General Climate Change Discussion

[Solar Cycles]

Here you go Pete, The Mid Cretaceous period was characterized by geography and as ocean circulation that was vastly different from today, as well as high CO2 levels ( at least 2-4 times higher than today ). This indicates the Mid-Cretaceous climate system was vastly different than today or any we might have in the future. Explanations evoking ocean and atmospheric circulation pattern radically different from today, have been proposed to explain the climate in the Mid-Cretaceous. However, there is no scientific consensus on how the Mid-Cretaceous warm climate came about.

Enjoy the read!!!!

[jethro]

Is it just me or is anyone else rapidly loosing the will to live?????

[Solar Cycles]

Also the earth's natural process also contributes, and remove, copious amounts of CO2. Since plants first appeared on the Earth, they have converted nearly all available CO2 to oxygen, fossil fuels, and other long term removals from the atmosphere. Today less than 4/100 of 1% (379ppm ) of our atmosphere is CO2! Pete maybe it's you who should start with ladybird books, always good to start from the beginning!!

Edited January 23, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Gray-Wolf]

So La Nina is the only reason we are cooling now! But El Nino wasn't the only reason we warmed. What fantastic reasoning. You couldn't make it up could you?

???

The 'greenhouse theory' would have us warming away from the 'average'. We know of events that push and pull climate up or down so what would you suggest happens, in a constantly warming world, when you apply a cooling effect (or ,for that matter, a warming effect)?

We know that the last 3 'cool PDO' phases have warmed, phase on phase, when compared to the preceding one so why would that be???

A 'natural' cooling cycle' that is lessening in intensity ,over time, set against the background of a slowly warming planet?

I would even go so far as to suggest that this PDO negative started in 99' and didn't flip-flop out in 02 to re-start after 2 years and then 'flip-flop' back after another 4 years only to re-surface in 08 but was present throughout but so modified by AGW that it no longer registers as PDO-ve by current temp thresholds used to gauge it.

As you know the PDO positive enhances Nino and flattens out Nina, PDO-ve flattens out Nino and enhances Nina (as we have just seen). Why can you accept that a natural cooling trend would augment cooling and lessen warming (and vice-versa) but not see the same of AGW warming on cooling/warming cycles?

We will find ourselves in a state of near permanent El-Nino as ocean temps wrack up and thresholds are crossed, by Ocean warming due to AGW, and not through ENSO mechanisms. We will find PDO-ve disappear as a phenomena as ocean temps wrack up beyond the current 'trigger tempos' to call the negative phase. As you know I already believe the latest PDO negative started in 99' (as forecast) and has continued in the negative phase since......changes in ocean currents (Esp. into and across the Arctic) have led to this 'unique' period of 2 four year 'flip flops' into the negative state (never measured before) with November's move into Negative PDO continuing the current PDO-ve pattern.

PDO ,being so 'new' to science, is yet another thing we tend to look back on (as we cannot predict it yet as we know so little about it) to understand and ,by 2015, we will have enough data to confirm that this last PDO negative phase has been the 'average length' of phase (starting in 99' and ending in ,or around, 2015) but the weakest ever recorded (even slipping out of phase a few times as warm waters overwhelmed the 'trigger' points).

Will you understand all the better how a warming world can exaggerate warm phases and negate cold ones when this is documented? No , I thought not

[Admiral_Bobski]

The thing is that CO2 does cause temperatures to rise - this is demonstrable fact - all things being equal.

The problem is that on the Earth all things are not equal. Between the ocean and atmosphere, water acidity, plankton, submarine vulcanicity, ecological changes, ozone, sulphates, aerosols, plant growth, high clouds, low clouds, on-land vulcanicity, particulates, albedo, sea-ice, positive feedbacks, negative feedbacks and so on it becomes hellishly complicated to figure out exactly how much of a net effect CO2 actually has on temperatures.

The argument isn't about whether or not CO2 causes warming - it's about how much of the observed warming is caused by CO2.

CB

[Solar Cycles]

???

The 'greenhouse theory' would have us warming away from the 'average'. We know of events that push and pull climate up or down so what would you suggest happens, in a constantly warming world, when you apply a cooling effect (or ,for that matter, a warming effect)?

We know that the last 3 'cool PDO' phases have warmed, phase on phase, when compared to the preceding one so why would that be???

A 'natural' cooling cycle' that is lessening in intensity ,over time, set against the background of a slowly warming planet?

I would even go so far as to suggest that this PDO negative started in 99' and didn't flip-flop out in 02 to re-start after 2 years and then 'flip-flop' back after another 4 years only to re-surface in 08 but was present throughout but so modified by AGW that it no longer registers as PDO-ve by current temp thresholds used to gauge it.

As you know the PDO positive enhances Nino and flattens out Nina, PDO-ve flattens out Nino and enhances Nina (as we have just seen). Why can you accept that a natural cooling trend would augment cooling and lessen warming (and vice-versa) but not see the same of AGW warming on cooling/warming cycles?

We will find ourselves in a state of near permanent El-Nino as ocean temps wrack up and thresholds are crossed, by Ocean warming due to AGW, and not through ENSO mechanisms. We will find PDO-ve disappear as a phenomena as ocean temps wrack up beyond the current 'trigger tempos' to call the negative phase. As you know I already believe the latest PDO negative started in 99' (as forecast) and has continued in the negative phase since......changes in ocean currents (Esp. into and across the Arctic) have led to this 'unique' period of 2 four year 'flip flops' into the negative state (never measured before) with November's move into Negative PDO continuing the current PDO-ve pattern.

PDO ,being so 'new' to science, is yet another thing we tend to look back on (as we cannot predict it yet as we know so little about it) to understand and ,by 2015, we will have enough data to confirm that this last PDO negative phase has been the 'average length' of phase (starting in 99' and ending in ,or around, 2015) but the weakest ever recorded (even slipping out of phase a few times as warm waters overwhelmed the 'trigger' points).

Will you understand all the better how a warming world can exaggerate warm phases and negate cold ones when this is documented? No , I thought not

As much as I admire your research GW, I don't agree with any of that, warm air does not warm oceans. The sun yes!

[Admiral_Bobski]

On the subject of ENSO, two points:

Firstly, the El Nino of '98 was particularly strong and caused a relatively big spike in global temperatures. On the other hand, the current La Nina has not been particularly strong (I think it can be described as "average"), so it is unreasonable to expect the recent La Nina to have an equal but opposite effect on temperatures as the '98 El Nino did.

Secondly, things warm up far quicker than they cool down - turn on a kettle and time how long it takes to boil the water, then time how long it takes for the water to return to its original temperature. If we're talking about long-term average global temperature trends then you're never going to see temperatures fall as fast as they have climbed (barring, perhaps, a catastrophic event).

So, at this point in time, arguments that there is no cooldown are as spurious as arguments that the warming trend has stopped and/or reversed.

CB

[Iceberg]

I agree that's not the your argument CB, but it's unfortunately the argument of a few people here.

I think we largely disagree about whether you might believe AGW is responsible for 0.1C and I think it's 0.4C.

On the subject of ENSO, two points:

Firstly, the El Nino of '98 was particularly strong and caused a relatively big spike in global temperatures. On the other hand, the current La Nina has not been particularly strong (I think it can be described as "average"), so it is unreasonable to expect the recent La Nina to have an equal but opposite effect on temperatures as the '98 El Nino did.

Secondly, things warm up far quicker than they cool down - turn on a kettle and time how long it takes to boil the water, then time how long it takes for the water to return to its original temperature. If we're talking about long-term average global temperature trends then you're never going to see temperatures fall as fast as they have climbed (barring, perhaps, a catastrophic event).

So, at this point in time, arguments that there is no cooldown are as spurious as arguments that the warming trend has stopped and/or reversed.

CB

Have you had a chance to look through my thread on ENSO CB ?.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=50190

I don't think anybody is expecting it to have a equal effect(otherwise temperature would be -.7 or -0.8 below the average now). !

[Thundery wintry showers]

Consistent, meaning they didn't rise? And now they seem to be going down do they not ( 2008 ).

They went down in early 2008, then they rose a bit again as we headed towards 2009. Depends on what small timescale you cherry-pick, really.

As for debunking AGW, I'd like to see the "sceptics" challenge some of the points 1-10 referred to in Gray-Wolf's post #294 on this thread.

It is quite right to say that denialists have closed minds, while sceptics have open minds, and that the two shouldn't be lumped together. However, far too many of the AGW "sceptics" on these threads resort to ad hominems and circular reasoning to "debunk" AGW, and try to bring politics into it and claim that AGW is an agenda used by Communists, which is exactly the kind of attitude I would expect from deniers. There are some contributors to this thread, like Captain Bobski, VillagePlank, Roger J Smith and Jethro for instance, that I think legitimately fall into the "sceptic" category, but for every one of them there seems to be at least 2-3 deniers.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I agree that's not the your argument CB, but it's unfortunately the argument of a few people here.

I think we largely disagree about whether you might believe AGW is responsible for 0.1C and I think it's 0.4C.

Hi Iceberg!

You're absolutely right - I have to admit that I think CO2 has a practically zero net effect on temperatures, but I don't deny its absorption (and hence warming) capabilities. My first post above was directed more at what you might legitimately call "deniers" - if we skeptics are to argue against AGW then it helps if we're all arguing from the same script!

Have you had a chance to look through my thread on ENSO CB ?.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=50190

I don't think anybody is expecting it to have a equal effect(otherwise temperature would be -.7 or -0.8 below the average now). !

I confess that I haven't had a chance to fully digest your thread (though I have skimmed through it - I'm such a lightweight!). I shall certainly give it a look when I have time. My second post above was a response to the general impression I get from certain people on these boards that temperatures should by all rights be plummeting right now, forced down by La Nina (and used as a dismissal of the concept of a cooling trend).

As I said previously, I do think that it is too soon to declare that global temperatures won't start to increase; it's too soon to declare that global temperatures will start to go down (or continue to go down, depending on your viewpoint!). But it's also premature to shrug off the current stall as a blip in a continuing upward trend. We are in limbo at the moment, and only time will tell what temperatures will ultimately do - what they do will either add to or detract from the AGW case, and it will be interesting to re-evaluate in, say, ten years' time and see where we stand.

Should we do nothing in the meantime? Absolutely not, but we should be measured in our approach. Should we stop arguing over AGW in the meantime? Absolutely not. By our arguments we may discover some important truth which, again, may add to or detract from the AGW case, and we may discover it before Nature shows its cards as to future temperature change.

Besides, I love a good argument!

CB

[Admiral_Bobski]

They went down in early 2008, then they rose a bit again as we headed towards 2009. Depends on what small timescale you cherry-pick, really.

As for debunking AGW, I'd like to see the "sceptics" challenge some of the points 1-10 referred to in Gray-Wolf's post #294 on this thread.

It is quite right to say that denialists have closed minds, while sceptics have open minds, and that the two shouldn't be lumped together. However, far too many of the AGW "sceptics" on these threads resort to ad hominems and circular reasoning to "debunk" AGW, and try to bring politics into it and claim that AGW is an agenda used by Communists, which is exactly the kind of attitude I would expect from deniers. There are some contributors to this thread, like Captain Bobski, VillagePlank, Roger J Smith and Jethro for instance, that I think legitimately fall into the "sceptic" category, but for every one of them there seems to be at least 2-3 deniers.

Thanks for that TWS! I agree wholeheartedly with you - besides anything else (and I have said this before) the "Deniers" take away from the genuine skeptics' credibility. It's very easy to disregard anything skeptical when a lot of it is nonsense.

As for Gray-Wolf's 10 points, I intend to return to that later on with some rebuttals!

Cheers

CB

[Solar Cycles]

They went down in early 2008, then they rose a bit again as we headed towards 2009. Depends on what small timescale you cherry-pick, really.

As for debunking AGW, I'd like to see the "sceptics" challenge some of the points 1-10 referred to in Gray-Wolf's post #294 on this thread.

It is quite right to say that denialists have closed minds, while sceptics have open minds, and that the two shouldn't be lumped together. However, far too many of the AGW "sceptics" on these threads resort to ad hominems and circular reasoning to "debunk" AGW, and try to bring politics into it and claim that AGW is an agenda used by Communists, which is exactly the kind of attitude I would expect from deniers. There are some contributors to this thread, like Captain Bob Ski, Village Plank, Roger J Smith and Jethro for instance, that I think legitimately fall into the "sceptic" category, but for every one of them there seems to be at least 2-3 deniers.

I'm up for a challenge! 1,Ice cores don't prove anything either way. The simplest explanation is that when temperatures rise, more carbon enters the atmosphere, because as oceans warm they release more CO2

2 See previous post

3 Sunspot activity can be accounted for most of our warming and cooling, the LIA being just one example of this, this winters hale cycle being another!

4 Cosmic rays, little is really known on this subject, so for anyone to dismiss it out of hand should put forth a better explanation.

5 Mars and Venus, again easy to debunk a theory whilst not having an alternative theory?

6 Wind shear cannot be used to calculate temperatures.

7U.H.I - one only has to look at where most of the observation stations are placed, to see why there is so much controversy!

8 Enso was the reason for most of the warming in the past 20 years

9Computer models have to be tweaked every 2-3 years, because reality and theory don't match!

Also take exception being classed as a denier. What about spoon feeders for all the warmist!!

[Baylor]

I have already added a post that offers another viewpoint on the relationship of Co2 and temperature. As previously stated, I have no issue with Co2 being a greenhouse gas, but I do take issue to the predicted rates of change of temperature and the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. No issue with the science at all, more and issue with what is predicted and the methods of prediction.

[pottyprof]

Lets have less of the name calling.

Can I please refer everyone to this?.. http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?act=SR&f=8

Please show some respect for eachother.

Ta muchly..

[osmposm]

........warm air does not warm oceans. The sun yes!

My scientific knowledge and understanding is slim, so I mainly leave the physics - and (recently) other - arguments to others (and occasionally, like Jethro, lose the will to live!), but even I know that's a bizarre supposition.

When you use a hair dryer, does it not dry quicker on "hot" than on "cool"? How can this be if the moisture in the hair is not warmed by the hot air? If I have a rainwater butt in the shade on a north wall, are you saying that the water in it does not warm up from winter to summer?

SC, I can only think you were in hurry and meant to write something else - or else that I have somehow completely misunderstood. Because if you did mean to write that I...um...don't think it does much for your credibility as being someone who understands anything about basic thermodynamics, let alone the far more complex science of climate.

[Solar Cycles]

Lets have less of the name calling.

Can I please refer everyone to this?.. http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?act=SR&f=8

Please show some respect for eachother.

Ta muchly..

Yes but it was TWS, with his deniers comment that got my back up

. To deny is to not face up to the truth. How can agw be classed as the truth, an opinion yes!!!

My scientific knowledge and understanding is slim, so I mainly leave the physics - and (recently) other - arguments to others (and occasionally, like Jethro, lose the will to live!), but even I know that's a bizarre supposition.

When you use a hair dryer, does it not dry quicker on "hot" than on "cool"? How can this be if the moisture in the hair is not warmed by the hot air? If I have a rainwater butt in the shade on a north wall, are you saying that the water in it does not warm up from winter to summer?

SC, I can only think you were in hurry and meant to write something else - or else that I have somehow completely misunderstood. Because if you did mean to write that I...um...don't think it does much for your credibility as being someone who understands anything about basic thermodynamics, let alone the far more complex science of climate.

A simple experiment, boil a pan of water, then run your hairdryer over another pan of water. See which heats up the quickest?

[osmposm]

A simple experiment, boil a pan of water, then run your hairdryer over another pan of water. See which heats up the quickest?

I am completely baffled now. Are you suggesting that the sun is like a gas ring under the ocean? Or are you now bringing undersea volcanoes and the heat from the earth's core into things? I thought you were saying that the sun warms the ocean, but warm air does not?

Let us modify your experiment to be more relevant. Two pans of cold water. Sit one under a infra-red heat lamp. Point the hair dyer on "hot" at the other. If you have enough patience you will find that they both warm up, very slowly. SC, the sun and ambient air both warm oceans. Surely you can see that? If you can't, please stop trying to argue physics with the people on here who can.

And what about the water butt?

[pottyprof]

A simple experiment, boil a pan of water, then run your hairdryer over another pan of water. See which heats up the quickest?

But it will still warm up..

We are talking about climate which can take thousands of years to make its mind up where its going next..

[Solar Cycles]

I am completely baffled now. Are you suggesting that the sun is like a gas ring under the ocean? Or are you now bringing undersea volcanoes and the heat from the earth's core into things? I thought you were saying that the sun warms the ocean, but warm air does not?

Let us modify your experiment to be more relevant. Two pans of cold water. Sit one under a infra-red heat lamp. Point the hair dyer on "hot" at the other. If you have enough patience you will find that they both warm up, very slowly. SC, the sun and ambient air both warm oceans. Surely you can see that? If you can't, please stop trying to argue physics with the people on here who can.

And what about the water butt?

But only the sun can penetrate deep waters, where as the ambient air would have a negible effect!

[pottyprof]

But only the sun can penetrate deep waters, where as the ambient air would have a negible effect!

Mixing?

[Iceberg]

Very little gets to the deep waters, that's why their temperature has remained constant for 1000's of years.

[Solar Cycles]

Very little gets to the deep waters, that's why their temperature has remained constant for 1000's of years.

But the sun would penetrate far deeper than the ambient air Iceberg!

[Thundery wintry showers]

But only the sun can penetrate deep waters, where as the ambient air would have a negible effect!

Evidence simply doesn't bear this out I'm afraid. Sunshine totals over northern Britain and Iceland have not increased significantly, so why are SSTs rising? Similarly, across the globe as a whole, there is no evidence of a significant increase in sunshine- so why are the seas getting warmer? It follows, at the very least, that it isn't because of the sun. And sunspot activity (see below) hasn't increased significantly over the last 50 years.

I'm up for a challenge! 1,Ice cores don't prove anything either way. The simplest explanation is that when temperatures rise, more carbon enters the atmosphere, because as oceans warm they release more CO2

2 See previous post

3 Sunspot activity can be accounted for most of our warming and cooling, the LIA being just one example of this, this winters hale cycle being another!

4 Cosmic rays, little is really known on this subject, so for anyone to dismiss it out of hand should put forth a better explanation.

5 Mars and Venus, again easy to debunk a theory whilst not having an alternative theory?

6 Wind shear cannot be used to calculate temperatures.

7U.H.I - one only has to look at where most of the observation stations are placed, to see why there is so much controversy!

8 Enso was the reason for most of the warming in the past 20 years

9Computer models have to be tweaked every 2-3 years, because reality and theory don't match!

Also take exception being classed as a denier. What about spoon feeders for all the warmist!!

Good to see some evidence provided, but unfortunately not very compelling. My rebuttals are here:

1 & 2: all this proves is that there are natural drivers of climate change, it says nothing about whether humans can affect the climate.

3: does not address GW's point that solar radiation has not increased significantly in the last 50 years. This winter so far, while cool over Britain, has been slightly warmer than last winter averaged globally.

4: fair point there, but again, nothing to dismiss AGW with, just a potential source of extra uncertainty.

5: I don't really understand what point 5 is getting at, so fair do's.

6: Er, it says quite clearly that the data is supported by observing stations and various other sources of evidence.

7: The UHI has been around ever since instrumental records began and strong efforts are made to correct for urban heat island effects wherever possible.

8: ENSO has seen a prevalence of cold La Nina events over the last decade, which was warmer than the decade 1979-88 despite the latter having more El Ninos.

9: Actually, computer models do match reality pretty well, and they are tweaked every 2-3 years to improve the extent to which they match reality. I'm actually quite sceptical as to whether the fact that they broadly match reality means that they're necessarily going to match what happens in the future, but they do represent a strong line of evidence for the likelihood of AGW being an existing thing.

Deniers vs sceptics: a sceptical way of thinking involves critically surveying the evidence and finding areas of accepted theory that contain holes, and thus questioning the conclusions that are derived from them. What I see from Solar Cycles and some others is more like working backwards from a pre-set conclusion ("AGW is a myth") and fitting evidence around it. Maybe "denier" is too strong a term for that, but at best it's closed minded and at worst it can give rise to circular reasoning.

[Solar Cycles]

Evidence simply doesn't bear this out I'm afraid. Sunshine totals over northern Britain and Iceland have not increased significantly, so why are SSTs rising? Similarly, across the globe as a whole, there is no evidence of a significant increase in sunshine- so why are the seas getting warmer? It follows, at the very least, that it isn't because of the sun. And sunspot activity (see below) hasn't increased significantly over the last 50 years.

Good to see some evidence provided, but unfortunately not very compelling. My rebuttals are here:

1 & 2: all this proves is that there are natural drivers of climate change, it says nothing about whether humans can affect the climate.

3: does not address GW's point that solar radiation has not increased significantly in the last 50 years. This winter so far, while cool over Britain, has been slightly warmer than last winter averaged globally.

4: fair point there, but again, nothing to dismiss AGW with, just a potential source of extra uncertainty.

5: I don't really understand what point 5 is getting at, so fair do's.

6: Er, it says quite clearly that the data is supported by observing stations and various other sources of evidence.

7: The UHI has been around ever since instrumental records began and strong efforts are made to correct for urban heat island effects wherever possible.

8: ENSO has seen a prevalence of cold La Nina events over the last decade, which was warmer than the decade 1979-88 despite the latter having more El Ninos.

9: Actually, computer models do match reality pretty well, and they are tweaked every 2-3 years to improve the extent to which they match reality. I'm actually quite sceptical as to whether the fact that they broadly match reality means that they're necessarily going to match what happens in the future, but they do represent a strong line of evidence for the likelihood of AGW being an existing thing.

Deniers vs sceptics: a sceptical way of thinking involves critically surveying the evidence and finding areas of accepted theory that contain holes, and thus questioning the conclusions that are derived from them. What I see from Solar Cycles and some others is more like working backwards from a pre-set conclusion ("AGW is a myth") and fitting evidence around it. Maybe "denier" is too strong a term for that, but at best it's closed minded and at worst it can give rise to circular reasoning.

Closed minded works both ways TWS, I still don't see any strong evidence to suggest that rising CO2 levels have been the cause of any warming. And as for your point about computer models, the reason they are tweaked is that they are simply wrong! And ENSO is only been brought to our attention now due to recent cooling. Funny that really, when considering all the previous warming was never contributed to El-Nino. Also UHI can still be found in places where they are compromised! But the main point is that there is no evidence to back up claims that humans effect climate. A theory yes!

Edited January 24, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Thundery wintry showers]

Closed minded works both ways TWS, I still don't see any strong evidence to suggest that rising CO2 levels have been the cause of any warming.

Well, it depends on your line of reasoning. If you work backwards from the premise "CO2 hasn't caused any warming", you aren't going to see any evidence on the contrary simply because it doesn't fit the premise that you are working from. In reality, plenty of evidence has been offered on this thread alone- not conclusive proof, but evidence.

And as for your point about computer models, the reason they are tweaked is that they are simply wrong!

So, if something has room for improvement, that makes it meaningless? Or if that isn't the crux of your argument I would like some independent evidence for them being "simply wrong", because you haven't given any.

And ENSO is only been brought to our attention now due to recent cooling. Funny that really, when considering all the previous warming was never contributed to El-Nino.

El Nino was actually brought to our attention quite a lot around 1997-98 when we had that exceptional El Nino event, and it was all over the newspapers.

Also UHI can still be found in places where they are compromised!

and this proves what?

But the main point is that there is no evidence to back up claims that humans effect climate. A theory yes!

er, and that theory is based on evidence. Whether you agree with it or not, there is evidence for it. By the same token, should we reject the idea of evolution because it is only a scientific theory?