General Climate Change Discussion

[LadyPakal]

Yes, was unsure whether Eli was the Eli in question or maybe just his biggest fan. I am sure others were too.

Who is 'speaking' on a public forum is important and so I (and by default others) can now weight those comments made by Eli as actually coming 'from the horses mouth' as oppose to them having been made by someone who may or may not be interpreting Eli correctly from what he/she had read elsewhere.

[pottyprof]

If some one would care to enlighten me why this is occurring here I would be much obliged as I was under the impression that P.P. would delete posts that were not 'on topic' since the last time we 'strayed' from discussing 'Climate change'?

I can't see anything wrong with wanting clarification on a point. This is the right place for general stuff and it is within the scope of the topic.

[Devonian]

I can't see anything wrong with wanting clarification on a point. This is the right place for general stuff and it is within the scope of the topic.

I don't get this.

Anyone who has read a page of Eli's blog knows his style. Why on earth are we discussing him and his personality? It's obvious the Eli posting recently IS Eli!

I suppose I could go off on a tangent in a thread and ask about Lady P not what she says says by bringing up a minor point about her style - but I suspect I'd be brought to book for doing so. Besides, do we know anyone here is who they say they are for sure??? Most people are are anonymous, yet not one questions that!

Will it be in order to question the reliability of the anonymous in future?

[Admiral_Bobski]

People seem to be getting awfully defensive on here for no remarkably good reason. Although Eli may be well known to many people on here, he is not well known to everybody, and his penchant for the third person is rather unusual - to someone who has not yet had the pleasure it is easy to see how it could be confusing.

What say we forget all about it and move on, eh? We have established Eli's identity now, and continued banter only serves to take us further away from the debate.

Does anyone want to discuss the Sun? Or the IPCC's take on solar activity? Or Leaky Integrators? Or Gray-Wolf's 10 points about AGW to which I responded several weeks ago and have had no comment on? Or should we continue to get grumpy over discussions about the motivation of a speaker who refers to themselves in the third person?

CB

[Methuselah]

People seem to be getting awfully defensive on here for no remarkably good reason. Although Eli may be well known to many people on here, he is not well known to everybody, and his penchant for the third person is rather unusual - to someone who has not yet had the pleasure it is easy to see how it could be confusing.

What say we forget all about it and move on, eh? We have established Eli's identity now, and continued banter only serves to take us further away from the debate.

Does anyone want to discuss the Sun? Or the IPCC's take on solar activity? Or Leaky Integrators? Or Gray-Wolf's 10 points about AGW to which I responded several weeks ago and have had no comment on? Or should we continue to get grumpy over discussions about the motivation of a speaker who refers to themselves in the third person?

CB

Pete thinks that the IPCC's take on Solar activity would be good, CB.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Pete thinks that the IPCC's take on Solar activity would be good, CB.

Thank you Pete

A few days ago I posted this on the Politics of AGW thread. I shall copy and paste it below to bring it into this (rather more relevant) thread!

CB

It's a funny old consensus when most of the scientists disagree on details with other scientists within the same group. But you complained that there was no evidence that solar influences had been ignored - I have never said that they are ignored, but rather that there is such uncertainty around solar influences that their limited incorporation into climate studies negates the validity of such studies.

Here's a selection of quotes from the beloved IPCC's 4AR:

"However, estimates of some radiative forcings remain uncertain, including aerosol forcing and inter-decadal variations in solar forcing."

"For example, the attribution of recent warming to greenhouse gas forcing becomes more reliable if the influences of other external forcings, for example solar forcing, are explicitly accounted for in the analysis. This is an area of research with considerable challenges because different forcing factors may lead to similar large-scale spatial patterns of response (Section 9.2.2)."

"The effects of forcing uncertainties, which can be considerable for some forcing agents such as solar and aerosol forcing (Section 9.2), also remain difficult to evaluate despite advances in research."

"Uncertainties in external forcing were also reported, particularly in anthropogenic aerosol, solar and volcanic forcing, and in the magnitude of the corresponding climate responses. These uncertainties contributed to uncertainties in detection and attribution studies. Particularly, estimates of the contribution to the 20th-century warming by natural forcings and anthropogenic forcings other than greenhouse gases showed some discrepancies with climate simulations and were model dependent. These results made it difficult to attribute the observed climate change to one specifi c combination of external influences."

"Changes in insolation are also thought to have arisen from small variations in solar irradiance, although both timing and magnitude of past solar radiation fl uctuations are highly uncertain (see Chapters 2 and 6; Lean et al., 2002; Gray et al., 2005; Foukal et al., 2006). For example, sunspots were generally missing from approximately 1675 to 1715 (the so-called Maunder Minimum) and thus solar irradiance is thought to have been reduced during this period. The estimated difference between the present-day solar irradiance cycle mean and the Maunder Minimum is 0.08% (see Section 2.7.1.2.2), which corresponds to a radiative forcing of about 0.2 W m–2, which is substantially lower than estimates used in the TAR (Chapter 2)."

"The solar cycle also affects atmospheric ozone concentrations with possible impacts on temperatures and winds in the stratosphere, and has been hypothesised to influence clouds through cosmic rays (Section 2.7.1.3). Note that there is substantial uncertainty in the identification of climate response to solar cycle variations because the satellite period is short relative to the solar cycle length, and because the response is difficult to separate from internal climate variations."

"There are also large uncertainties in the magnitude of low frequency changes in forcing associated with changes in total solar radiation as well as its spectral variation, particularly on time scales longer than the 11-year cycle."

"In addition, the magnitude of radiative forcing associated with major volcanic eruptions is uncertain and differs between reconstructions (Sato et al., 1993; Andronova et al., 1999; Ammann et al., 2003), although the timing of the eruptions is well documented."

"Uncertainties also differ between natural forcings and sometimes between different time scales for the same forcing. For example, while the 11-year solar forcing cycle is well documented, lower-frequency variations in solar forcing are highly uncertain. Furthermore, the physics of the response to solar forcing and some feedbacks are still poorly understood. In contrast, the timing and duration of forcing due to aerosols ejected into the stratosphere by large volcanic eruptions is well known during the instrumental period, although the magnitude of that forcing is uncertain."

[Methuselah]

Thank you, CB...Those uncertainties are much easier to incorporate into a 'brain' model, I think...Unfortunately, one brain at least is unable to compute them all simultaneously.

Maybe they all add-up to the huge gap between the upper and lower limits of the IPCC's projections?

[laserguy]

I like this:

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/03/22/desmog...ptics-handbook/

[noggin]

Just for a little light relief....see the cartoon at the top of this article. I thought it was amusing......

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/0...goes-green.html

[Solar Cycles]

Does anyone know, what all this switch your lights off cobblers is all about this evening?

[Guest]

I only have a little brain which has not been educated to the high levels of others on this forum, so tend to look at the situation of Global Warming from a common sense point of view.

Throughout the history of our earth there have been changes in climate and indeed of the make up of our atmosphere mostly caused by such things as volcanic activity, continental drift, the variance of the sun's output and indeed our position in relation to the sun. This is a stuation which is bound to continue with progressive warm and cold cycles, some of which will now doubt end up in a further ice age at some time in the future.

At the same time, I cannot help thinking that man's effect on the environment has been relatively recent and pollution of many types must have an effect.

Ok we have just had a warm phase for a few years and it be tending towards a cooler phase but is the effect of the greenhouse house gases making it less cool than it would have been otherwise and if we then go back into a warming phase, will it be warmer than what it would have been otherwise?

Probably too early to say and it would likely require observations over centuries rather than decades before we can get a definitive answer.

My point is that I really do not know the extent mankind is having on our climate - some are for Global Warming whilst others are against but should there be any chance of this occuriing, dare we take the risk and shouldn't we take what steps we can now to reduce emmisions before it may be too late?

[Admiral_Bobski]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...mp;attr=3392178

Looks like all the broadsheets are running the 'Copenhagen, 'sea level rise'' story.

To the sceptics I'd say "no smoke without fire" whether you believe in AGW or not you must concede ice mass loss (north and south) IS occurring and so sea level hikes are occurring.

Christopher Booker has an interesting article on sea levels this week:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-ever-told.html

CB

[weather eater]

Christopher Booker has an interesting article on sea levels this week:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-ever-told.html

CB

I did find this on Axel-Morner the man quoted in this article

He is listed as an "allied expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

DeSmog uncovered information that two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are registered energy industry lobbyists and senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”

Do they pay him, the real danger it seems to me is that we have no idea who is telling the truth and whether their motives are genuine.

Or for another view of GW go here. http://www.alexansary.com/Editorial/Sun%20...ic%20field.html

Edited March 29, 2009 by weather eater

[Android]

Easterly anomolies in the central pacific tropics just weakened and are almost negative (ie positive westerlies)..first time since september

[Gray-Wolf]

Easterly anomalies in the central pacific tropics just weakened and are almost negative (ie positive westerlies)..first time since September

Are you hinting at the ENSO predictions for 'neutral' by May-July may be a little off?

The change back to westerly regime seemed to be the harbinger for this transition and if this is occurring now I wonder if we will slip into El-Nino by late 09?

I have posted elsewhere that the current ''is it/isn't it" PDO signal could be the start of the Arctic Oscillation impacts beginning to show wider impacts on global climate patterns.

Should I prove correct in my observations then this is a very worrying transitional period with the possibility of a large El-Nino within a -ve PDO signal re-writing our current understandings of the phenomenas and further accelerating Global climate shift (in time) from it's predicted 're-start of warming'.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Iceberg]

A breif forray into this thread for me.

GW, I posted this in a different thread but it support the theory of a strong EL Nino to come.

"Talking about El Nino.

The latest forecasts from NASA are indicator a very rapid shift to a strong El Nino in the second half of the year.

This shift towards a strong El Nino has been gathering pace in the last few months, with the models in the last 2 weeks or so really wanting to take hold of it."

[jethro]

Isn't this what David Dilley predicted? Vague memories.... I think he said earlier though?

[Iceberg]

He predicted it would be last year, so no it wasn't.

Sorry not trying to be blunt but it was far from what he predicted.

[jethro]

He predicted it would be last year, so no it wasn't.

Sorry not trying to be blunt but it was far from what he predicted.

Blunt's good, saves both of us time.

It was only a vague memory, time and laziness meant I couldn't be bothered to trawl back through that thread. He did say BIG El Nino though didn't he?

[Iceberg]

Yes, but changed it to moderate and then normal as the end of his timeframe approached.

The only reason I know all this is because I started a thread to validate his predictions, and the El Nino prediction failed miserably.

[jethro]

Yes, but changed it to moderate and then normal as the end of his timeframe approached.

The only reason I know all this is because I started a thread to validate his predictions, and the El Nino prediction failed miserably.

Cheers Iceberg.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Yes, but changed it to moderate and then normal as the end of his timeframe approached.

The only reason I know all this is because I started a thread to validate his predictions, and the El Nino prediction failed miserably.

Yes indeed, you have been quite, er, shall we say, 'keen' in following this.

Everyone gets predictions wrong - I expect you do sometimes as well.

His theory about magnetic pull on the jetstream is very interesting, and whilst I didn't post or look in much on the forum for quite some time, I read a lot of the threads open on that subject at the time, and I think there is a lot of credence in much of what he suggests. It is a pity that the discussion became hijacked over silliness about paying a fiver for an e-book!

Edited March 31, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm spending a lot of time thanking you recently Ice but 'thanks for that' -_-

We had a prediction from one of the agencies for a strong El-Nino at the end of 09' early 10' from one agency which was re-affirmed in Jan (when Nina resurfacing seemed more likely if you read other agencies prognosis).

This would mean that we did not enter a PDO -ve period.....or would it?

I would maintain that the arctic amplification ,though only measured these last 7 years, has been having a 'trickle down' impact on lower latitude climate systems. This would mean that the PDO was due to be negative when first mooted (end of the 90's/early 00's) and the changing climate has kiboshed it's attempts to establish itself. Even the fisheries agencies who first described the phenomena (and it's impacts on the Salmon) have said that the trawler men must be ready to act swiftly as, if I read in between the lines correctly, the PDO is now very temperamental.

This is only my own 'figuring' but a major Nino within the 30 year negative PDO phase truely shows the scale of the changes which are now starting to exert themselves across the globe.

As you know my major fear is the impacts on both the Antarctic continent (Esp. EAIS) and the permafrosts of the northern continents as these hold the potential for rapid catastrophic climate shift that can occur over 1 or 2 seasons.

I would hate to think (yet again) that I am to find my alleged 'extreme ramblings' made flesh.

The phrase "Hell in a handcart" springs to mind.

[jethro]

This would mean that we did not enter a PDO -ve period.....or would it?

No it wouldn't. Negative/positive phases do not mean exclusively La Nina/El Nino happening for 20-30 years. It's a percentage game.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

No it wouldn't. Negative/positive phases do not mean exclusively La Nina/El Nino happening for 20-30 years. It's a percentage game.

Correct -ve PDO never has and never will prevent an El Nino forming, even a strong event. It is the overall pattern re the PDO and Perturbation cycle. So that sounds like further over exaggeration again by GW....there is no 'collapse'. To my 'untrained' eye that PDO by the way has strengthened -ve again...look at the reverse C....pretty strong to me.

As regards to GWO prediction, it was called by RJS that his research shows an El Nino to form back end of 09 and that maybe GWO misread the timing of the signal.

BFTP

Edited March 31, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST