'No Sun link' to climate change

[bluecon]

Assertions are not data.

There is all kinds of data on that.

I assure you 2008 will be a colder year.

Bluecon.. Not helpful mate.. Please explain your thinking.. Thanks

Yeti.. I'd love a reply to my reply.. :lol:

It is not complicated. The year is off to a cold start and I doubt there will be a worldwide warming trend before years end.

[laserguy]

Taking that quote and that perspective it would be reasonable to anticipate continued temp increases with continued CO2 increases....we are not seeing that are we. With explosion of CO2 in mid 20th century we saw cooling..so much for CO2 theory. For me its what is the DRIVER, not what is in the mix

BFTP

Just like a mixture of flour,eggs,milk and sugar will not become a cake without the stimulus of applied heat,so the mix of of the atmosphere will only follow,up or down,it's driving force the sun. Shove as much baking powder as you like into the cake mix and it ain't going nowhere 'til the oven's fired up. There endeth LG's cookery lesson. Damn,forgot the raisins!

[Devonian]

There is all kinds of data on that.

OK, according to NOAA the NH winter temperature was above average, likewise with Hadley and the satellite records.

I assure you 2008 will be a colder year.

Than recent record warm ones? Perhaps. Than average? Highly unlikely.

It is not complicated. The year is off to a cold start and I doubt there will be a worldwide warming trend before years end.

OK, we'll see. You may be right.

[Bobby]

bluecon, global warming and climate is about long term averages averages, over decades. We can't tell anything from a few months of data, nothing at all. There will always be periods well above the norm and periods well below it. Only by averaging long term data can we know where the climate is going.

By your logic we could a bitterly cold winter, the coldest on record, yet on the last few days there it turns very warm with temps of 12-13c for a week or 2, and you would thus say that it wasn't a cold winter, even though the average temperature of the winter was say 2c below average. It's the same here. A few cool months doesn't change the fact that we're in an exceptional period of warmth.

[Yeti]

OK, according to NOAA the NH winter temperature was above average, likewise with Hadley and the satellite records.

Very interesting figures there; Jan was the coolest since 89, though still above average, whilst March equalled the hottest ever.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Damn,forgot the raisins!

LG

You disappoint me....Wot no raisins??!

BFTP

[bluecon]

bluecon, global warming and climate is about long term averages averages, over decades. We can't tell anything from a few months of data, nothing at all. There will always be periods well above the norm and periods well below it. Only by averaging long term data can we know where the climate is going.

By your logic we could a bitterly cold winter, the coldest on record, yet on the last few days there it turns very warm with temps of 12-13c for a week or 2, and you would thus say that it wasn't a cold winter, even though the average temperature of the winter was say 2c below average. It's the same here. A few cool months doesn't change the fact that we're in an exceptional period of warmth.

The AGW proponents have been using very short term data for decades to prove their case. Now that the weather has turned against them in parallel to a reduced activity of the Sun it is suddenly not a good idea. If we assume the Earth is 4.5b what is your long term average? The last Ice Age ended around ten thousand years ago which is a tiny bit of time. A 0.4 degree difference in 100 years is not conclusive evidence. The hockey stick was such an embarrassing sham for the scientific community and the temperature has been as warm or warmer than the present many times in the recent past.

[Devonian]

The AGW proponents have been using very short term data for decades to prove their case. Now that the weather has turned against them in parallel to a reduced activity of the Sun it is suddenly not a good idea. If we assume the Earth is 4.5b what is your long term average? The last Ice Age ended around ten thousand years ago which is a tiny bit of time. A 0.4 degree difference in 100 years is not conclusive evidence. The hockey stick was such an embarrassing sham for the scientific community and the temperature has been as warm or warmer than the present many times in the recent past.

Odd view given you've been quoting odd cold months at us. So, to prove a cool down takes a single month, to prove warming take 4.5bn years???

The words biased and 'slightly' come to mind

Edited April 9, 2008 by Devonian

[bluecon]

Odd view given you've been quoting odd cold months at us. So, to prove a cool down takes a single month, to prove warming take 4.5bn years???

The words biased and 'slightly' come to mind

Interesting that you made no mention of what you would consider a proper length of time to determine we are all going to die from a slight buildup of CO2 while accusing me of bias. So what is it MR. Totally Non-biased. What is the proper length of time?

Last year the reduction of ice at the poles was surely a sign of doom, and this year with the extreme Artic cold and increase in ice not a peep in the press.

[Devonian]

Interesting that you made no mention of what you would consider a proper length of time to determine we are all going to die from a slight buildup of CO2 while accusing me of bias. So what is it MR. Totally Non-biased. What is the proper length of time?

I never said 'we're all going to die" - though I do think we're have a damn good try at pillaging planet Earth (call me a commie, eco Nazi, enviromentalist (seem to be the latest favoured jibe across the net, clever isn't it?) or greenie storm trooper if you like that's what I think). Oh and CO₂ has increased by more than 30% - and that increase IS as a result of our (humanity) activities. I know if I got a 30% pay rise 'slight' is not the word I'd used to describe it.

Anyway, 30 years is long enough to detect the kind of changes we're interested in. But, trends are better.

Last year the reduction of ice at the poles was surely a sign of doom, and this year with the extreme Artic cold and increase in ice not a peep in the press.

As I've said to judge ice loss we need to look at minimum extents. If the minimum extent recovers this years then multi year ice might also begin to recover. It might happen, but we don't know yet. Facts are that thin one year old ice melts more easily than older thicker multi year ice and there is dramatically less multi year ice in the Arctic atm.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Devonian

[bluecon]

I never said 'we're all going to die" - though I do think we're have a damn good try at pillaging planet Earth (call me a commie, eco Nazi, enviromentalist (seem to be the latest favoured jibe across the net, clever isn't it?) or greenie storm trooper if you like that's what I think). Oh and CO₂ has increased by more than 30% - and that increase IS as a result of our (humanity) activities. I know if I got a 30% pay rise 'slight' is not the word I'd used to describe it.

Anyway, 30 years is long enough to detect the kind of changes we're interested in. But, trends are better.

Move to Canada and you can pick from untold number of spots to live where the air and water are clean, wilderness reigns and you will start hoping AGW is true.

I prefer the term watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside.

The trend does appear to be lowering temps for the last ten years.

I was a geology student during the late 70's early 80's and well remember all the buzz about an ice age on the way. (of course they were right, that an ice age is on the way, the only question is exactly when)

As I've said to judge ice loss we need to look at minimum extents. If the minimum extent recovers this years then multi year ice might also begin to recover. It might happen, but we don't know yet. Facts are that thin one year old ice melts more easily than older thicker multi year ice and there is dramatically less multi year ice in the Arctic atm.

New ice or old ice it seems to be grasping at straws. With the extreme and continuing cold in the Arctic there is little ice melting and actually the ice is still thickening. A late spring will have a large effect on the ice melt.

Edited April 9, 2008 by bluecon

[Yeti]

I never said 'we're all going to die" - though I do think we're have a damn good try at pillaging planet Earth (call me a commie, eco Nazi, enviromentalist (seem to be the latest favoured jibe across the net, clever isn't it?) or greenie storm trooper if you like that's what I think). Oh and CO₂ has increased by more than 30% - and that increase IS as a result of our (humanity) activities. I know if I got a 30% pay rise 'slight' is not the word I'd used to describe it.

Nor I.

Move to Canada and you can pick from untold number of spots to live where the air and water are clean, wilderness reigns and you will start hoping AGW is true.

Of course there are places that are unspoilt - but there are shrinking rainforests, roaring motorways, skyscrapers and factories belching out black smoke.

Humans have had a catastrophic effect on planet Earth and AGW is one of many disasters that is waiting to happen.

[bluecon]

Of course there are places that are unspoilt - but there are shrinking rainforests, roaring motorways, skyscrapers and factories belching out black smoke.

Humans have had a catastrophic effect on planet Earth and AGW is one of many disasters that is waiting to happen.

In Canada there are thousands and thousands times the size of England that is unspoiled land.

I have absolutely no probelm if you guys want to solve the CO2 crisis. Just keep your paws off my money and I will not make a peep. Ask me to pay for this 'theory' and I will resist. I earned the money and I should spend it as I please not on some crackpot plan that the government forces on me.

[Red Raven]

In response to some of the posts here that 'everything is ok' or the earth isn't warming etc. I would like to draw a comparison with the current economic situation we are in.

This time last year everyone expected and planned as though it was business as usual, house prices would continue to rise and we would all become millionaires. Everyone (or at least the majority) comforted themselves that economy has never collapse before and if it did it would sort itself out. Well, as we are discovering when something is not right with a system it corrects itself rapidly and sometimes dramatically. Climate and its response to human induced changes can and probably will at some point make equally dramatic (and possibly catastrophic) abrupt corrections. Can we, should we take such risks?

[bluecon]

In response to some of the posts here that 'everything is ok' or the earth isn't warming etc. I would like to draw a comparison with the current economic situation we are in.

This time last year everyone expected and planned as though it was business as usual, house prices would continue to rise and we would all become millionaires. Everyone (or at least the majority) comforted themselves that economy has never collapse before and if it did it would sort itself out. Well, as we are discovering when something is not right with a system it corrects itself rapidly and sometimes dramatically. Climate and its response to human induced changes can and probably will at some point make equally dramatic (and possibly catastrophic) abrupt corrections. Can we, should we take such risks?

What is your plan to avoid these 'risks'? There is nothing you can do.

Many economist saw the housing crash coming since housing bubbles are nothing new and have repeated many times in the past. Check out Dr. Doom(Peter Schiff). To many people are riding in the cart and nobody pulling. Once this economic mess hits nobody will care about AGW.

The state of the economy has nothing to do with AGW.

[biffvernon]

The state of the economy has nothing to do with AGW.

Hmmm. Some of us are studying the interconnectedness of a system based on economic growth and fossil fuel burning in a finite world and are concerned about the various symptoms of impending system failure.

[VillagePlank]

Hmmm. Some of us are studying the interconnectedness of a system based on economic growth and fossil fuel burning in a finite world and are concerned about the various symptoms of impending system failure.

Well, when you figure out a reliable way to predict population growth, let the rest of us know, eh?

Edited April 9, 2008 by VillagePlank

[dr.rioja]

In Canada there are thousands and thousands times the size of England that is unspoiled land.

I have absolutely no probelm if you guys want to solve the CO2 crisis. Just keep your paws off my money and I will not make a peep. Ask me to pay for this 'theory' and I will resist. I earned the money and I should spend it as I please not on some crackpot plan that the government forces on me.

oh dear.

[biffvernon]

Well, when you figure out a reliable way to predict population growth, let the rest of us know, eh?

That's not such a hard problem. We know the initial conditions and have a good understanding of population dynamics and where the unknowns are. Estimates of world population levelling off at around 9 billion by mid century are made with confidence. Significant undershoot could result from disease pandemic or global financial and energy disruption combined with bad weather leading to massive food shortage, but we hope not. The most significant non-disaster factor is women's education along with primary health care and social security which have a lowering effect on birth rate.

Climate forecasting is much more difficult.

[VillagePlank]

That's not such a hard problem. We know the initial conditions and have a good understanding of population dynamics and where the unknowns are. Estimates of world population levelling off at around 9 billion by mid century are made with confidence. Significant undershoot could result from disease pandemic or global financial and energy disruption combined with bad weather leading to massive food shortage, but we hope not. The most significant non-disaster factor is women's education along with primary health care and social security which have a lowering effect on birth rate.

Climate forecasting is much more difficult.

"the future population growth of the world is difficult to predict", "The UN itself has issued multiple projections of future world population, based on different assumptions. Over the last 10 years, the UN had consistently revised these projections downward"

Emphasis, mine, source here

Sounds like quite a hard problem, to me. But then I am simple.

Edited April 10, 2008 by VillagePlank

[biffvernon]

It depends what you mean by a 'hard problem'. Forecasting the weather here for next month is a hard problem. Weather is a chaotic system for which we have an incomplete knowledge of initial conditions. It's such a hard problem it will probably always be impossible.

With population it's a different kind of problem. We can build a scenario based on certain assumptions that is very robust. There are known unknowns, such as the timing of the next flu pandemic or politico-economic upheavals or the arrival of a large meterite, that could make reality very different from the most likely scenario. And then there are unknown unknowns.

Still, I will be surprised if the world population is more than half a billion away from 9 billion in 2008, with a greater likelihood of a lower than a higher number.

[VillagePlank]

It depends what you mean by a 'hard problem'. Forecasting the weather here for next month is a hard problem. Weather is a chaotic system for which we have an incomplete knowledge of initial conditions. It's such a hard problem it will probably always be impossible.

With population it's a different kind of problem. We can build a scenario based on certain assumptions that is very robust. There are known unknowns, such as the timing of the next flu pandemic or politico-economic upheavals or the arrival of a large meterite, that could make reality very different from the most likely scenario. And then there are unknown unknowns.

Still, I will be surprised if the world population is more than half a billion away from 9 billion in 2008, with a greater likelihood of a lower than a higher number.

With respect, I think you'll find that the notion of 'chaos' derives from population dynamics - one of the first examples (pre 1849) being the Verhulst model - which was created as a direct result of biological population studies.

In systems thinking, population as a predictive problem, is every bit as hard as weather prediction. I note you are relying on trends (top end of a parabola on a low order polynomial) to make a prediction of what a population will be at some point in the future.

Is that not what you are also doing with predicting a rather warmer climate with AGW?

[biffvernon]

Nope. Reminds me of my first foray into computer modelling - involving rabbits and foxes on a Sinclair Spectrum

It's a timescale thingy. The next 40 years of world population is a very short timescale in relation to the population dynamics. We're just looking at a little bit of the curve. Most of the people who we expect to be alive in 2050 are either alive already (so we can count them) or their mums are alive (so we can count them and ask them how many babies they intend having).

Can we predict the population ten generations down the line? Now that would be hard.

It's the difference between forecasting tonight's weather and next month's weather.

[VillagePlank]

Nope. Reminds me of my first foray into computer modelling - involving rabbits and foxes on a Sinclair Spectrum

It's a timescale thingy. The next 40 years of world population is a very short timescale in relation to the population dynamics. We're just looking at a little bit of the curve. Most of the people who we expect to be alive in 2050 are either alive already (so we can count them) or their mums are alive (so we can count them and ask them how many babies they intend having).

Can we predict the population ten generations down the line? Now that would be hard.

It's the difference between forecasting tonight's weather and next month's weather.

The next forty years is a very short timescale in relation to climate dynamics.

EDIT: I note in my previous post, which must now remain unedited, that I said 'is every bit as hard as weather prediction' It should read 'is every bit as hard as climate prediction'

Edited April 10, 2008 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

An official rebuttal from Shaviv:

http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale