be up again this year (as they were last year after a 10yr 'neutral' period as parched soils manged to oxidise the outputs). The chilling reports of methane 'leaks' bubbling from the permafrost on Russia's continental shelf would appear to point towards the culprit as the northern permafrosts turn into wetlands.

Methane being a 'super greenhouse gas' I doubly hope that the folk who cannot see greenhouse gasses as a climate issue are correct...........

If not then I would say again that no matter what rhetoric we hear, no matter what steps we in Europe take to moderate our outputs, global production of CO2/Methane will continue to rise for the foreseeable future and at rates far in excess of what the IPCC reports uses as 'worse case scenario' levels.

[noggin]

A nice little Christmas present idea

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/05/im-f...d-in-this-book/

[laserguy]

U.S. Temps? aren't there a recent cluster of 'highest temp' records coming out of the U.S. at the moment?

No doubt there will be if 'you-know-who' has anything to do with it,never mind the snow,ice,real-life events etc . Chill!

[Thundery wintry showers]

It sounds to me from some of the descriptions as if "Red Hot Lies" dismisses the AGW idea as a socialist agenda and portrays anything that isn't out and out free marketism as "Marxism". It might be an unfair criticism as I haven't read the book, but it is typical of the more sensationalist, "I'm right because I'm right" branches of the climate sceptic community. At the very least it sounds no less sensationalist than Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" stuff.

Not quite; free markets dictate growth at minimum cost for greatest return. The majority of flood plain developments have happened because they exist within building lines of existing towns/villages, in order to protect greenbelt land.

...

The problem with the first sentence- while it's perfectly true- is that today for whatever reasons cost and return often end up defined in purely financial terms, to maximise short-term profits. I remember Sunderland AFC wanting to build its academy on greenbelt land near Cleadon based on those kinds of arguments, even though there were all manner of derelict sites in Sunderland itself that could have been used.

I take the rest of the points- I find the points about government/council targets entirely believable, and they also correspond well with how South Tyneside Council has operated over the last decade (build anything anywhere- especially if it's on greenbelt to annoy those 'rich snobs' at Cleadon). Good to see that there are government restrictions on greenbelt development, just sad to see that councils actively encourage companies to build on anything, encouraging the sort of short sightedness re. drainage described.

My main worry about development is the emphasis on "going with the flow" on economic supply and demand re. a population shift from the north to the already overpopulated South East, but that's another matter!

[laserguy]

This is about right,and the sole response (so far) is amusing.

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/11/0...n-with-weather/

[Thundery wintry showers]

I would like to see more links posted to sites that aren't blatantly anti or pro-AGW just from the premises of the site. Something balanced, something that considers different angles.

Taking a premise, fitting evidence around it and saying that this "confirms" the truth of the premise is not a very good line of argument in my view, yet it is exactly what most of these sites (pro as well as anti) do. Actually, that raises a thought, where is the evidence for anything in that article? As far as I can see it's just an ad hominem type assault on climate researchers, such as those at the dept I am doing a PhD with

[stewfox]

I was commenting on another thread that in North America, we have so many new weather stations opening up that any spell of reasonably warm or cold weather (of which there are lots) will set plenty of daily records at the newer stations. They don't mean much, a record since 1990 could be a degree or two above or below normal in some cases.

I havent seen any post/link via the USA that doesn't have data that goes back at least 70/80 years or more

In a warmer world we should see more warm record broken then cold (long term) although of course more 'reports' will come from the USA then a equal size of water in the South pacific

However a record is a record and wether its 10 yrs 100 yrs or a 1000yrs it will merit attention

[Gray-Wolf]

Once again I find myself at a point where I am loosing faith that many of the contrarians posting do so out of firmly supported scientific backing and not merely a wish to obfuscate, filibuster and annoy.

I would guess that, if I trawled through the links posted by either side of the debate, the majority of contrarians posts would be gleaned from contrarian blogs without much ,if any, science backing up the claims and that the majority of links posted by AGW adherents would be either from scientific research papers or media reports linking to scientific research/papers.

Why, if there really is a debate, would this be the case?

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Once again I find myself at a point where I am loosing faith that many of the contrarians posting do so out of firmly supported scientific backing and not merely a wish to obfuscate, filibuster and annoy.

I would guess that, if I trawled through the links posted by either side of the debate, the majority of contrarians posts would be gleaned from contrarian blogs without much ,if any, science backing up the claims and that the majority of links posted by AGW adherents would be either from scientific research papers or media reports linking to scientific research/papers.

Why, if there really is a debate, would this be the case?

Quite GW, just because black clearly isn't white doesn't mean you can't claim they're the same.....................

[laserguy]

.......Why, if there really is a debate, would this be the case?

Because really there isn't a debate anymore,us 'deniers' know that full well. AGW descended into the ridiculous a long time ago,so why shouldn't we plumb the same depths? It seems it's all we have left in our armoury because the 'warmers' simply will not listen to reason,understand that the 'science' is flawed from the first hurdle,or take any notice whatsoever as to what has/is happening and put all their faith(?) into ludicrous computer models.

[Android]

Whenever experts pile what we know about climate into computers to run through the physical calculations the results back up AGW. That's a big reason why so many of us think it's on the right track.

The reason why many people don't take skeptics complaints about models seriously is that they aren't taking the steps necessary to demonstrate their arguments to the scientific community. They are just subjective pot-shotting from the sidelines rather than taking up the gauntlet and joining in the scientific debate. It's all very well to claim climate models are doing X wrong and are "ludicrous" like so many big-named skeptics state in opinion articles, but where are the climate models that do it better?

On a very much related subject skeptics complain bitterly about the global surface temperature records, claiming that they are not adjusted properly, etc. But again notice the glaring lack of any "correct" global temperature record from the skeptics which does it "properly". If they think they can do it so much better then why haven't they just done it? That would be a scientific challenge right there. Try to establish a "better" temperature record.

In both cases of models and surface records I have to conclude skeptics don't really have decent arguments, and they know it and this is why they shy away from doing anything substantial with their arguments that could be scrutinized.

[Roger J Smith]

My point above was clearly not understood.

I don't see the point of the media reporting half a dozen daily records from let's say Saskatchewan for argument's sake, like 12 C at this place, 13 C at some other place, all stations that opened up around 1980 or 1990, when Regina in the middle of the lot has a record of 18 C set in 1907 or some such thing, anyone with even a fragment of climatological understanding would quickly realize that if those new stations had been there in 1907, they would have registered 16 C at the very least (on a flat plain with air mass mixing).

So what is the point of reporting these "records" which are essentially misleading, giving teachers in schools more ammunition for their gullible students, "look at all these new records, it has never been this warm, blah blah," and turning out a huge crowd of useful idiots to vote for political parties who want to bring in socialism through the scary door of climate change.

Actually, this has already basically succeeded, some of us are just trying to establish that this was wrong and will be dangerous in the near future. Just from first principles, constantly twisting the truth around to fit some political agenda and knowing that you are doing that but feeling that it is "in the greater interest" is one step removed from totalitarian mind-control and we might as well drop the pretence that this is a free society.

But when there's a real temperature record of some interest or relevance, I will comment on it. Toronto has 160 years of temperature records, since global warming came along, monthly records have been broken in two months, January (2005) and December (1982). All the other months have the same long-term temperature records as they had when I graduated from high school in June, 1967. One of them was set in 1842. In fact, here's the full list, 2005 (broke 1967), 1954, 1945, 1842, 1962, 1964, 1936, 1918, 1953, 1963, 1950, 1982 (broke 1875). Where's the runaway warming in that list?

And how close is this reality to what children are being taught in schools today? I'll bet if you asked them

How many months have broken their all-time records since global warming began in 1980?

(.a.) 2

(.b.) 4

(.c.) 8

(.d.) 12

The majority would choose either 8 or 12. That's how misled the population is today. Is it any wonder they all bow down to the new earthly god?

Edited November 6, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[jethro]

On a very much related subject skeptics complain bitterly about the global surface temperature records, claiming that they are not adjusted properly, etc. But again notice the glaring lack of any "correct" global temperature record from the skeptics which does it "properly". If they think they can do it so much better then why haven't they just done it? That would be a scientific challenge right there. Try to establish a "better" temperature record.

In both cases of models and surface records I have to conclude skeptics don't really have decent arguments, and they know it and this is why they shy away from doing anything substantial with their arguments that could be scrutinized.

I take it you are completely unaware of Steve McIntyre's work then? Or perhaps Roy Spencer? Just two examples which spring instantly to mind.

I suggest before making such sweeping statements, you perhaps investigate the many peer reviewed papers, from reputable scientists which give clear, valid, scientific reasons why the AGW/CO2 theory is flawed.

Climate models which do better? Even the most ardently pro AGW scientists using models, recognise and accept they have severe limitations; they are only as good as the information fed into the system. Quite frankly our knowledge of natural systems and feedbacks is scant, even the simplest of things such as clouds are not represented in the models; without such input, the results should be taken with a large dose of salt.

[Gray-Wolf]

I take it you are completely unaware of Steve McIntyre's work then? Or perhaps Roy Spencer? Just two examples which spring instantly to mind.

I suggest before making such sweeping statements, you perhaps investigate the many peer reviewed papers, from reputable scientists which give clear, valid, scientific reasons why the AGW/CO2 theory is flawed.

Climate models which do better? Even the most ardently pro AGW scientists using models, recognise and accept they have severe limitations; they are only as good as the information fed into the system. Quite frankly our knowledge of natural systems and feedbacks is scant, even the simplest of things such as clouds are not represented in the models; without such input, the results should be taken with a large dose of salt.

So what of the East Anglian Uni. data set which so obviously provides not just the proof of our input but also that we 'can' model accurately our past climate (and so have more faith in the (4) models future predictions?).

If past models were flawed by the 'data collection points' not being on a grid pattern (but randomly spaced) then both adherent and contrarian models will be equally flawed. At present there is only one methodology that would appear to work properly and this clearly highlights the global impact of mans dalliance in his world.

EDIT: News release of a Cornell uni study on our present warming

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81106153534.htm

Edited November 7, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

also that we 'can' model accurately our past climate (and so have more faith in the (4) models future predictions?).

A wholly ridiculous claim.

I can get a pretty good match by running a high order polynomial trend program. It models the previous climate almost exactly, but does it speak of the future - of course not!

The reliability of any scientific theory or method is how well it predicts the future, not the past, and any scientific object that relies on its legitimacy by how well it's performed against a known data set is, at best, unreliable. I'm sure that climate modellers do NOT claim this!

Of course, that it models past climate is a first test, and a useful test, - but it's nothing more.

Pause a moment to consider it. What is plugged into the models? Some sort of guess about what the atmosphere was doing at the time? There were no records all that time ago - so what's your starting point ? Do you iterate through vast amounts of possiblities until you hit a dataset that matches historical data? Of course, you could work backwards, but chaos pretty much prevents that.

Take it from me, if you will, computer modelling is, by a very long long way, still in it's infancy.

Edited November 7, 2008 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

So what of the East Anglian Uni. data set which so obviously provides not just the proof of our input but also that we 'can' model accurately our past climate (and so have more faith in the (4) models future predictions?).

If past models were flawed by the 'data collection points' not being on a grid pattern (but randomly spaced) then both adherent and contrarian models will be equally flawed. At present there is only one methodology that would appear to work properly and this clearly highlights the global impact of mans dalliance in his world.

EDIT: News release of a Cornell uni study on our present warming

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81106153534.htm

Morning Ian,

I've read and re-read the East Anglian study now, I don't think I'm being spectacularly dense today (although too early to rule it out....) but I cannot see that it tells us much more than we already knew.

It says, " It was not possible to robustly separate the greenhouse gas and ozone influence on surface temperatures in either polar region"

So how can they say that, then claim to be able to attribute changes due to anthropogenic influences?

The Anglian study cites both Wang and Polyakov.

The Wang citation is a reference to studies which show despite their best efforts, models cannot replicate the Arctic warming in the 1930's and 1940's. The Anglian study then states:

"However, although these simulations show some predominately anthropogenic early century warming, the warm anomaly in the '30's and '40's is not reproduced, suggesting this was largely unforced variability consistent with other analysis."

In other words, Wang's work still stands, models cannot and do not replicate that warm period - we don't know the cause.

Yet, despite not knowing the cause, despite the models not being able to replicate this period, despite recent warming mimicking that period, but to a lesser degree (the Arctic was warmer back then) we can categorically dismiss that and claim anthropogenic for modern day? How? How do we know with such certainty that the cause back then isn't the same cause today, if we don't know what the cause was?

Wang paper: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/wang2804/intro.shtml

The Polyakov citation; here's the abstract of the paper they refer to:

Résumé / Abstract

Arctic atmospheric variability during the industrial era (1875-2000) is assessed using spatially averaged surface air temperature (SAT) and sea level pressure (SLP) records. Air temperature and pressure display strong multidecadal variability on timescales of 50-80 yr [termed low-frequency oscillation (LFO)]. Associated with this variability, the Arctic SAT record shows two maxima; in the 1930s-40s and in recent decades with two colder periods in between. In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature, the maritime Arctic temperature was higher in the late 1930s through the early 1940s than in the 1990s. Incomplete sampling of large-amplitude multidecadal, fluctuations results in oscillatory Arctic SAT trends. For example, the Arctic SAT trend since 1875 is 0.09 ± 0.03°C decade ? with stronger spring- and wintertime warming; during the twentieth century (when positive and negative phases of the LFO nearly offset each other) the Arctic temperature increase is 0.05 ± 0.04°C decade-1, similar to the Northern Hemispheric trend (0.06°C decade 1). Thus, the large-amplitude multidecadal climate variability impacting the maritime Arctic may confound the detection of the true underlying climate trend over the past century. LFO-modulated trends for short records are not indicative of the long-term behavior of the Arctic climate system. The accelerated warming and a shift of the atmospheric pressure pattern from anticyclonic to cyclonic in recent decades can be attributed to a positive LFO phase It is speculated that this LFO-driven shift Was crucial to the recent reduction in Arctic ice cover. Joint examination of air temperature and pressure records suggests that peaks in temperature associated with the LFO follow pressure minima after 5-15 yr. Elucidating the mechanisms behind this relationship will be critical to understanding the complex nature of low-frequency variability.

Full paper here:http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/data/sat_slp.php

So, they cite Wang which says climate models do not replicate the early/mid 20th century warming. They cite Polyakov who says in essence, due to natural variability, which we don't really understand, we're not sure of the anthro influence, they say they cannot distinguish between greenhouse gas and ozone and then they turn round and say "hey we're sure it's us".

How? I mean really, how can they make such claims given all the above?

[Gray-Wolf]

The most intense period of warming (taking us well beyond the 40's max) has occurred over the past 15yrs. Yes, folk were very worried about the arctic through the 80's and early 90's but ,since 2002, concerns appear to have gone ballistic. I don't think we can ever discount the impacts that 'cyclical' conflagrations of many recognised cycles can ,and will ,lead to extreme climatic responses but these come and go ,they don't just keep coming.

I know many would claim it is to 'early to know' for sure that the dire predictions we are hearing about the collapse of the northern cryosphere, and mans role in, are to be believed but with so much at stake surely we must take action? Even if (and I do not believe for one minute that this is the case) we are all wrong and man's impact on the planet is benign then surely a 'natural cycle' leading to the predicted outcomes will be just as devastating for humanity as an AGW one?

In the way of such things it would appear that the timing is all awry and we are now in the midst of a natural 'cool' period which seems to lead to a lot of glee from the contrarians and, to me, this would appear to be 'slowing' any will to respond to a full stop.

I know that ,as humans, we are very adept at turning adversity into advantage but the thought of the nations now carving up the Arctic to get at the mineral/fossil fuel resources there fills me with a great sadness. Russia's investment in both ice breakers and military vessels is an indication that the exploitation will occur.

The loss of perennial ice (and the overall thinning of the pack) makes such ventures possible to maintain 12 months a year but the impacts upon the high arctic, with particulate contamination of pack ice and the breaking up (and weakening) of pack ice over the winter months can only lead to 1 outcome when the spring arrives.

Unless we are suggesting the the northerly shift in storm tracks,the northerly migration of the jet and the northerly drift of the 10c isotherm are all part of this grand multi decadal oscillation then surely we must conclude that the 'novel' wind/wave/temperatures that have led to the flushing out of perennial ice into the Atlantic,loss of ice shelfs, rapid retreat of glacier snouts,record melting across Greenland are all associated.

It is a great pity that we do not have a time machine to check out the last millennia for this long period oscillation and it's impacts as we would not be having this conversation now but sadly we do not have such luxury and the sheep that I am dictates I follow the majority scientific view

[jethro]

But where is your science to support this?

You held the Anglian study up as proof positive and I've quite clearly shown, using their own citations, that there is no certainty (absolutely none in the order they claim) that what is happening today, is above and beyond natural variation. And we don't need a time machine to go back through millennia, the early/mid 20th century is far enough.

I ask, once again, what are these cooling cycles you keep referring to? What is the state of play today? Which natural drivers are you citing?

[Thundery wintry showers]

It seems it's all we have left in our armoury because the 'warmers' simply will not listen to reason,understand that the 'science' is flawed from the first hurdle,or take any notice whatsoever as to what has/is happening and put all their faith(?) into ludicrous computer models.

If the science is flawed, that doesn't mean the whole concept is refuted. If something can't be proved true, doesn't mean that it's false (e.g. would someone get very far arguing, "if someone drives at 65mph through the middle of a housing estate, it cannot be proved that he/she will cause an accident by doing so, therefore he/she won't cause an accident"?) And I do listen to reason, but I don't consider "A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true" a very compelling line of reasoning.

With that off my chest, it's refreshing to see some good discussion on the UEA article. The article's conclusion is drawn from simple premises: the climate models do not reproduce the recent warming using natural variability alone, while when including anthropogenic forcing, they do. Hence the conclusion that there is a detectable anthropogenic forcing.

However, I would prefer it if it was made clearer that what we have is further evidence for anthropogenic forcing, and not proof of it, for many of Jethro's criticisms are valid. In particular, I can see that if the models cannot reproduce the 1930s/40s warming, then that shows that there is some uncertainty over the natural forcing that was largely responsible for the 1930s/40s warming- which means that it's possible that the models could be failing to account for some natural forcing that contributes to the latest warming. Again, if the conclusions are derived from climate model results, the conclusions' accuracy is going to depend on the accuracy of the climate models.

I wouldn't go as far as "take them with a pinch of salt"- climate models have come a long way in recent years and many do offer realistic simulations, but I'm quite happy to concede that they shouldn't be accepted as givens.

[jethro]

TWS, I thank you for accepting my criticisms are valid and not just a sceptic, knee jerk dismissal - it's really nice to be listened to rationally.

My take on the situation, for what it's worth, is that I think it highly possible that the earlier warming in the Arctic is more a reflection of CO2 influence than recent times. Polyakov's work clearly identifies cycles of warming/cooling (many of which are still not adequately understood), the '30's-'40's warming was notable both for it's intensity and rapidity.

What we know as established fact in regards to CO2, is that the earlier, smaller increases have a much more dramatic impact than subsequent emissions; the earlier industrialisation era would have affected temperatures much more than today's emissions. This of course would have been tempered by the "dirty" nature of the early fuel consumption and the vastly greater level of sulphur in the atmosphere as a consequence.

I don't know of any studies which incorporate early industrialisation emissions levels in regards to the warming Arctic in the early 20th century - are there any? All the studies which I've seen take into account known, natural variability and none of these can replicate the warming - perhaps the missing emissions would provide the missing link? The UEA study couldn't account for temperature rises until they fed emissions into the model - hence detecting an anthro signature, I wonder if they did the same study again but using '30's-'40's temperature data would they come up with the same result?

Before I get leapt on for this post, I'd just like to make it clear I've always accepted we are bound to have some impact upon climate but I dispute the degree or levels being claimed. And I absolutely dispute the certainty of some of these claims.

Edited November 7, 2008 by jethro

[Admiral_Bobski]

I know many would claim it is to 'early to know' for sure that the dire predictions we are hearing about the collapse of the northern cryosphere, and mans role in, are to be believed but with so much at stake surely we must take action? Even if (and I do not believe for one minute that this is the case) we are all wrong and man's impact on the planet is benign then surely a 'natural cycle' leading to the predicted outcomes will be just as devastating for humanity as an AGW one?

I'd like to write a little parable, if I may (a fictitious little story, I might add, that assumes we have nothing but hearsay to go on).

Reports come through of fighting in Georgia. Missles fly, bombs explode and people are dying. Knowing what we know about the past and the political situation we figure that it must be the Russians who are invading, and obviously something must be done about it.

But what do we do?

There's potentially a lot at stake, so our military decides to send in 20,000 troops to attack Russia. Within hours we are at war with Russia. There's just one catch: it wasn't the Russians who were invading, it was the Georgians who struck first. If we had stayed home and done some reconnaisance, prepared our armies and determined the appropriate response we would have avoided an intense and bloody conflict, but instead we decided to run in, guns blazing and made a worse situation than there was originally.

CB

[The Eagle]

Gray Wolf is, of course, in denial of the fact the Globe has not warmed at all since 2001 and since last year is cooler. He is also on purpose neglecting to mention the dramatic rise in amount of Artic Ice this year....for which he will struggle with an explanation - instead spouting rubbish about how thin it is. The GW argument is over in my view. It is no longer Global 'Warming' but 'Climate Change' - the nuts want to have it all ways.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Darkman