Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Climatic Equilibrium


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

Sorry I feeling a little frustrated now and it might be my explaining. SC you still seem to be failing to get it, it's not a trend, it's an average that leads to or supports a sustained climatic condition. If you have the period of 60 years then you could conceivably have two climatic types within that timeframe which wouldn't really make any sense.

Climate by it's very nature will change.

AFT it's not for me to want the climate warmer or cooler or within a range, the climate should do what ever it should do naturally without us (unless it's going to lead to the eradication of humankind).

There is no stationary point !!!!!, there is an average which indicates the current climate for an area. There will always be changing negative and positive drivers as the earth doesn't stand still.

"Because the Earth's climate is in constant flux, in order for the term "Climate Change" to have any practical meaning to us as humans there must be a Climatic equilibrium that is to be changed away from."

I understand what your saying and this is why the WMO said 30 years.

"You've not quite got what I said. Forget about the 12'000 years bit! The number of years is irrelevant! The bit that matters is the +/- 1 degree Celsius temperature range.

Paleoclimatological records appear to show the temperature of the interglacial remaining within a 2 degree Celsius corridor of equilibrium. I'm suggesting if the temperature goes outside that corridor, that would be Climate Change."

Yes it would be climate change, but so would a 0.5C above if all the drivers indicated it should be 1C below.

What I am trying to say is that there are no hard and fast rules of what's right or wrong. Although some things are more obviously wrong such as 3C warming which as you say hasn't occured for 12K or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
Sorry I feeling a little frustrated now and it might be my explaining. SC you still seem to be failing to get it, it's not a trend, it's an average that leads to or supports a sustained climatic condition. If you have the period of 60 years then you could conceivably have two climatic types within that timeframe which wouldn't really make any sense.

Climate by it's very nature will change.

AFT it's not for me to want the climate warmer or cooler or within a range, the climate should do what ever it should do naturally without us (unless it's going to lead to the eradication of humankind).

There is no stationary point !!!!!, there is an average which indicates the current climate for an area. There will always be changing negative and positive drivers as the earth doesn't stand still.

"Because the Earth's climate is in constant flux, in order for the term "Climate Change" to have any practical meaning to us as humans there must be a Climatic equilibrium that is to be changed away from."

I understand what your saying and this is why the WMO said 30 years.

"You've not quite got what I said. Forget about the 12'000 years bit! The number of years is irrelevant! The bit that matters is the +/- 1 degree Celsius temperature range.

Paleoclimatological records appear to show the temperature of the interglacial remaining within a 2 degree Celsius corridor of equilibrium. I'm suggesting if the temperature goes outside that corridor, that would be Climate Change."

Yes it would be climate change, but so would a 0.5C above if all the drivers indicated it should be 1C below.

What I am trying to say is that there are no hard and fast rules of what's right or wrong. Although some things are more obviously wrong such as 3C warming which as you say hasn't occured for 12K or more.

I accept that it's an average Iceberg, and I understand your point. My point is it's still a trend, and if we continue to see no warming for another 5 years say, then maybe you might except that C02 doesn't / isn't, a big part player in the recent warming we have endured! Also Iceberg you can pick any old date to start your 30 years from, and back that up to show what you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
AFT it's not for me to want the climate warmer or cooler or within a range, the climate should do what ever it should do naturally without us (unless it's going to lead to the eradication of humankind).

There is no stationary point !!!!!, there is an average which indicates the current climate for an area. There will always be changing negative and positive drivers as the earth doesn't stand still.

I agree with that. But it's not really relevant to defining the Climatic equilibrium, which is a concept implied by the more recent concept of "Climate Change".

"Because the Earth's climate is in constant flux, in order for the term "Climate Change" to have any practical meaning to us as humans there must be a Climatic equilibrium that is to be changed away from."

I understand what your saying and this is why the WMO said 30 years.

So then they mean Climatic equilibrium is within a 0.6 degree Celsius corridor. Thanks for clearing that up for me - useful discussion.

If that is the case, according to the WMO definition we currently do not have Climate Change, although Climate Change is predicted.

I agree with you the climate is always changing. But if you have a concept of Climate Change it depends on another concept of Climatic equilibrium. One of the things I wanted to define was the "traditional" view of what Climatic equilibrium was. Now I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m

Sorry to butt in to an interesting and informative discussion, however...

Yes it would be climate change, but so would a 0.5C above if all the drivers indicated it should be 1C below.

...I don’t understand this, although it’s a very clear and concise statement of belief. Why couldn’t the scenario described equally illustrate that we don’t fully understand the drivers, or the relationships between the drivers, or indeed that we haven’t identified all the drivers? Especially within such a narrow margin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
...I don’t understand this, although it’s a very clear and concise statement of belief. Why couldn’t the scenario described equally illustrate that we don’t fully understand the drivers, or the relationships between the drivers, or indeed that we haven’t identified all the drivers? Especially within such a narrow margin.

Penguin. I think that sums up the situation perfectly! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL
Sorry to butt in to an interesting and informative discussion, however...

...I don't understand this, although it's a very clear and concise statement of belief. Why couldn't the scenario described equally illustrate that we don't fully understand the drivers, or the relationships between the drivers, or indeed that we haven't identified all the drivers? Especially within such a narrow margin.

It's like a problem I had once with a taxi operator - when a member of staff offered me something I was interested in taking him up on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Sorry to butt in to an interesting and informative discussion, however...

...I don’t understand this, although it’s a very clear and concise statement of belief. Why couldn’t the scenario described equally illustrate that we don’t fully understand the drivers, or the relationships between the drivers, or indeed that we haven’t identified all the drivers? Especially within such a narrow margin.

I think that is a question I'd ask of a scientist from The Hadley Centre. I think the answer is we do know the drivers of climate well enough to be able to say what Matt has been saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
I think that is a question I'd ask of a scientist from The Hadley Centre. I think the answer is we do know the drivers of climate well enough to be able to say what Matt has been saying.

Hi Dev,

I just don't think it can be as simple as that, mate...New information (and understanding) is always going to come along IMO.

However, that does not mean that I'm about to become a 'AGW denier'; manmade CO2 has the same chemical and physical properties as the natural stuff! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Hi Dev,

I just don't think it can be as simple as that, mate...New information (and understanding) is always going to come along IMO.

However, that does not mean that I'm about to become a 'AGW denier'; manmade CO2 has the same chemical and physical properties as the natural stuff! :lol:

I don't think it is simple. I just think, from what I've read and listened to, that people at places like Hadley do have a level of understanding that allows accurate measurement of the complexity of climate forcings/drivers to be able to say what Matt does. The sums add up, the gaps aren't big enough for large forcings to have been missed.

Now, of course others disagree, others out there do indeed this big forcings might have been missed, that there are big gaps in our understanding. That OK, but that's not my position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
I don't think it is simple. I just think, from what I've read and listened to, that people at places like Hadley do have a level of understanding that allows accurate measurement of the complexity of climate forcings/drivers to be able to say what Matt does. The sums add up, the gaps aren't big enough for large forcings to have been missed.Now, of course others disagree, others out there do indeed this big forcings might have been missed, that there are big gaps in our understanding. That OK, but that's not my position.

Yes, that is indeed true...Which is why the deniers clutch at each and every straw that comes their way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
Thanks for the offer, but I don't need bringing up to speed thank you. Maybe we should start a graph showing 11 years of no warming hey! 30 years is still far too short a time, for anything else other than a trend! And that's all we have Iceberg a trend. Let's see were we are in another 3-5 years, and if we continue to see no warming, what then?

Exactly CB, we are still coming out of an ice age. Too many base all their assumptions on evidence that's far from concrete!!

Whats with all the anger :lol: , he just gave you an example.

30 years or 5 billion years what frame do you want to use ?

30 years gives you a good idea what the planet is doing NOW, is it reflective of 5 billion years ....no

Now go get that book

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
I think that is a question I'd ask of a scientist from The Hadley Centre.

I'm never unduly impressed by scientists. I am however impressed by the way science is constantly being advanced and our state of knowledge constantly changes.

I think the answer is we do know the drivers of climate well enough to be able to say what Matt has been saying.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's always the things we don't know we don't know that bite us in the bum. And the last person I believe is the person who tells me they know it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
Whats with all the anger :lol: , he just gave you an example.

30 years or 5 billion years what frame do you want to use ?

30 years gives you a good idea what the planet is doing NOW, is it reflective of 5 billion years ....no

Now go get that book

Big yawn!! Obviously my point went way above your head. Next!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Big yawn!! Obviously my point went way above your head. Next!!!

Just one question SC: why do you always suppose that your 'points' go above others' heads? :lol:

IMO, it's not very conducive to intelligent discussion. Maybe you could actually present something in support of your claims too. I don't know, mate. But it might help. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
Just one question SC: why do you always suppose that your 'points' go above others' heads? B)

IMO, it's not very conducive to intelligent discussion. Maybe you could actually present something in support of your claims too. I don't know, mate. But it might help. :D

I don't normally think that PT, but it appears to be the case this time. And I don't take kindly, to being told to read a book I already own thank you very much!! Next!! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
I'm never unduly impressed by scientists. I am however impressed by the way science is constantly being advanced and our state of knowledge constantly changes.

As someone who didn't work hard enough to get to university I AM impressed by those who have, by those who put in the work - they DO know more than me. I have been very impressed by those climate scientists I've met.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's always the things we don't know we don't know that bite us in the bum. And the last person I believe is the person who tells me they know it all.

Then those that tell me we don't know it all don't know it all - they might be wrong, we might know more than they say B)

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
As someone who didn't work hard enough to get to university I AM impressed by those who have, by those who put in the work - they DO know more than me. I have been very impressed by those climate scientists I've met.

Then those that tell me we don't know it all don't know it all - they might be wrong, we might know more than they say :doh:

Don’t be too impressed by university; I got a double degree in a state of such constant inebriation that I can hardly remember being there. Besides, the vast majority of knowledge that’s important to me now, was learned since.

Ah yes, we might know more than they say, but we might still be a long way short of knowing it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset
I agree with you the climate is always changing. But if you have a concept of Climate Change it depends on another concept of Climatic equilibrium. One of the things I wanted to define was the "traditional" view of what Climatic equilibrium was. Now I know.

I disagree you don't need an equilibrium to get change.

going back to the LI example.

Think of a bath, you keep the tap running, sometimes you take the plug out, sometimes you turn the tap down etc.

The level of water in the bath will keep changing, without their being any concept of an equilibrium.

The climate is the same you can compare it to a point or points in the past to measure change, but there is not an equilibrium.

Sorry to butt in to an interesting and informative discussion, however...

Yes it would be climate change, but so would a 0.5C above if all the drivers indicated it should be 1C below.

...I don’t understand this, although it’s a very clear and concise statement of belief. Why couldn’t the scenario described equally illustrate that we don’t fully understand the drivers, or the relationships between the drivers, or indeed that we haven’t identified all the drivers? Especially within such a narrow margin.

Sorry to re explain Whether we understand the drivers is irrelavent to this statement.

Even if we don't know all the drivers who's to stay that being 0.5 above is within normal ranges or not ?. It would be normal if we had a bunch of positive factors acting as the forcing agent to take it up. But would be far from normal if we have a bunch of negative factors forcing it down.

If you don't think we know the forcing factors well enough then we couldn't say whether it were normal or within "normal bounds", if we do know then we can make a judgement, but that judgement might still be that it' not within "normal bounds".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Now I'm really confused.

There is no equilibrium, just change measured over 30 year time spans to judge whether it be relevant or not? Without equilibrium, how can change be measured on any time scale? No equilibrium means change is normal.

If we don't know all the drivers, how can we measure whether we should naturally be in a cooling or warming phase? Without knowing normal, without knowing whether or not there are natural cooling/warming factors at work, we have nothing against which to gauge change. We've got to know whether we should be warming or cooling in order to measure what, if any impact additional CO2 has had upon temperatures. There is no simple formula of add X amount of CO2 and the atmosphere warms 1c.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Now I'm really confused.

There is no equilibrium, just change measured over 30 year time spans to judge whether it be relevant or not? Without equilibrium, how can change be measured on any time scale? No equilibrium means change is normal.

If we don't know all the drivers, how can we measure whether we should naturally be in a cooling or warming phase? Without knowing normal, without knowing whether or not there are natural cooling/warming factors at work, we have nothing against which to gauge change. We've got to know whether we should be warming or cooling in order to measure what, if any impact additional CO2 has had upon temperatures. There is no simple formula of add X amount of CO2 and the atmosphere warms 1c.

That's one reason I'm not too-much involved in this thread...I'm not sure I can see where it is meant to be going...The concept of a dynamic equilibrium does me fine; as there can't be too many static equilibria in complex systems with varying amounts/types of energy passing through??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
I disagree you don't need an equilibrium to get change.

going back to the LI example.

Think of a bath, you keep the tap running, sometimes you take the plug out, sometimes you turn the tap down etc.

The level of water in the bath will keep changing, without their being any concept of an equilibrium.

The climate is the same you can compare it to a point or points in the past to measure change, but there is not an equilibrium.

You may have heard the phrase "to tip the Earth's balance" - our notion of Climate Change depends on there having been a pre-existing Climatic equilibrium. Of course, as you suggest, Climatic equilibrium only really exists as a concept, like Climate Change.

How can an always changing climate be an equilibrium? How can an always changing climate get "Climate Change"?

The WMO locates our Climatic equilibrium between 1960 and 1990, which covers a corridor of 0.6 degrees Celsius (+/- 0.3C). If the temperature moves outside this acceptable range, the Climatic equilibrium, we have Climate Change. which is what policy makers seek to avoid.

Like Climate Change, Climatic equilibrium is an arbitrary concept - there is no objective basis to prefer one definition over another - but one that our policy makers have given us in order to manage the climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Hucclecote, Gloucestershire. 50m ASL.
  • Location: Hucclecote, Gloucestershire. 50m ASL.

Perhaps the 'equilibrium' you seek is in reality a rolling average. If you drive along a hilly road, you go up and down the hills, so you come to expect more of the same, a sort of average of the ups and downs. Suddenly you start up a mountain. 'Hey', you think, 'I wasn't expecting that!' Thus the equilibrium is no more. You're still driving the same vehicle, but things have changed. Of course, if you are now in the mountains, perhaps you might come to expect more mountains - an 'equilibium' is re-established, but at a different level, and so on.

So perhaps the 'equilibrium' is not a set level, but an average of the ups and downs over a set period. But should this be 30 years or 5 billion years? Ah, there's the rub :huh:

Make sense?...or am I spouting my usual gibberish :D

Cheers, 7&Y

BTW Can we pick a different word to 'equilibrium'? It's a really awkward word to type :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
Perhaps the 'equilibrium' you seek is in reality a rolling average. If you drive along a hilly road, you go up and down the hills, so you come to expect more of the same, a sort of average of the ups and downs. Suddenly you start up a mountain. 'Hey', you think, 'I wasn't expecting that!' Thus the equilibrium is no more. You're still driving the same vehicle, but things have changed. Of course, if you are now in the mountains, perhaps you might come to expect more mountains - an 'equilibium' is re-established, but at a different level, and so on.

So perhaps the 'equilibrium' is not a set level, but an average of the ups and downs over a set period. But should this be 30 years or 5 billion years? Ah, there's the rub :huh:

I really like that explanation. I believe that is what I was trying to say but in a much much better way. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex
I really like that explanation. I believe that is what I was trying to say but in a much much better way. :doh:

If you consider that all journeys begin at "home", and end back at "home" at some point in the future, then the baseline is always "home". No matter what form the journey took, how long or far. Is that an equilibrium, or a position of rest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

The true, fullest, extent of the Earth's climatic equilibrium is far higher than anything we have witnessed over the past million years.

Over the history of the planet, the temperature has varied between a low global average of around 12C and a high global average of around 22C.

The planet has spent far longer at the 22C end of this range than it has at the 12C end. It being that we are at a global average of around 14C at the moment, we have a long way to warm before we are outside of Earth's peak temperature.

The worrying thing is that the warming may yet have a heck of a long way to go and still be entirely natural.

:doh:

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...