Ah perhaps we're going to cool after all

[wysiwyg]

PS - Sorry we're going off topic again...

No not really - this is better than the bit where we got lost in FFT land imo

I think the distinction between individual bloggers/media editors who happen to have a science background and the scientists who actually roll up their sleeves and do the research is fundamental to this whole debate.

Unfortunately only time will reveal the truth at the science debate level. I think most scientists with a professional interest in the debate are smart enough to not jump in and immediately debunk other scientists' work without some very careful deliberation of what the outcome of their own work will be. That fact to me clearly defines the difference between media/blog scientists and those actually active in the research and literature.

[full_frontal_occlusion]

No not really - this is better than the bit where we got lost in FFT land imo

Surely that should read ffO land?

I'm not sure if the animations were explicit enough! I could always try again...... :lol:

ffO (sorry, FFT.... no. ffO doh!)

Edited February 22, 2008 by full_frontal_occlusion

[wysiwyg]

Surely that should read ffO land?

I was guilty as well - WysiLand - no you don't want to be there..........ever! :lol:

I'm not sure if the animations were explicit enough! I could always try again......

If you must

ffO (sorry, FFT.... no. ffO doh!)

[noggin]

I'm not sure if the animations were explicit enough! I could always try again......

I wish I'd never asked.......... :lol:

[Thundery wintry showers]

Trouble with the sun's role in climate change, is that while much of the earlier 20th century warming might be explainable by solar activity (I say "might" because some recent research has contested that view), very little of the late 20th century warming can.

It's worth pointing out that the Great Global Warming Swindle posted the graphs showing the relationship between solar activity and global temperature but then conveniently stopped at 1980...

The sun should certainly not be ignored- indeed for all we know, in the next 50 years solar activity could show a marked decline that creates a cooling of greater magnitude than any amount of anthropogenic global warming could ever do. However, solar activity is very unlikely to largely explain the late 20th century warming. Most climate scientists do not ignore the role of the sun in climate change- although you might get that impression from the exaggerated versions of their pro-AGW conclusions that circulate once the media and government have got a hold of them.

[wysiwyg]

Most climate scientists do not ignore the role of the sun in climate change- although you might get that impression from the exaggerated versions of their pro-AGW conclusions that circulate once the media and government have got a hold of them.

Precisely - well put. I think this link is in the pinned section but I'll post it here again as I personally think it's one of the most balanced views wrt CC that I have ever seen. (dont be fooled by the temperature graphs being from Wiki - it's actually Hadley data)

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, I agree, it's one of the most balanced reads on the subject that I've come across. I'm not sure about the confidence over the positive conclusion that an anthropogenic warming of only around 1C over the next 100 years is likely, as there are many poorly understood feedback mechanisms, some of which are covered in that article (hence the latest IPCC report's range of 1.1 to 6.4C) but it's hard to argue with the conclusions at the end re. action, whatever one's position on AGW.

[The Penguin]

Tell me about it! At that point someone has to override all arguments and impose a decision to remove the deadlock - at the global level with GW, that decision can only be taken by governments sometimes unilaterally. Unfortunately some decisions are unpalettable and will not be accepted by everyone (some of the people some of the time...).

And where does that leave Joe-public struggling to know who to believe, unwilling to compromise their hard grafted lifestyles for a government they didn't vote for in the first place? Couple that with the compromises of governmental short-termism and appeasing the taxpayer and little wonder there is inertia.

ffO

Ah, I knew deep down there was a point to being older and wiser. Thanks for reminding me what it is. Realism.

(or cynicism as it's now known)

[HighPressure]

Precisely - well put. I think this link is in the pinned section but I'll post it here again as I personally think it's one of the most balanced views wrt CC that I have ever seen. (dont be fooled by the temperature graphs being from Wiki - it's actually Hadley data)

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

I have just posted on the Ozone thread, that I expect 2008 mean temps to be similar to those of 2007. I find sun spot and cosmic ray activity interesting as it looks on the face of it to fit alongside the Ozone depletion profile which correlates with Southern hemisphere temps. CO2 does not fit or sit neatly in my charts against any of these??

[Gray-Wolf]

We all know how volcanic eruptions (like Pinatubo, 91') cool the planet but obviously the opposite is also true.

Last weeks Lunar eclipse was apparently up to a thousand times brighter than a classic 'dark eclipse' due to the clarity of the stratosphere at the moment (all the volcanic ash has dropped back to earth).

I haven't read any papers on the impact of a clean stratosphere but I bet the pan evaporation rates are well up this summer (if we don't suffer any large eruptions......).

[Yeti]

Well here we are:

http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/25f...req10jvrndo2oe5

A new sunspot has appeared. This is not the high-latitude variety that usually denotes a new cycle... what is it? A remnant of the previous? I'm not an expert but it seems worth noting.

[wysiwyg]

Well here we are:

http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/25f...req10jvrndo2oe5

A new sunspot has appeared. This is not the high-latitude variety that usually denotes a new cycle... what is it? A remnant of the previous? I'm not an expert but it seems worth noting.

Probably part of the last cycle. Yestserday there was a large explosion on the far side of the sun and we should see the results of that wrt sunspots in about a week apparently.

http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/24f...lcpgjksdns7gd02

[The PIT]

Perhaps other factors haven't been considered as well. It seems that the stratosphere is rather clean at the moment wouldn't this also have an effect on the climate???

[Gray-Wolf]

Perhaps other factors haven't been considered as well. It seems that the stratosphere is rather clean at the moment wouldn't this also have an effect on the climate???

If we put any credence in the 'global dimming' by our contamination of the upper troposphere (1940-80) then we can see how dramatically 'cleaning up' can affect average global temps.

Any area of the globe fortunate enough to be in full sun will now be recieving measurably more energy than it did with a 'murky' stratosphere 16 years ago.

Just not the time for mother earth to play her last 'cool down' hand before our emmisions render the old patterns useless...........

Just when I thought Earth mother had fed us a lifeline it's yanked away again..............

[noggin]

Any area of the globe fortunate enough to be in full sun will now be recieving measurably more energy than it did with a 'murky' stratosphere 16 years ago.

Does stratospherical murk act in the same way as clouds? Does it keep the warmth that the Earth has absorbed from the sun during the day "in"?

Just to throw a tasty morsel in the "is it warming or is it cooling" argument, in the midst of the exceptional cold/snow in many,many parts of the NH this Winter, we have record-breaking mildness in some parts of Scandinavia:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/26022008news.shtml

I dunno, it's enough to give a person a headache, trying to suss it all out! :wacko:

[Chris Knight]

Does stratospherical murk act in the same way as clouds? Does it keep the warmth that the Earth has absorbed from the sun during the day "in"?

Just to throw a tasty morsel in the "is it warming or is it cooling" argument, in the midst of the exceptional cold/snow in many,many parts of the NH this Winter, we have record-breaking mildness in some parts of Scandinavia:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/26022008news.shtml

I dunno, it's enough to give a person a headache, trying to suss it all out! :wacko:

You can see what the stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures are and have been for the past 10 years (nearly) on:

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

recent paper on observations of European (lower level) aerosols:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/8/83/2008/acp-8-83-2008.pdf

perhaps why the weekend weather is usually rubbish, whereas Mondays get better!

there's a lot of stuff if you google for atmospheric aerosol optical thickness (and similar terms)

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Its all swings and roundabouts, I was up in Fagernes, Oppland Norway a few weeks back and a. the airport was closed more often than it was open due to snow and ice (nasty thing on planes wings) despite the usual clearing methods. b. the locals were moaning about the amount of snow and c. the ski resorts were loving it, best season in a decade.

The temps ranged from -4C to -27C while I was there, with the average being -3c to -10c (high low) So its a pretty regional thing, even in such small areas - Southern Norway was experiencing less snow/cold than usual.

[Devonian]

Whaaatt? Don't get so upset,he was only part of the article I posted,I merely mentioned his name! Never fear,I've read the stuff you posted earlier as I'm sure everyone else has, and thank you. March 2-4 should be fun,though precisely none of it will reach mainstream media. This scam will only be rumbled when there's twenty feet of snow all over the place,(except perhaps the UK,of course!)the way it's going.

Actually, one scam has been successful, the scam of grossly misrepresenting a scientist, Dr Tapping, and rather than admit that 'mistake' let the scam spread. Thus today, we see two (1, 2) more articles in which the misrepresentation of Dr Tapping continues.

If ever there was a lesson on how climate myths spread this is it B)

[Gray-Wolf]

Soon be time for the feb global temp anoms so here's the Jan roundup

Brrrr, what a chilly old planet these days.........

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Soon be time for the feb global temp anoms so here's the Jan roundup

Brrrr, what a chilly old planet these days.........

GW

Yes chilly, Jan was below the 20th century average...thanks for reminding everybody how cool we've just been

BFTP

[noggin]

Soon be time for the feb global temp anoms so here's the Jan roundup

Brrrr, what a chilly old planet these days.........

If that graphic was done with respect to a base period of 1961 to 1999, would the blue spots be bigger and the red spots smaller, IYKWIM?

Genuine question, btw....sometimes I find it hard to get my head around stuff.

[wysiwyg]

If that graphic was done with respect to a base period of 1961 to 1999, would the blue spots be bigger and the red spots smaller, IYKWIM?

Genuine question, btw....sometimes I find it hard to get my head around stuff. :huh:

Yes assuming that the 1961-1999(2000) baseline was higher than the 1961-1990 one (I think it is)

Incidentally, I am surprised they (NOAA) are still using the 61-90 baseline as the other climate study centres seem to be using the 1971-2000 baseline. Irrelevant really - you could change the baseline and scale colours to show anything you want in essence. I just wish that they would all be standard and use the same scales so that comparison is easier.

Wysi

[Devonian]

GW

Yes chilly, Jan was below the 20th century average...thanks for reminding everybody how cool we've just been :huh:

BFTP

Can see how, given it was above the 1951-80 average and that's, since it's warmed through out the century, a warm 30 yr average?

Edited February 28, 2008 by Devonian

[Devonian]

Can see how, given it was above the 1951-80 average and that's, since it's warmed through out the century, a warm 30 yr average?

Drat! That's can't see how...

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Drat! That's can't see how...

Dev

Knew what you mean't. Only 44 Jans were colder since 1900...obviously not for the UK though.

BFTP