Global Cooling

[weather eater]

We have quite abit of leaf fall round here starting on many of the trees and alot going yellow/brown. The beech trees have not started yet though but then they are the last along with the ash trees to come into leaf late in May.

Must be a regional thing because not here, except what the winds blown down, Horse Chestnuts and Oaks starting to go brown round the edges, but that’s about it. I would have thought the signs would manifest themselves up here before the south coast, I know from when I lived in Aberdeenshire that the trees tend to turn earlier in Scotland than they do in the south. On the subject of plants its a very poor blackberry crop this year not that many and rather weedy.

[jethro]

No leaves turning around here either, blackberries very poor too, Sloes almost non existent. To be honest, there are so many variables when it comes to leaf fall, it's almost impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions. Timing of leaf colouring is more related to length of day than anything else, premature leaf drop is usually caused by stress of some sort - it's a defence mechanism, too much water, not enough water etc and trees will shed unnecessary drains on their system (leaf growth)to preserve themselves.

[Marduk]

Hello you fellows.

Take a look at this essay -

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/#more-10739 written by a Danish professor that claims that the culmination of global warming is reached, and that in a few years will tendence do go down instead. Very intresting!

[Methuselah]

So, it's about 21C and wall-to-wall sunshine in mid-September; and, I'm meant to take that as evidence for Global Cooling? I don't think so, peeps...

If it were snowing, on the other hand?

[OldGreggsTundraBoy]

Certainly hope so but I cant say I've noticed autumn kicking in earlier in recent years, it was very noticeable, during the 90 and early 2000s that it was coming later, at least it seemed that way to me. I would be very interested to know if the number of recorded frosts in October/November has fallen since the late 80s.

I'd put this down to rainfall, the sheer lack of rain in the SE over the last 2 months has caused earth to turn to dust and trees to dry up.

In the NW it's been the opposite which also causes problem for trees.

Can't be cold temperature because EVERY month since Jan has been well above average/ mild.

So, it's about 21C and wall-to-wall sunshine in mid-September; and, I'm meant to take that as evidence for Global Cooling? I don't think so, peeps...

If it were snowing, on the other hand?

I agree its been SO dry and warm, with people seeming to be frantically burning fuel in various ways.

It's hard to believe in anything but warming this year.

Edited September 12, 2009 by OldGreggsTundraBoy

[Solar Cycles]

So, it's about 21C and wall-to-wall sunshine in mid-September; and, I'm meant to take that as evidence for Global Cooling? I don't think so, peeps...

If it were snowing, on the other hand?

Now if I didn't know you better, I'd swear you was being sarcastic! Personally I felt global warming stopped in 1998, but shhhhhhh don't tell the others!! Big big secret!!!

[The PIT]

Certainly starting around here but I would say slightly later than previous years.

[noggin]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html

Much interesting stuff in here, including words from Dr.(?) Vicky Pope.

Scientists are coming out and acknowledging this cooldown now.

I make no comment re their prognostications for the future, but the article has lots of interesting stuff and links in it.

Well, I thought so, anyway........

[parmenides3]

Hello you fellows.

Take a look at this essay -

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/#more-10739 written by a Danish professor that claims that the culmination of global warming is reached, and that in a few years will tendence do go down instead. Very intresting!

Hi Sillkalven.

Svensmark has a long history of trying to show that the trends in global temperatures are caused by anything except human activity. He is a respectable scientist, but in this case he is out on his own, with a few followers, such as Shaviv. They have not as yet managed to make their case stick, and are unlikely to.

Anthony Watts is a peddler of denialist pseudo-science and assorted claptrap. His website is hugely popular, hugely inaccurate and hugely immoral. It is popular with people who wish to have their own prejudices justified without having to do the hard work of challenging the basic assumptions they make.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html

Much interesting stuff in here, including words from Dr.(?) Vicky Pope.

Scientists are coming out and acknowledging this cooldown now.

I make no comment re their prognostications for the future, but the article has lots of interesting stuff and links in it.

Well, I thought so, anyway........

What do you mean by 'cooldown', Noggin? The article is somewhat deceptive. It seems to say one thing, but underneath, it is saying that scientists acknowledge that natural variation makes prediction very difficult, which is sort of obvious, and not really news.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Anthony Watts is a peddler of denialist pseudo-science and assorted claptrap. His website is hugely popular, hugely inaccurate and hugely immoral. It is popular with people who wish to have their own prejudices justified without having to do the hard work of challenging the basic assumptions they make.

I'm surprised at you, P3, and your excessive use of superlatives. Anthony Watts does raise some good points on occasion - I agree that it is sometimes inaccurate, but hugely inaccurate? And where does the immorality come into it?

His recent post about the sudden disappearance of all Arctic sea ice was rather over the top, I have to admit - it was clearly a data error and not some kind of Pro-AGW conspiracy to scare people into thinking the Arctic was doomed. He is guilty of sometimes picking holes in something undeserving of his criticisms, but aren't we all?

CB

EDIT - Have you had a chance to look at the Leaky Integrator thread yet?

Edited September 19, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[parmenides3]

I'm surprised at you, P3, and your excessive use of superlatives. Anthony Watts does raise some good points on occasion - I agree that it is sometimes inaccurate, but hugely inaccurate? And where does the immorality come into it?

His recent post about the sudden disappearance of all Arctic sea ice was rather over the top, I have to admit - it was clearly a data error and not some kind of Pro-AGW conspiracy to scare people into thinking the Arctic was doomed. He is guilty of sometimes picking holes in something undeserving of his criticisms, but aren't we all?

CB

EDIT - Have you had a chance to look at the Leaky Integrator thread yet?

C-Bob, Watts once got involved on McIntyre's website in stimulating an extensive and time-wasting 'debate' on the accuracy of measurements which was barely relevant, on the back of which he started his own website. He is an avid anti-AGWer, and the website is designed with the aim of generating public confusion and uncertainty about climate change science. Sometimes there might appear to be some interesting content on it, but it is all smoke and mirrors; there's no genuine science and no effort at balance or reasoned consideration; it is pandering to those who don't want AGW to be true, but appeals to those with uncertainties because it seems to offer a rational counter to sites like realclimate, whilst in reality, it doesn't.

His website is deliberately deceptive and aggressive to scientists, filled with inaccuracy, and enjoyed by sock-puppets with no scientific training (not you, of course...). It is immoral because none of this is accidental; it is conscious and self-interested manipulation for the sake of popularity with no consideration for the consequences if the population can't make its mind up about matters such as COP 15 and the need to stop relying on cheap energy.

I looked at the thread, but at first glance, I'm unclear what the point is.

Edited September 19, 2009 by parmenides3

[Admiral_Bobski]

C-Bob, Watts once got involved on McIntyre's website in stimulating an extensive and time-wasting 'debate' on the accuracy of measurements which was barely relevant, on the back of which he started his own website. He is an avid anti-AGWer, and the website is designed with the aim of generating public confusion and uncertainty about climate change science. Sometimes there might appear to be some interesting content on it, but it is all smoke and mirrors; there's no genuine science and no effort at balance or reasoned consideration; it is pandering to those who don't want AGW to be true, but appeals to those with uncertainties because it seems to offer a rational counter to sites like realclimate, whilst in reality, it doesn't.

His website is deliberately deceptive and aggressive to scientists, filled with inaccuracy, and enjoyed by sock-puppets with no scientific training (not you, of course...). It is immoral because none of this is accidental; it is conscious and self-interested manipulation for the sake of popularity with no consideration for the consequences if the population can't make its mind up about matters such as COP 15 and the need to stop relying on cheap energy.

I looked at the thread, but at first glance, I'm unclear what the point is.

I would counter by suggesting that Realclimate is hardly what you would call a "balanced" site, but then maybe that's just me! I would also repeat that Watts has, on occasion, raised valid points (as have RealClimate, to be fair).

With regards the Leaky Integrator, which I won't bang on about too much here, the point is to try to build up an accurate recreation of the observed temperature trend from first principles, starting from the premise that solar activity can explain the broad increase in temperatures if it is assumed that there is a lag in the Earth's climate that allows excess energy to be carried over from year to year.

Adding further datasets, in a perturbative fashion, leads to refinement of the results to forge a closer match between the model output and the observed temperature over the past 150 years or so.

Village Plank has done the lion's share of the work, as it was he who first proposed the Leaky Integrator (a mathematical model) as a mathematical description of the process that I had been trying to put across to Iceberg in a thread long, long ago (and VP really knows his stuff with regards to this aspect of mathematics and statistical analysis).

Anyhoo, the practical upshot is this: can past temperatures be explained without needing to invoke a supposed forcing effect from CO2?

Check out the thread with this in mind and see what you think.

CB

[Solar Cycles]

Hi Sillkalven.

Svensmark has a long history of trying to show that the trends in global temperatures are caused by anything except human activity. He is a respectable scientist, but in this case he is out on his own, with a few followers, such as Shaviv. They have not as yet managed to make their case stick, and are unlikely to.

Anthony Watts is a peddler of denialist pseudo-science and assorted claptrap. His website is hugely popular, hugely inaccurate and hugely immoral. It is popular with people who wish to have their own prejudices justified without having to do the hard work of challenging the basic assumptions they make.

What do you mean by 'cooldown', Noggin? The article is somewhat deceptive. It seems to say one thing, but underneath, it is saying that scientists acknowledge that natural variation makes prediction very difficult, which is sort of obvious, and not really news.

Svensmark is as much a respected scientist then any of the AGW scientist, and out on his own he is not! As for Anthony Watts, he does sometimes go OTT, but on the whole he highlights the shortcomings of AGW! And show me a pro AGW, who doesn't have their own agendas and prejudices!

[parmenides3]

I would counter by suggesting that Realclimate is hardly what you would call a "balanced" site, but then maybe that's just me! :lol: I would also repeat that Watts has, on occasion, raised valid points (as have RealClimate, to be fair).

With regards the Leaky Integrator, which I won't bang on about too much here, the point is to try to build up an accurate recreation of the observed temperature trend from first principles, starting from the premise that solar activity can explain the broad increase in temperatures if it is assumed that there is a lag in the Earth's climate that allows excess energy to be carried over from year to year.

Adding further datasets, in a perturbative fashion, leads to refinement of the results to forge a closer match between the model output and the observed temperature over the past 150 years or so.

Village Plank has done the lion's share of the work, as it was he who first proposed the Leaky Integrator (a mathematical model) as a mathematical description of the process that I had been trying to put across to Iceberg in a thread long, long ago (and VP really knows his stuff with regards to this aspect of mathematics and statistical analysis).

Anyhoo, the practical upshot is this: can past temperatures be explained without needing to invoke a supposed forcing effect from CO2?

Check out the thread with this in mind and see what you think.

CB

We clearly have a different sense of what 'balanced' means. I will suggest that one site contains rational discussion of facts and findings, whilst the other contains nonsense got up in someone's elses clothes. I am happy for you to give me an example of a 'valid point' from Watts' site if you can find one, and discuss it with you. I haven't found one yet, but I don't bother with the site that often these days.

On the basis of what you have said here, I'll comment on the LI thread at some point.

[Thundery wintry showers]

We all have some agendas and prejudices, no matter how hard we try to minimise them, so SC's question is a bit loaded there. The important thing to bear in mind is that some are more prejudiced than others and in particular, some allow their prejudices to influence their views more than others. I've talked before about a circular line of reasoning, also known as confirmation bias, where "I believe X, so therefore evidence can only be right if it supports X, and from said evidence, X is true". Some websites from both sides, but particularly the anti-AGW side, are guilty of that kind of thing, people who want to see AGW not exist for various reasons.

Some of us are concerned mainly with a search for the truth rather than a search to confirm/support a particular pre-held view, and as such said prejudices and agendas take a very minor role. Ironically, one of my agendas is that I would like AGW to be being seriously overestimated- make of that what you will!

I tend to agree that Realclimate isn't a particularly non-biased site, but it is certainly no worse than Watts.

[parmenides3]

Svensmark is as much a respected scientist then any of the AGW scientist, and out on his own he is not! As for Anthony Watts, he does sometimes go OTT, but on the whole he highlights the shortcomings of AGW! And show me a pro AGW, who doesn't have their own agendas and prejudices!

Calm down, Solar...

I think you'll find it was me who said that Svensmark is a respected scientist in the first place. No, he isn't on his own, but the number of actual scientists (ignore Morano's ridiculous 'list') who contend that AGW is not happening is miniscule. I know this, because I asked them.

Try to get away from the idea of 'proAGW' and 'antiAGW'; this suggests that there is a debate (there isn't), that this debate is based on opinions (it wouldn't be), and that everyone who works in science must have an 'agenda' - by which I presume you mean a policical intent - which is simply false. It is possible to study the facts, read the science, consider the options, and reach a conclusion, without having any kind of 'agenda'; this is what searching for truth and understanding is about.

If you are contending yourself that AGW is not happening, give me a reason for this opinion and I can address that.

Peace.

:lol: P

We all have some agendas and prejudices, no matter how hard we try to minimise them, so SC's question is a bit loaded there. The important thing to bear in mind is that some are more prejudiced than others and in particular, some allow their prejudices to influence their views more than others. I've talked before about a circular line of reasoning, also known as confirmation bias, where "I believe X, so therefore evidence can only be right if it supports X, and from said evidence, X is true". Some websites from both sides, but particularly the anti-AGW side, are guilty of that kind of thing, people who want to see AGW not exist for various reasons.

Some of us are concerned mainly with a search for the truth rather than a search to confirm/support a particular pre-held view, and as such said prejudices and agendas take a very minor role. Ironically, one of my agendas is that I would like AGW to be being seriously overestimated- make of that what you will!

I tend to agree that Realclimate isn't a particularly non-biased site, but it is certainly no worse than Watts.

RC isn't unbiased, but it is rational. Again, show me an example from RC of a discussion or subject which you think has been handled in an unbalanced manner.

I don't disagree with you about us all having prejudices, but surely, the point of science is to remove such things from the equation? And the point of reason (as opposed to polemic) is to test propositions, not to presume their truth or falsity?

P

[Thundery wintry showers]

RC isn't unbiased, but it is rational. Again, show me an example from RC of a discussion or subject which you think has been handled in an unbalanced manner.

I'm thinking of an article on Realclimate about "climate change myths" which I came across via a link from the Climatic Research Unit. None of what it said was definitely false, but there were some "myths" that it gave which were rather open to question, and as such I detected some imbalance in the article- though admittedly it was far less imbalanced than pretty much every article that I've seen on Whatsupwiththat for example.

I don't disagree with you about us all having prejudices, but surely, the point of science is to remove such things from the equation? And the point of reason (as opposed to polemic) is to test propositions, not to presume their truth or falsity?

:lol: P

Absolutely!

[parmenides3]

I'm thinking of an article on Realclimate about "climate change myths" which I came across via a link from the Climatic Research Unit. None of what it said was definitely false, but there were some "myths" that it gave which were rather open to question, and as such I detected some imbalance in the article- though admittedly it was far less imbalanced than pretty much every article that I've seen on Whatsupwiththat for example.

Absolutely!

Go on... give me a questionable 'myth' :lol: P BTW; heartfelt congrats on getting into UEA. P

[Thundery wintry showers]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462 (this comes from the original Real Climate article, I can't find the original source for now, but the CRU internal homepage has a link to it so I'll be able to post the original source next time I'm in the unit itself).

Reading the article closely it appears that the issue is one of interpretation and wording.

We can't trust computer models of climate

I get a sense that the article is debunking the idea that computer model outputs are meaningless/useless, which I would certainly have no objection to placing in the "myth" category. On the other hand I do think that computer models are assumed generally within the mainstream community to be more trustworthy than they necessarily are, because unlike with weather forecasting models we don't have any strong verification methods other than assessing how well they reconstruct past climates. So in a sense I dispute the idea that we can fully trust them.

Many leading scientists question climate change

I can think of quite a few leading scientists who have questioned the extent of the anthropogenic contribution to climate. Mike Hulme recently was one of them, and he made some insightful points. That said, I'm not aware of many leading scientists who don't believe that AGW exists at all, and it appears to be those that the article is addressing.

Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

Although I think that one is somewhat unlikely to be true, I'm not sure that it's quite reached the "myth" category as yet, given that there are quite a few alternative theories out there, most of which are claptrap, but not all of which are necessarily without merit.

Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

I have similar feelings about those two.

In fairness, particularly following the updates to the article over the past year or so, it's probably one of the most balanced overviews of climate change that I've seen, so perhaps I remembered those nitpicks as being stronger than they really were.

Thanks for the compliment about being at UEA- I spent a six-month stint at the Hadley Centre as well as part of my PhD and got to know quite a number of the top scientists there, that too was an excellent experience. What I will say about the consensus, though, is that I get a sense of the mainstream scientific community wanting to give the public the impression that the consensus is even stronger than it actually is, to avoid planting doubt in people's minds. I recall Mike Hulme, again, being quoted as referring to this somewhere in his latest book.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[VillagePlank]

With regards the Leaky Integrator, which I won't bang on about too much here, the point is to try to build up an accurate recreation of the observed temperature trend from first principles, starting from the premise that solar activity can explain the broad increase in temperatures if it is assumed that there is a lag in the Earth's climate that allows excess energy to be carried over from year to year.

Thanks for the 'heads-up' CB

At the minute, whilst work is still in progress we are now at the stage where stuff like confirmation bias is rearing it's head. Some might be surprised at me mentioning this, but we're human, and it's only due diligence to be aware of it. A good way to try and avoid it, in my opinion, is to get people who are very sceptical of the idea to (repsectfully) ask questions, that, frankly, I/CB are compelled to answer, or give up on the idea. Think of it like an audit.

I have done some writing up, but as always, CB has put something in the mix, that's made me think again; that is, that there is no need to rewrite any existing science, only it's conclusion. A powerfully seductive idea.

Anyway, please feel free to question - but, if I may, please make sure you read the run-through, first, so you understand what is trying to be said.

At the very least, I think it is worthwhile shoving in the mix, even if it does turn out to be a complete pile of tosh.

Back on topic - the LI predicts cooling for years to come, based on a quiet sun, now

Edited September 19, 2009 by VillagePlank

[laserguy]

If you are contending yourself that AGW is not happening, give me a reason for this opinion and I can address that.

I'm still looking for evidence that Agw ever happened,let alone is happening. All I've found is reasons/excuses for it to exist. Glad you're fit again P3 ( but anticipating all the grief you've got in store for us deniers)!

[Solar Cycles]

Calm down, Solar...

I think you'll find it was me who said that Svensmark is a respected scientist in the first place. No, he isn't on his own, but the number of actual scientists (ignore Morano's ridiculous 'list') who contend that AGW is not happening is miniscule. I know this, because I asked them.

Try to get away from the idea of 'proAGW' and 'antiAGW'; this suggests that there is a debate (there isn't), that this debate is based on opinions (it wouldn't be), and that everyone who works in science must have an 'agenda' - by which I presume you mean a policical intent - which is simply false. It is possible to study the facts, read the science, consider the options, and reach a conclusion, without having any kind of 'agenda'; this is what searching for truth and understanding is about.

If you are contending yourself that AGW is not happening, give me a reason for this opinion and I can address that.

Peace.

P

RC isn't unbiased, but it is rational. Again, show me an example from RC of a discussion or subject which you think has been handled in an unbalanced manner.

I don't disagree with you about us all having prejudices, but surely, the point of science is to remove such things from the equation? And the point of reason (as opposed to polemic) is to test propositions, not to presume their truth or falsity?

P

I've stated many times I believe AGW is happening, just the magnitude I disagree with! But I disagree with you on climate science and agendas, of course they have agendas, and there lie's the problem. Too many with closed minds, quick to dismiss anything that goes against the mainstream of thinking. And when you think about it they will, it would take a brave man to stand up and watch his funding run dry, just because he dared to stray from IPCC guidelines.

[weather eater]

Of course they have agendas, and there lie's the problem. Too many with closed minds, quick to dismiss anything that goes against the mainstream of thinking. And when you think about it they will, it would take a brave man to stand up and watch his funding run dry, just because he dared to stray from IPCC guidelines.

And where is your evidence for this statement, it seems to me that you make these statements because you have already made your mind up and thus these scientists must have other motives for continuing with their beliefs. If this isn’t the case then present your evidence.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't deny that when it comes to the politics of AGW and the communication with the public, there is a tendency to want to speak with one voice and silence any dissenting voices. However, it does not frequently influence the science itself, and there is quite a lot of work out there, published, peer-reviewed and all, that asks questions about how big a role things like solar activity, ENSO, NAO, PDO etc. have played in the late 20th century warming. Some suggest that AGW is being overestimated, others suggest that it is being underestimated, and others suggest that the IPCC are right, depending on what findings come out from the research. None, however, provide any evidence to suggest that AGW doesn't exist, it is more a question of how much.

I do think SC and also Laserguy have their minds made up on the subject, the former "AGW is being overestimated" and the latter, seemingly, "AGW is a myth", which is the most obvious and extreme example of a "myth-that-never-was" on climate change that I have ever seen (in contrast to the view of AGW being overestimated, which is not guaranteed to be wide of the truth). It doesn't really help the situation.

The point about researchers wanting to show that AGW exists because otherwise funding will run dry is a popular avenue of attack on AGW which is often filled with ad hominems and straw men. In reality, if it is shown that AGW is being overestimated, then the implication is that natural forcings are being underestimated, and therefore that more research needs to go into those. The desire to support the case for AGW rarely has anything to do with funding. In essence, climate change will happen with and without anthropogenic contributions.

Regarding the global cooling I am very interested to see where this leaky integrator idea takes us, and it is good to see Parmenides3 questioning it in a reasoned manner and getting illuminating responses- it's helped me to understand the concept of the LI better.

[Solar Cycles]

I don't deny that when it comes to the politics of AGW and the communication with the public, there is a tendency to want to speak with one voice and silence any dissenting voices. However, it does not frequently influence the science itself, and there is quite a lot of work out there, published, peer-reviewed and all, that asks questions about how big a role things like solar activity, ENSO, NAO, PDO etc. have played in the late 20th century warming. Some suggest that AGW is being overestimated, others suggest that it is being underestimated, and others suggest that the IPCC are right, depending on what findings come out from the research.

I do think SC and also Laserguy have their minds made up on the subject, the former "AGW is being overestimated" and the latter, seemingly, "AGW is a myth", which is the most obvious and extreme example of a "myth-that-never-was" on climate change that I have ever seen (in contrast to the view of AGW being overestimated, which is not guaranteed to be wide of the truth). It doesn't really help the situation.

The point about researchers wanting to show that AGW exists because otherwise funding will run dry is a popular avenue of attack on AGW which is often filled with ad hominems and straw men. In reality, if it is shown that AGW is being overestimated, then the implication is that natural forcings are being underestimated, and therefore that more research needs to go into those. The desire to support the case for AGW rarely has anything to do with funding. In essence, climate change will happen with and without anthropogenic contributions.

Regarding the global cooling I am very interested to see where this leaky integrator idea takes us, and it is good to see Parmenides3 questioning it in a reasoned manner and getting illuminating responses- it's helped me to understand the concept of the LI better.

Actually TWS, I'm open minded still, if temps where to continue to rise as per IPCC projections, then yes I would change my view!

Edited September 19, 2009 by jethro
OT answer to question.