Global Weather Oscillations

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I have to say that I find that dismissal in blue above very very disappointing indeed.

On the basis of so many assumptions that are being made about positive feedbacks etc, there is a lot of arrogance in that statement I am afraid to say.

It completely closes down debate and makes the whole science and outlook appear cut and dried. Which it isn't by a long chalk.

I'm sorry - I think it is appalling tbh....

I am not surprised or appalled TBH. But I Agree with your sentiments and their stance is deep rooted. If meto follow that rule it IMO explains the lack of advancement on the LRF front [observed its got worse since the 80s!!]

BFTP

Edited May 21, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I am not surprised or appalled TBH. But I Agree with your sentiments and their stance is deep rooted. If meto follow that rule it IMO explains the lack of advancement on the LRF front [observed its got worse since the 80s!!]

BFTP

I think my sentiments were made stronger to emphasise the point tbh. As you already know with my own views and scepticism, I am not actually that surprised - it is only that I try to stay open minded. And not pre-judge too much - as it is easy to do. There is always room for compromise - but no, you are right - they don't come from the warmist/AGW agenda.

Pretty much a rhetorical exclamation of disatisfaction rather than anything else in honesty

[pottyprof]

Like your namesake, John, Sherlock Holmes, When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth which, to my mind, means we must, at some point, debate the potentially ridiculous - whatever that might be.

It was the sun wot did it!!!!

Oh.. hang on.....................

[johnholmes]

I am not surprised or appalled TBH. But I Agree with your sentiments and their stance is deep rooted. If meto follow that rule it IMO explains the lack of advancement on the LRF front [observed its got worse since the 80's!!]

BFTP

depends what you mean on the lrf front of course

in the 80's we (UK Met) could never really hope to use synoptic meteorology to go further than 72 hours. That has certainly improved, perhaps not as much as some of us had hoped, but in terms in terms of accuracy at T+72 and the routinely used Countryfile type output for T+120 hours (6 days) it is better.

Or perhaps you refer to the now 6-15 routine day outlook issued each day.

My own view on this, contrary to others on here I know, is that its more right than wrong.

What would be immensely useful is if someone on this forum would do a genuine check on this output over several months. Then we could be sure of if it is as I say or as others say?

If by lrf you mean a month or more ahead then in the early 80's, unless I am mistaken, UK Met had ditched its monthly prediction after several poor forecasts.

I don't ever remember any attempt to go beyond 1 month, even within the Met O let alone on any public utterance.

Do correct me if I'm wrong though.

Edited May 21, 2009 by johnholmes

[Devonian]

I think my sentiments were made stronger to emphasise the point tbh. As you already know with my own views and scepticism, I am not actually that surprised - it is only that I try to stay open minded. And not pre-judge too much - as it is easy to do. There is always room for compromise - but no, you are right - they don't come from the warmist/AGW agenda.

I must have imagined mentioning the uncertainties a page back, let me see, oh yes:

"BUT there are areas with uncertainties big areas. Feedbacks (and the Hadley scientist knows that as well - so the posts above rubbishing them are simply that), clouds, the response of the oceans. All these mean the predicted warming has a range (the old 1-5C) which encompassed the lowest possible to the highest likely."

The truth is awkward

A very inaccurate statement if ever one was made.

BFTP

OK, put your evidence and data that I'm wrong here and I'll listen to it. I submit this as a good summary of the evidence and data there is .

I will soon when time is availed to me. That report seems rather odd as it suggests that we would see no CO2 increase if we hadn't burned fossil fuels. That seems rather odd to me as warming oceans have released incredible amounts of CO2...and the oceans have been warming...haven't they?

BFTP

I cannot see how anyone can think we could burn the vast amounts of fossil fuels we have and not see a rise in CO2 conc - it's not about AGW scepticism or not, it's about maths, about quantities and simply about calculating.

Anyway, please put a figure on the amount of CO2 released by warmed (so something warmed them - it has indeed warmed) oceans.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

I thought this was an interesting read - maybe worth throwing it in here for discussion.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/th...c12-c13-ratios/

It may be a blog but it does reference relevant sources (with links) so there is no need to dismiss it out of hand simply because it is a blog.

Only had chance to briefly scan it this morning but it looks interesting. Certainly makes you wonder doesn't it.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

depends what you mean on the lrf front of course

in the 80's we (UK Met) could never really hope to use synoptic meteorology to go further than 72 hours. That has certainly improved, perhaps not as much as some of us had hoped, but in terms in terms of accuracy at T+72 and the routinely used Countryfile type output for T+120 hours (6 days) it is better.

Or perhaps you refer to the now 6-15 routine day outlook issued each day.

My own view on this, contrary to others on here I know, is that its more right than wrong.

What would be immensely useful is if someone on this forum would do a genuine check on this output over several months. Then we could be sure of if it is as I say or as others say?

If by lrf you mean a month or more ahead then in the early 80's, unless I am mistaken, UK Met had ditched its monthly prediction after several poor forecasts.

I don't ever remember any attempt to go beyond 1 month, even within the Met O let alone on any public utterance.

Do correct me if I'm wrong though.

Hi John

Observed not evidential, to be honest. The extended outlooks were very good IMO in the early to mid 80s [avid weather fan back then with Bill Giles, Fish, McCaskill to name but some and also to those behind the scenes at the time] and it seems rather wishy washy these days and not as advanced as one would have hoped or wanted.

Dev yes we have added CO2 but I can't agree that we are responsible for all the increase. Colder water is able to hold/absorb more CO2, as the waters warm they release more C02 and absorb less. Oceans have warmed approximately 0.8C over last century or so [same as atmosphere and that should say something] and so as a result more CO2 released naturally into the atmosphere and less absorbed....thus CO2 increases.

BFTP

Edited May 22, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Solar Cycles]

I think many on here would love to have that kind of thing happen. Sadly I suspect that neither David IF we got a Hadley centre scientist to give their views, would be happy to discuss/debate with them.

More to the point I very much doubt that any Hadley Centre scientists would do this, not on NW nor anywhere else .

But we could try.

Perhaps Ian (TWS) currently based at Exeter might try.

I'll certainly try although having been given one contact and had a couple of e mails exchanged with him; he made it clear what he thought of David's theory; this is the substance of his reply some months ago

'the web is increasingly full of this stuff. I would give no credence to

the geomagnetic hypothesis ... it is simply without physical basis.

As to the global temperatures "stalling" this is a storm in a tea cup.

Ten years is too short to infer a long-term trend. Twenty, maybe, but

thirty realistically. Shorter and the forced signal becomes obscured by

natural climate variations.

It is possible that the global mean temperature will not rise in the

short-term but this would simply be a case of natural variations masking

the underlying increase that is resulting from humans perturbing the system.'

I can try and approach him again to see if he might take part?

John

What a blinkered view that is! 10 years of stalling temps is to short a term

, but 25 years of rising temps, is enough to rewrite our understanding of the climate. Is it me or is MetO man speaking with fork tongue? Surely the stance should be, "our understanding of the workings of earths climate, is still in it's infancy". It stinks of pure arrogance, and this is why climate science will follow the way of banking!!

Edited May 22, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I must have imagined mentioning the uncertainties a page back, let me see, oh yes:

"BUT there are areas with uncertainties big areas. Feedbacks (and the Hadley scientist knows that as well - so the posts above rubbishing them are simply that), clouds, the response of the oceans. All these mean the predicted warming has a range (the old 1-5C) which encompassed the lowest possible to the highest likely."

The truth is awkward

Its nearly the B/H and too sunny a day to dwell on semantics Dev. As you know my comments refer to the dismissal of the discussion. The whole range of uncertainties mentioned are wider than that. They are too generous on the up side.

The truth isn't awkward at all - there is no truth yet at all :lol:

Have a nice weekend - and do something different in the sunshine

What a blinkered view that is! 10 years of stalling temps is to short a term

, but 25 years of rising temps, is enough to rewrite our understanding of the climate. Is it me or is MetO man speaking with fork tongue? Surely the stance should be, "our understanding of the workings of earths climate, is still in it's infancy". It stinks of pure arrogance, and this is why climate science will follow the way of banking!!

LOL! :lol: about the banking analogy

Well spoken as for the rest, and particularly the other bolded part! :lol:

[LadyPakal]

I'm sorry but I do think some people know more than others. I've always though the teachers and lecturers of my school days knew better than me (arrogant, misbehaving kids at the back of the class probably didn't though...). That didn't mean we couldn't talk, just that I knew I was the student.

Hmm, not always good to listen & accept without question, methinks... :lol:

Edited May 22, 2009 by LadyPakal

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hmm, not always good to listen & accept without question, methinks... :lol:

That is very good!! Was the teacher Al GORE????

And re link 'less than a fart in a hurricane'....fantastic analogy and shows where I stand too.

BFTP

Edited May 22, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I thought this was an interesting read - maybe worth throwing it in here for discussion.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/th...c12-c13-ratios/

It may be a blog but it does reference relevant sources (with links) so there is no need to dismiss it out of hand simply because it is a blog.

Sorry Lady P - only just got round this morning to looking at your link :lol:

Very interesting, there is some line of support for David Dilleys CO2 and temperature analysis there. Some of the AGW suggestions about fossil fuels etc do come under question. A perfectly respectable sourcing of information too - thank u for that :lol:

Edited May 22, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't think I'm really in a position where I could arrange for a top scientist to discuss the theory- but it'd be an interesting idea. I wouldn't be sure of who to approach, because there are so many of them!

FWIW, although I believe the IPCC, Hadley Centre etc. have what constitutes our "best guess" on the subject, I am rather more sceptical than most of the main scientists re. how far we can trust this guess. Part of the problem is that there's an ethos of trying to convey to the public that scientists are more certain about AGW than most of them really are, in order to sound certain and avoid adding doubt in the minds of the general public. I'm very sceptical about this approach as well, as I think an increasing percentage of the public can see through it, and as such it can be counter-productive as people feel (with strong justification) that they're being misled.

Devonian's "submitting to the superior knowledge of Hadley Centre scientists" is a position not without its merits- someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject is more likely to be right than someone with little knowledge. However, for me it only reaches the "more likely" category- because at the moment scientists only really have a best guess based on current understanding, and there is still a lot more we need to know- therefore nobody is definitely right. Sometimes people with only modest knowledge on a subject can contribute positions that few of the more knowledgeable even considered, yet which can transpire to be perfectly valid.

If we reduce carbon dioxide during the warm periods, we would also reduce photosynthesis and oxygen...not good.

Best Regards

David

That, however, is a poor argument. We would not be reducing carbon dioxide, we would be reducing the extent to which we increased it.

I'm very sceptical about David's theory, if nothing else because of some of the poor arguments associated with it, but I haven't yet seen enough evidence to totally dismiss it out of hand. The evidence might exist- but I'd need to be shown it.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

That, however, is a poor argument. We would not be reducing carbon dioxide, we would be reducing the extent to which we increased it.

I'm very sceptical about David's theory, if nothing else because of some of the poor arguments associated with it, but I haven't yet seen enough evidence to totally dismiss it out of hand. The evidence might exist- but I'd need to be shown it.

I think what David is saying is that if we reduce CO2 in the warm periods - as AGW theory and political decision making advocates etc, then that will leave us open to a deficiency of CO2 when the natural cooling cycles kick in - as CO2 continues to decline with temp. His analysis is suggesting a different correlation of temp and CO2 to AGW hypothesis - and doesn't subscribe to the amplifying warmth feedbacks and hence increased CO2 and then further warmth etc that AGW courtesy of the Hadley Centre, IPCC and other staunch advocates do.

His analysis is effectively suggesting a reverse amplified negative feedback - the negative amplification ironically coming from man made action to drop 'surplus' CO2.

This is 'surplus' CO2 which could well be 'consumed' by existing negative feedback cyles that exist at the expense of assumed positive one's e.g clouds, there might be deeper than predicted solar mins instead etc. And then when the natural negative climate mechanisms kick in, then CO2 continues to reduce, which in turn allows further drops in temps - and so on.

Edited May 22, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Thundery wintry showers]

But (assuming that this theory holds, just for convenience) if we reduce the extent to which we're putting CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't it reduce the extent of this negative feedback? It strikes me that regardless of the truth of the situation if we reduce CO2 emissions then we end up with CO2 concentrations that are merely closer to what they'd be if there was no anthropogenic forcing.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

But (assuming that this theory holds, just for convenience) if we reduce the extent to which we're putting CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't it reduce the extent of this negative feedback? It strikes me that regardless of the truth of the situation if we reduce CO2 emissions then we end up with CO2 concentrations that are merely closer to what they'd be if there was no anthropogenic forcing.

The second bit of my last reply is intended to try to answer that point.

We should remember that your own assumed conclusion based on the assumption that the positive feedbacks that AGW subscribes to, exist in reality in order to maintain the levels higher and prevent a continued reversal to 'assumed non existing AGW levels' and even a deficit that (assuming Davids theory is correct) would arise when the natural cycles change from positive as they have been - to negative as he predicts they will become.

Very much depends on the AGW assumed positive feedbacks being real - and much depends on Davids analysis being right - plus a host of other uncertain feedbacks of course.

Edited May 22, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Thundery wintry showers]

My point is much, much simpler than that- I'm not assuming anything here in terms of positive feedbacks. I'm quite sceptical about those positive feedbacks myself, as it happens. All I'm assuming is that as humans belch out CO2, CO2 concentrations increase, and if humans belch out less CO2, CO2 increases by a smaller amount. Therefore I'm arguing that reducing CO2 emissions would reduce the degree of interference with any natural mechanisms (including those that act to overcome the excess CO2).

Is the argument that this excess anthropogenic CO2 may cause a stronger negative feedback and if we reduce the extent to which we're pumping out CO2 then this negative feedback will create a deficit relative to what would arise if we kept pumping out CO2- therefore we should keep pumping out lots of CO2? That's a risky business because if this negative feedback theory was right then pumping out more CO2 could cause a larger, more violent negative feedback.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

My point is much, much simpler than that- I'm not assuming anything here in terms of positive feedbacks. I'm quite sceptical about those positive feedbacks myself, as it happens. All I'm assuming is that as humans belch out CO2, CO2 concentrations increase, and if humans belch out less CO2, CO2 increases by a smaller amount. Therefore I'm arguing that reducing CO2 emissions would reduce the degree of interference with any natural mechanisms (including those that act to overcome the excess CO2).

Is the argument that this excess anthropogenic CO2 may cause a stronger negative feedback and if we reduce the extent to which we're pumping out CO2 then this negative feedback will create a deficit relative to what would arise if we kept pumping out CO2- therefore we should keep pumping out lots of CO2? That's a risky business because if this negative feedback theory was right then pumping out more CO2 could cause a larger, more violent negative feedback.

Sorry - I didn't emphasise my point clearly. I was indeed taking what you said as an 'assumed' position and not necessarily your own. It is too easy for these misunderstandings to keep happening when corresponding in this format!

As I see it, reducing CO2 emissions could exacerbate the effect of a change in natural feedbacks from positive to negative. If there are pre-existing negative feedbacks instead of the positive one's that are assumed in AGW, then the assumed surplus may not be as great either. So therefore taking action to reduce it, may mean we are lowering an already lower than assumed level of CO2.

It certainly doesn't advocate being gun-ho with pumping out more CO2 - but it does suggest caution with taking too much hasty retractive action as well IMO. At least until the science is better understood.

Much where David was coming from - in terms of the fact that CO2 is a vital natural gas for plants, animals and our livelihood etc.

Edited May 22, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Devonian]

Its nearly the B/H and too sunny a day to dwell on semantics Dev.

Dismissive.

As you know my comments refer to the dismissal of the discussion. The whole range of uncertainties mentioned are wider than that. They are too generous on the up side.

The truth isn't awkward at all - there is no truth yet at all :lol:

Have a nice weekend - and do something different in the sunshine :lol:

Get yourself out into the sun as well

Hmm, not always good to listen & accept without question, methinks... :lol:

I suggested no such thing.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm having some difficulty grasping what's being argued here.

Is increasing CO2 supposed to amplify the negative feedback process? If so, retracting CO2 emissions could result in a larger deficit but it could also reduce the extent of the feedback process therefore nullifying any larger deficits.

Is increasing CO2 supposed to have no effect on the negative feedback process? If so, by retracting CO2 emissions we probably would end up with a larger deficit simply because we hadn't offset it by as much with our anthropogenic contributions.

But we have to bear in mind also that David's theory spans geological timescales, whereas humans are looking typically no more than 200 years into the future, so any such deficits probably would not arise in our lifetimes, or the next several generations, even if David's theory holds some merit.

The main problem with not reducing CO2 emissions, as I see it, is that by definition we continue to live un-sustainably. If we're to move towards more sustainable forms of energy (so that we don't have to worry about supplies running out) it will almost certainly result in significantly lower CO2 emissions.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Last bit from me for the weekend :lol:

There has been confusion I think between what we are saying. I am suggesting 'caution' regarding CO2 wrt to the future.

The various scenarios depend on the various assumptions we make about the feedback undertainties. I mean all of them. I don't think we can make an assumption without taking the feedbacks into account because that would ignore the science and the realities that some form of combination of feedbacks with whatever weightings, will end up the 'right' one.

The future extrapolations of temp and CO2 are uncertain because the feedbacks are uncertain. It boils down to the relationship between CO2 and temp and how the feedbacks interact with this relationship - be it positively or negatively, or perhaps more accurately a greater weighting of negative or positive or vice versa. Those weightings are dependant on the exact relationship between CO2 and temp and whether one believes the AGW view of dominant positive feedbacks enhancing an increasing CO2=higher temp=moreCO2=further higher temps or whether greater negative feedbacks exist than this assumption allows for, plus, in addition, the relationship between CO2 and temp is reversed - as David would suggest and the CO2 level is detemined by the temp variation in the natural cycles and that pre-existing negative feedbacks exist (instead of the assumed positive one's) in other areas that mean that the assumed amplified relationship that AGW assuages is broken down before any tipping point can be attained.

Hope that all makes some sense :lol: - a case of the more one tries to explain something the more convoluted it can sound. That explanation was probably not my best. Hence another reason to log off and do my chores in preparation for the weekend.

Enjoy all :lol:

[MR EXTREMES]

its to late i cant see it being stopped its far to late and where all gonna fry.

i give up on global cooling because its just another story not likely to happen until where all dead on planet earth then the climate might cool and start all over again.

its out of our hands now so co2 is going to continue to rise and where going to continue to fry cheerfull outlook.

i must say would of liked cooling to happen but its looking less likely from what im reading in here i dont think this subject is even intresting anymore because it just reinforces doom.

still we might know more answers soon with the met offfice new super duper computer lol.

http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/article.aspx?c...&ocid=today

:lol: :lol: :lol: :o :o :lol:

[Cycles]

reducing carbon dioxide, we would be reducing the extent to which we increased it.

I'm very sceptical about David's theory, if nothing else because of some of the poor arguments associated with it, but I haven't yet seen enough evidence to totally dismiss it out of hand. The evidence might exist- but I'd need to be shown it.

I mentioned the natural cycles and production of oxygen, which is reduced during the earth's colder period. My intention was to bring up the subject of geo-engeering the climate, which would reduce carbon dioxed during a period when the earth should have more carbon dioxide and a natural replenishing of oxygen.

Best Regards

David

[Richie V]

Last bit from me for the weekend

There has been confusion I think between what we are saying. I am suggesting 'caution' regarding CO2 wrt to the future.

The various scenarios depend on the various assumptions we make about the feedback undertainties. I mean all of them. I don't think we can make an assumption without taking the feedbacks into account because that would ignore the science and the realities that some form of combination of feedbacks with whatever weightings, will end up the 'right' one.

The future extrapolations of temp and CO2 are uncertain because the feedbacks are uncertain. It boils down to the relationship between CO2 and temp and how the feedbacks interact with this relationship - be it positively or negatively, or perhaps more accurately a greater weighting of negative or positive or vice versa. Those weightings are dependant on the exact relationship between CO2 and temp and whether one believes the AGW view of dominant positive feedbacks enhancing an increasing CO2=higher temp=moreCO2=further higher temps or whether greater negative feedbacks exist than this assumption allows for, plus, in addition, the relationship between CO2 and temp is reversed - as David would suggest and the CO2 level is detemined by the temp variation in the natural cycles and that pre-existing negative feedbacks exist (instead of the assumed positive one's) in other areas that mean that the assumed amplified relationship that AGW assuages is broken down before any tipping point can be attained.

Hope that all makes some sense - a case of the more one tries to explain something the more convoluted it can sound. That explanation was probably not my best. Hence another reason to log off and do my chores in preparation for the weekend.

Enjoy all

Nothing has done more to “GREEN” the planet over the last century than elevated levels of CO2 (regardless of the source), together with moderate sun-driven warming. Numerous government and academic studies show clearly that doubling CO2 levels increases plant growth by 33 percent, on average. It is no accident that commercial green houses spend significant sums on CO2 generators to drive up growth environment CO2 levels toward the 1000 PPI optimum to increase plant production. Farmers, ranchers, foresters and, in fact, every living thing has benefitted from this rare natural gift of warming together with CO2 enriched atmosphere. The real question in all of this is why have world governments, with the help of academia and the media, worked so hard to convince people that warming is bad and that they, the people, are personally response for it? If you want to make a difference in this world focus on and address this last great question!

Edited May 22, 2009 by Chassisbot

[Cycles]

Nothing has done more to "GREEN" the planet over the last century than elevated levels of CO2 (regardless of the source), together with moderate sun-driven warming. Numerous government and academic studies show clearly that doubling CO2 levels increases plant growth by 33 percent, on average. It is no accident that commercial green houses spend significant sums on CO2 generators to drive up growth environment CO2 levels toward the 1000 PPI optimum to increase plant production. Farmers, ranchers, foresters and, in fact, every living thing has benefitted from this rare natural gift of warming together with CO2 enriched atmosphere. The real question in all of this is why have world governments, with the help of academia and the media, worked so hard to convince people that warming is bad and that they, the people, are personally response for it? If you want to make a difference in this world focus on and address this last great question!

You certainly are correct. Yes we should clean up the environment, but not in a way to change the natural CO2 increase and production of energy. Clean up pollution in the atmosphere, water and ground....but we need the CO2.

It is scary to think that many European countries are going ahead with carbon capturing, then storing it in the old oil well areas of the North Sea. We do not need to capture carbon dioxide, it is actually a good atmospheric gas.

Best Regards

David