General Climate Change Discussion

[laserguy]

Now I'm well aware of the esteem (!) that Piers Corbyn is held in by some on NW,but the top article from today's editon of the consistently excellent 'Greenie Watch' is worth five minutes of anyone's time!

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

[Methuselah]

Now I'm well aware of the esteem (!) that Piers Corbyn is held in by some on NW,but the top article from today's editon of the consistently excellent 'Greenie Watch' is worth five minutes of anyone's time!

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Is he the astrologer guy, the one who thinks that sunspots can predict the weather - months ahead?

What will he say now there aren't any (sunspots)? :lol:

[tundra]

I think it remarkable that anyone is still prepared to listen to anything Piers has to say.

To say he is away with the fairies is a understatement.

If that is rude tough, the blokes an idiot.

Edited April 25, 2009 by tundra

[Methuselah]

I think

I was only being facetious. :lol:

I saw a Horizon programme about the guy some years' back. It was fascinating, I agree; but, I think his self-confidence is not altogether warranted by the evidence?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I agree, BFTP. I also think it would be fairer to describe CO2 as a driver... :lol:

Cheeky one that Pete...and I walked into it Lol

BFTP

On Global Dimming, the recent trend of a quiet sun. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic.

"I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case," he said.

Prof Lockwood was one of the first researchers to show that the Sun's activity has been gradually decreasing since 1985, yet overall global temperatures have continued to rise.

"If you look carefully at the observations, it's pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that's been going on for a couple of decades.

"If the Sun's dimming were to have a cooling effect, we'd have seen it by now."

No because cycle 23 was still a very very active cycle and is part of the run of 20th century cycles that have been the most active on record and for eons according to een Hathaway of NASA.

The dimming sun effects will get felt more and more as we progress more and more into a true minima. Mind you one can say we are feeling the effects now over the last 10 years.

BFTP

[Devonian]

I think it remarkable that anyone is still prepared to listen to anything Piers has to say.

To say he is away with the fairies is a understatement.

If that is rude tough, the blokes an idiot.

I don't agree with a word of what Piers Corbyn says, but he's not, by any stretch of the imagination, an idiot.

[laserguy]

I don't agree with a word of what Piers Corbyn says, but he's not, by any stretch of the imagination, an idiot.

I'll quite happily go along with that,Dev. Not being awkward or funny,but I think precisely the same regarding Al Gore - and he goes and gets a Nobel Prize!!

[Methuselah]

No because cycle 23 was still a very very active cycle and is part of the run of 20th century cycles that have been the most active on record and for eons according to een Hathaway of NASA.

The dimming sun effects will get felt more and more as we progress more and more into a true minima. Mind you one can say we are feeling the effects now over the last 10 years.

BFTP

How on earth can anyone know anything about sunspot activity millions of years ago?

[VillagePlank]

How on earth can anyone know anything about sunspot activity millions of years ago?

Well you see how much CO2 there is the Vostok cores, correlate that to temperature, and hey presto, a proxy to sunspot count.

Edited April 26, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

Well you see how much CO2 there is the Vostok cores, correlate that to temperature, and hey presto, a proxy to sunspot count.

Ah, but if CO2 isn't a temperature-driver, how can that be?

[VillagePlank]

Ah, but if CO2 isn't a temperature-driver, how can that be?

CO2 correlates with temperature. Correlation is not causation. The LI thread shows excellent correlation with temperature anomalies - so do you accept that as a cause? Of course, not. Well, not yet, anyway!

... and, as if by magic, here's the work so far - looking backward, and looking forward ...

For a detailed explanation please pop into LI thread (link in my signature) where the terms are explained as well as the extrapolations both forward and backwards.

Edited April 26, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

CO2 correlates with temperature. Correlation is not causation. The LI thread shows excellent correlation with temperature anomalies - so do you accept that as a cause? Of course, not. Well, not yet, anyway!

... and, as if by magic, here's the work so far - looking backward, and looking forward ...

For a detailed explanation please pop into LI thread (link in my signature) where the terms are explained as well as the extrapolations both forward and backwards.

Thank you for that, VP...Interesting isn't it!

[VillagePlank]

Thank you for that, VP...Interesting isn't it!

Just a curiosity at the moment, I guess.

I certainly haven't got the scaling factors right, yet. The high ENSO index of 1998 doesn't show up, and I really don't think it was that cold in 1830! One of the more interesting corrolories is that the LI doesn't foresee a general temperature below zero until at least 2015 such has been the magnitude of sunspots in recent times - and if the ENSO index of 1998 shifts it up higher - it will probably be at least 2020 before we reach that point.

Assuming, of course, that the LI has *any* validity.

Edited April 26, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

Just a curiosity at the moment, I guess.

I certainly haven't got the scaling factors right, yet. The high ENSO index of 1998 doesn't show up, and I really don't think it was that cold in 1830! One of the more interesting corrolories is that the LI doesn't foresee a general temperature below zero until at least 2015 such has been the magnitude of sunspots in recent times - and if the ENSO index of 1998 shifts it up higher - it will probably be at least 2020 before we reach that point.

Assuming, of course, that the LI has *any* validity.

Even if the LI turns out to be worthless as a climate predictor, it's still valid as a focuser of minds IMO...Everyone criticizes models, but building an alternative is anything but easy.

[VillagePlank]

Even if the LI turns out to be worthless as a climate predictor, it's still valid as a focuser of minds IMO...Everyone criticizes models, but building an alternative is anything but easy.

The most interesting part, so far, for me, has been a big hump about 1950 that I couldn't smooth out no matter what I did. Then someone found a paper showing that the Hadley data needed correcting because of USN changes of temperature readings.

What were the chances that the biggest problem that the LI has had, so far, found a problem with the comparison set? I'd wager, very very small. I find that quite compelling.

Edited April 26, 2009 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

How on earth can anyone know anything about sunspot activity millions of years ago?

Beryllium 10 measurements in ice cores.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18692

[Methuselah]

Beryllium 10 measurements in ice cores.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18692

Thanks Jethro; I will keep that in mind. I can't view links from here, work has them blocked...

Just downloaded a whopping paper from the Journal of Geophysical Research from 1997.

I may be gone sometime!

Thanks again.

[tundra]

I don't agree with a word of what Piers Corbyn says, but he's not, by any stretch of the imagination, an idiot.

Yeah fair enough but he's done himself no favors the last few years.

[VillagePlank]

Yeah fair enough but he's done himself no favors the last few years.

Being bright is no barrier to making yourself seem like an idiot.

[Gray-Wolf]

Being bright is no barrier to making yourself seem like an idiot.

, ,

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

In the context of the flatlining of temperatures in the last decade or more - looking at our emissions over the last 100yrs. vs. the almost linear increase in global CO2 increases, I think there is a very underestimated and poorly modeled mitigation parameter (ie neg. feedback) that takes place as temperatures cool, albeit a slow process (lag on timescales of decades). Trying to connect proxy data with direct measurement data (over many parameters....CO2, temp, etc...) is risky, especially when one tries to regress for modeling purposes.

I see man's contribution to CO2 levels as (on the surface) appearing large and direct, but when placed into the overall climate system, the influences are absorbed into an extremely complex feedback system, that is not only not understood well, but may in fact change as any one parameter significantly changes. So, in simple terms we may think we have a handle on the current climate system, but, perterb that system a little bit and you then have essentially an entire new system that reacts differently than the one that you think you know. I think that VP's little model very well illustrates this point - and in that sense, it goes against the grain of thinking that many AGW proponents narrowly pursue because it is free from the pre-suppositions that pervade AGW'ism. I think this is a good explanation of why AGW proponents think (wrongly) that there is a better understanding of our current/recent climate than historically - and why in turn the 'science is settled' in their opinion (again wrongly)

Consider in terms of our climate system, with many interacting parameters, feedbacks, and feedbacks on the feedbacks, but having NO "runs" in your observations like VP to calculate an "average" position of a parameter, but only "retrofitted" slew of direct and proxy data from the past. While there has been a lot of good work in the climate system research, IMO, it is absurdly premature to draw conclusions enough so to make significantly precise forecasts, centuries into the future.

Everyone wants to be able to qualify and quantify the system and human impacts on climate. But in the context of where we are technologically, and the knowledge that science has been on a never ending "humble pie" eating expedition since the beginning, I see no reason to take any forecast into the distant future with a "science is settled" attitude. It is why I'm a sceptic. - but crucially, not a 'denier'.

Edited April 27, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[weather eater]

The papers are now on the trail of a possible future global cooling this from today’s independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/...ll-1674630.html

The next few years will be interesting, so many variables and gaps in our knowledge to fill over the next few years, My own view is that both factors are at work but would be more than happy to find out that natural forcings are the main driver in our climate.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Aye, I'm happy to second that!

[Methuselah]

In the context of the flatlining of temperatures in the last decade or more - looking at our emissions over the last 100yrs. vs. the almost linear increase in global CO2 increases, I think there is a very underestimated and poorly modeled mitigation parameter (ie neg. feedback) that takes place as temperatures cool, albeit a slow process (lag on timescales of decades). Trying to connect proxy data with direct measurement data (over many parameters....CO2, temp, etc...) is risky, especially when one tries to regress for modeling purposes.

I see man's contribution to CO2 levels as (on the surface) appearing large and direct, but when placed into the overall climate system, the influences are absorbed into an extremely complex feedback system, that is not only not understood well, but may in fact change as any one parameter significantly changes. So, in simple terms we may think we have a handle on the current climate system, but, perterb that system a little bit and you then have essentially an entire new system that reacts differently than the one that you think you know. I think that VP's little model very well illustrates this point - and in that sense, it goes against the grain of thinking that many AGW proponents narrowly pursue because it is free from the pre-suppositions that pervade AGW'ism. I think this is a good explanation of why AGW proponents think (wrongly) that there is a better understanding of our current/recent climate than historically - and why in turn the 'science is settled' in their opinion (again wrongly)

Consider in terms of our climate system, with many interacting parameters, feedbacks, and feedbacks on the feedbacks, but having NO "runs" in your observations like VP to calculate an "average" position of a parameter, but only "retrofitted" slew of direct and proxy data from the past. While there has been a lot of good work in the climate system research, IMO, it is absurdly premature to draw conclusions enough so to make significantly precise forecasts, centuries into the future.

Everyone wants to be able to qualify and quantify the system and human impacts on climate. But in the context of where we are technologically, and the knowledge that science has been on a never ending "humble pie" eating expedition since the beginning, I see no reason to take any forecast into the distant future with a "science is settled" attitude. It is why I'm a sceptic. - but crucially, not a 'denier'.

TBH Tamara, on the contary, I think that VP's work with the LI is very useful - and pertinent to our ongoing discussions...Sometimes, however, I suspect that a lot of this sceptic/warmist dichotomy is specious; with people merely wanting to be viewed as the more open minded etc. etc?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

TBH Tamara, on the contary, I think that VP's work with the LI is very useful - and pertinent to our ongoing discussions...Sometimes, however, I suspect that a lot of this sceptic/warmist dichotomy is specious; with people merely wanting to be viewed as the more open minded etc. etc?

You obviously don't read my posts properly either Pete. I have had nothing but praise for VP's work.

Further illustrates everything I have said on the other thread.

It is not just attempting to be more open minded, it is more importantly wanting to do so as part of a means to get to a better debate and a better methodology of approaching climate feedbacks that is less selective and more chronologically researched. That word 'evidence' carries a lot more weight then.