General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Gray-Wolf]

However much in awe we are of the universe and it's workings (and their impacts here on earth) it would be foolish to think that mans actions here on earth are without their own impacts.

To isolate how mans impacts impact the global climate system is a tad more difficult but the fact that the 'impact' is there should not be overlooked.

If we look at long cycle solar variation then we see very small changes over very long periods of time leading to large changes here on earth.

Could it be that we have used a know 'driver' for global warming to the point where the secondary global warming drivers are brought into life?

Carbon sink failures, methane/carbon releases from permafrosts,drought impacts on Forrest's, storm impacts on Forrest's etc.???

[Solar Cycles]

Over on Wattsup, a couple of interesting articles.

1. How shrinking glaciers in the Himalayas isn't down to AGW.

2. How quiet the hurricane season is again.

Any one interested can have a butchers, and report back!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

So, what are you saying??

I'll answer that...CO2 IS NOT driving the warming. We would be here anyway!

BFTP

[Thundery wintry showers]

Unfortunately that argument is no more convincing than "humans are causing the warming- FACT" type comments. The available evidence simply doesn't support either of those absolute statements.

[Solar Cycles]

Over on Wattsup, a couple of interesting articles.

1. How shrinking glaciers in the Himalayas isn't down to AGW.

2. How quiet the hurricane season is again.

Any one interested can have a butchers, and report back!

Would no one at least like to comment on the hurricane season?

Go on then I'll start the ball rolling!

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but about 4-5 years ago we were told that hurricanes like Katrina, would become yearly events because of AGW. Some how I think that's another scaremongering story, to bite the dust. We are in the midst, of yet another very quiet hurricane season. Now I wonder why that is!!

[VillagePlank]

Would no one at least like to comment on the hurricane season?

There is considerable talk and chatter about, that suggests that hurricane intensity/frequency is inversely proportional to solar activity. So, whilst common-sense might suggest more active sun, warmer sea, more hurricanes and greater intensity, it appears the opposite is true.

There is a detectable solar signal in U.S. hurricane activity due to increases in tropical cyclone intensity when the sun is “cooler”.

from www.isse.ucar.edu/ams/present/elsner09.ppt (which is a PowerPoint presentation)

Edited August 11, 2009 by VillagePlank

[noggin]

What is this "topic moderation" thing at the bottom of the page? There isn't one anywhere else.......is it the "climate change discussion" equivalent of a 999 call or something?

[noggin]

Back to normal, then. Thank goodness. I thought I'd broken something!

[Chris Knight]

Back to normal, then. Thank goodness. I thought I'd broken something!

Some folk think it was broken already!

Too much power in the hands of a mere mortal. Wow, Noggin, you is a MODERATOR!!

Now what of climate, what has changed, since this thread was temporarily sundered.

Hast the pole refrozen? Both!!

Is a tenth of a degree in the last 3 months over the neutral range on the ONI 3-4 enough of an excuse for NOAA to call an "El Nino" - of course it is! (four months of negative ONI 3-4 less than -0.5 only garnered a "La Nina conditions" qualification tho.

The moon remains spotless.

[jethro]

Some folk think it was broken already!

Too much power in the hands of a mere mortal. Wow, Noggin, you is a MODERATOR!!

Now what of climate, what has changed, since this thread was temporarily sundered.

Hast the pole refrozen? Both!!

Is a tenth of a degree in the last 3 months over the neutral range on the ONI 3-4 enough of an excuse for NOAA to call an "El Nino" - of course it is! (four months of negative ONI 3-4 less than -0.5 only garnered a "La Nina conditions" qualification tho.

The moon remains spotless.

You mean to say this isn't the biggest El Nino during a negative PDO phase? I've heard rumours to the contrary.

Sssshhh, don't let Noggin in on the secret, they were saving it for when she had to deal with reported posts.

[Admiral_Bobski]

The moon remains spotless.

Of course the moon remains spotless - the Apollo astronauts gave it a good clean-up back in 1969!

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

The psychology of climate change: why we do nothing

Tom Levitt

12th August, 2009

Well-publicised simple steps like using energy-saving light bulbs may be making it more difficult to prepare people for the bigger changes needed to tackle climate change, argue psychologists

Upwards of 75 per cent of the general public, going by recent polls in the US and UK, say climate change is an important issue.

But few of us are doing much to actually tackle the problem and reduce our own emissions.

It is a conundrum that we are, perhaps belatedly, realising should be seen as a psychological one.

Anxiety and helplessness, argues a report published last week by the American Psychological Association, rather than ambivalence or apathy are the biggest barriers to individuals taking action.

The report says that unlike other environmental problems like river pollution or GM food, people do not see climate change as an immediate threat.

'What is unique about current global climate change is the role of human behaviour,' said report chair Janet Swim, of Pennsylvania State University. 'We must look at the reasons people are not acting in order to understand how to get people to act.'

The report identified some key barriers, including:

• Uncertainty – Research has shown that uncertainty over climate change reduces the frequency of "green" behaviour.
• Mistrust – Evidence shows that most people don't believe the risk messages of scientists or government officials.
• Social comparison - People routinely compare their actions with those of others and derive subjective and descriptive norms from their observations about what is the "proper" course of action. i.e. Al Gore's large residence has been used as a justification for inaction.
• Undervaluing risks – A study of more than 3,000 people in 18 countries showed that many people believe environmental conditions will worsen in 25 years. While this may be true, this thinking could lead people to believe that changes can be made later.
• Lack of Control – People believe their actions would be too small to make a difference and choose to do nothing.
• Perceived behavioural control - Because climate change is a global problem, many individuals understandably believe that they can do nothing about it. This is the well-known collective action problem.
• Habit – Ingrained behaviours are extremely resistant to permanent change while others change slowly.

The report says psychology has already been used by government and campaign groups to tackle these barriers.
For example, people are more likely to use energy-efficient appliances if they are provided with immediate energy-use feedback. Devices that show people how much energy and money they're conserving can yield energy savings of up to 12 per cent.
'Behavioural feedback links the cost of energy use more closely to behaviour by showing the costs immediately or daily rather than in an electric bill that comes a month later,' said Swim.
However, there are potential shortcomings with this approach.
Big changes
WWF change strategist Dr Tom Crompton points out that appeals to self-interest such as the recent

will not necessarily translate to the bigger changes people need to make.
'It may be the most effective way of engaging people on this simple energy saving action but not as a basis for escalating up to more ambitious changes,' he said.
'The evidence is that people pre-occupied with saving money or buying things to look cool tend to be more resistant to adapting the big changes needed.'
WWF has produced a number of reports over the past few years looking at psychological barriers to tackling climate change. Dr Crompton said there needed to be a shift away from short-term campaigning.
'The environmental movement has for too long focused on the policy response, without considering the social and psychological barriers.
'Policy is critical but if we are going to contemplate the scale of policy intervention needed we are going to have to address the way we work round with these barriers,' he said.
Apathy

Among the research currently been done, Renee Lertzman from the Cardiff School of Social Sciences, is looking at the unconscious motivations behind many people's responses to climate change. 

She has argued previously in the Ecologist that people may simply be paralysed by the size of the problem.
'If people don't recycle I am not going to assume they don't care about the environment. There is not a simple causal relationship. In fact it could be if there is a sense of inevitability or powerlessness then recycling is not going to make any sense to them,' she said.
'If a psychologist was confronted with the same situation with a patient they wouldn't shout or bombard them with all kinds of facts about their damaging or destructive behaviour.
'They would actively try to work out ways to mobilise their ability to respond constructively,' she said.
Lertzman said more participant-led models such as the Transition Town movement where people were encouraged to bring there own ideas rather than being lectured at, were more likely to succeed.
'We need to find a way to communicate these issues with people in an honest and realistic way that doesn't trigger anxiety.'
Get involved


Do not dispair. If you're starting to feel helpless, don't forget the success of individuals like Rob Hopkins, who started the Transition Town movement, and other local heroes profiled in the Ecologist over the past few years.


Individuals can make a difference.
If you're looking for a campaign to join, try any or all of the following:

• Transition Town movement
• Climate Camp
• 350.org
• Climate Rush
• Plane Stupid
• Read about more campaigns

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the "Ecologist" yesterday.

[VillagePlank]

The psychology of climate change: why we do nothing

Tom Levitt

12th August, 2009

Well-publicised simple steps like using energy-saving light bulbs may be making it more difficult to prepare people for the bigger changes needed to tackle climate change, argue psychologists

... snip ...

Well, according to George Monbiot, the notion of resistance to chance is altogether a different kettle of fish ...

When you drive along familiar roads, for example, the brain’s basal ganglia function as a kind of autopilot, performing routine functions without the need for conscious thought. When you go abroad, and have to drive on the other side of the road, you must make use of the prefrontal cortex, which burns more energy than the basal ganglia. We perceive high levels of energy use much as we perceive pain. For good biological reasons we seek to avoid them. We engage with change only when we have to.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/06/23/stop-building-tanks/

If he's right - about using different parts of the brain for new/old things, and there's no reason to presuppose that he is not - then this has a profound influence on most human endeavours - including my day-job; writing software, which is mostly about change.

As Crichton once wrote, "Life will find a way. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new territory, and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously"

It seems that humans must break free - or change - painfully, and, maybe, even dangerously.

Edited August 13, 2009 by VillagePlank

[MR EXTREMES]

intresting stuff : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8197191.stm

[VillagePlank]

Yikes!

But current levels were matched and perhaps exceeded during the Mediaeval Climate Anomaly (also known as the Mediaeval Warm Period) about 1,000 years ago.

BBC report linked to post above.

First time I've ever heard it called an amomaly .... as far as I can recall it was all part of a natural cycle, and not anomalous at all.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

intresting stuff : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8197191.stm

I see that Mann is still trying to put an AGW spin on it.

BFTP

[kold weather]

Simply put its interesting to read and since I consider hurricane to be my strong point I think I'll put my point across.

Tropical storms on average have increased in the Atlantic and that is something that is the truth, 2000s should come out on top of anything since 1850s when the first data really came through bout these things. However there are several questions about this:

1:Is it a multi-decadal signal or more?

2:Is the higher storms in response to better observations?

Firstly, there is clear evidence of a multi-decadal shift that occurs in the Atlantic. In basic terms for a few decades the Atlantic warms and then shifts back to a colder phase. The way we know this is a BIG factor is because you can actually see the exact same thing in the eastern Pacific as well. When the Atlantic is warmer generally the EPAC has been colder. Therefore the EPAC has had many below normal seasons in the last 10-15 years, whilst the Atlantic, the reverse. Whether or not GW is adding to the numbers, its hard to tell and I truely think no simulator is going to have nearly good resolution to make that sort of punt, its pretty much guess work and assumptions, to create a truely accurate model would take mammoth amount of power, the type even the Met office and NOAA could probably only dream about.

As for the second point, they do suggest in the research that storms were missed and that was added into the simulator anyway. Its believed that before 1950 anything from 1-3 storms were missed due to the lack of Sat information and more then likely even more then that if you go back far enough.

What is interesting though is based just on the last 100 years the 2000s have been one of the lower decades since the start of the timeframe in terms of USA Major hurricanes making landfall. This is something that is also rather interesting and may suggest that the numbers that were missed due to lack of observation.

Finally, a lot of storms that are now added and upgraded would NEVER have been upgraded even 20-30 years ago, the advent of recon and GOES Sat.imagery has helped detect storms. For example lets take tropical storm Lee in 2005. It lasted just 6 hours in the middle of the Atlantic. Such a storm could easily have been missed in the first half of the 20th century. Also on top of this there are now the systems which are also included into the data like subtropical storms and also systems that were quite clearly tropical cyclones but were ignored. Take 1992. That had a subtropical storm in April, very likely a TS in May which was ignored. If that was upgraded then Andrew would have been Bonnie...then there was several other 50-50 type systems at the end of the season. So whilst it officaly only had 6 storms, it possibly could have had as many as 9-10. All this was just 17 years ago as well! So who knows what could have happened in 1904 for example.

So I do think this is an active time, I think also though that to blame AGW would be VASTLY simplifying it as there are clearly other factors involved, to deny that would to be ignore the 60 years of data outright over a simulation. The truth is though we don't have a clue at all how active the past was, we can guess but in the end if we have missed storms and don't even have a complete record for the 20th century, how are we meant to make a decent punt at hurricane numbers in 1900?

[jethro]

According to Chris Landsea at NOAA, better observation is more likely to account for the jump in the numbers.

"The recent jump in the number of short-lived systems is likely a consequence of improvements in observational tools and analysis techniques,” said Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami, and lead author on the study. “The team is not aware of any natural variability or greenhouse warming-induced climate change that would affect the short-lived tropical storms exclusively."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/11/noaa-more-tropical-storms-due-to-better-observational-tools-wider-reporting-greenhouse-warming-not-involved/

[kold weather]

Totally agree with that idea, Landsea did a very good piece of reasearch which showed that on average there was at least 1-2 storms missed every season before high quality Sat observations, I believe its something like 1.6?

Also 2005 probably wasn't quite exceptional as has been quoted by many.

Take 1933 for example. That had 21 named storms. However none were east of about 50W. If you look at 2005 and see storms that were very likely missed or not considered tropical and you get this list:

Lee

Vince

Delta (maybe)

Epsilon

Subtropical storm 19

Zeta

Add those storms to the 21 storms that 1933 had and you have 27 named storms...just one short of the 2005 season. As you see in this case observations have very likely led to maming 2005 seem exceptional even though it probably weren't quite as exceptionally rare, though granted those seasons are still rare.

[Devonian]

I see that Mann is still trying to put an AGW spin on it.

BFTP

Maybe Dr Mann should be the first scientist prevented from saying what he thinks because people don't like it?

It's not spin, it's what he thinks! Give the man a break for once.

[Solar Cycles]

Maybe Dr Mann should be the first scientist prevented from saying what he thinks because people don't like it?

It's not spin, it's what he thinks! Give the man a break for once.

By george, that's the most humerous post I've seen from you Dev. Unintentional, but humerous to say the least!

Simply put its interesting to read and since I consider hurricane to be my strong point I think I'll put my point across.

Tropical storms on average have increased in the Atlantic and that is something that is the truth, 2000s should come out on top of anything since 1850s when the first data really came through bout these things. However there are several questions about this:

1:Is it a multi-decadal signal or more?

2:Is the higher storms in response to better observations?

Firstly, there is clear evidence of a multi-decadal shift that occurs in the Atlantic. In basic terms for a few decades the Atlantic warms and then shifts back to a colder phase. The way we know this is a BIG factor is because you can actually see the exact same thing in the eastern Pacific as well. When the Atlantic is warmer generally the EPAC has been colder. Therefore the EPAC has had many below normal seasons in the last 10-15 years, whilst the Atlantic, the reverse. Whether or not GW is adding to the numbers, its hard to tell and I truely think no simulator is going to have nearly good resolution to make that sort of punt, its pretty much guess work and assumptions, to create a truely accurate model would take mammoth amount of power, the type even the Met office and NOAA could probably only dream about.

As for the second point, they do suggest in the research that storms were missed and that was added into the simulator anyway. Its believed that before 1950 anything from 1-3 storms were missed due to the lack of Sat information and more then likely even more then that if you go back far enough.

What is interesting though is based just on the last 100 years the 2000s have been one of the lower decades since the start of the timeframe in terms of USA Major hurricanes making landfall. This is something that is also rather interesting and may suggest that the numbers that were missed due to lack of observation.

Finally, a lot of storms that are now added and upgraded would NEVER have been upgraded even 20-30 years ago, the advent of recon and GOES Sat.imagery has helped detect storms. For example lets take tropical storm Lee in 2005. It lasted just 6 hours in the middle of the Atlantic. Such a storm could easily have been missed in the first half of the 20th century. Also on top of this there are now the systems which are also included into the data like subtropical storms and also systems that were quite clearly tropical cyclones but were ignored. Take 1992. That had a subtropical storm in April, very likely a TS in May which was ignored. If that was upgraded then Andrew would have been Bonnie...then there was several other 50-50 type systems at the end of the season. So whilst it officaly only had 6 storms, it possibly could have had as many as 9-10. All this was just 17 years ago as well! So who knows what could have happened in 1904 for example.

So I do think this is an active time, I think also though that to blame AGW would be VASTLY simplifying it as there are clearly other factors involved, to deny that would to be ignore the 60 years of data outright over a simulation. The truth is though we don't have a clue at all how active the past was, we can guess but in the end if we have missed storms and don't even have a complete record for the 20th century, how are we meant to make a decent punt at hurricane numbers in 1900?

Enjoyed reading your thoughts there KW, informative and unbiased!

[Devonian]

By george, that's the most humerous post I've seen from you Dev. Unintentional, but humerous to say the least!

In what way? That I think scientists should be able to say what they think? That I don't think it's at all helpful to accuse a good, decent scientist of 'spin'?

[Solar Cycles]

In what way? That I think scientists should be able to say what they think? That I don't think it's at all helpful to accuse a good, decent scientist of 'spin'?

It's your insistance that Mann falls into the latter!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Going off at a bit of a tangent, I came across this article today:

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

It's a paper from back in the 1990s that I thought might spark some discussion - I confess that I haven't read the whole thing yet, but what I have read looks interesting.

Anyone care to weigh in?

CB

Edited August 13, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

It's your insistance that Mann falls into the latter!

Oh, that I disapprove of insulting him? Ok, yes, I don't like insults directed at good scientists. If you thinks that's funny I'll just have to live with that

Going off at a bit of a tangent, I came across this article today:

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

It's a paper from back in the 1990s that I thought might spark some discussion - I confess that I haven't read the whole thing yet, but what I have read looks interesting.

Anyone care to weigh in?

CB

Yes, it's seriously in error - see this .pdf