What Is Causing The Warming ?

[VillagePlank]

Do you not think that it works both ways? When temps are up more CO2 finds it's way into the system and when it cools CO2 gets locked away from the system.

I actually do, and, furthermore, I think that this is why there is some woolly reasoning with respect to the CO₂ debate since both

(i) Temps raise CO₂ levels

(ii) CO₂ levels raise temps.

... we end up wih circular reasoning; such reasoning is trained out of most of us when we are children. It also means that (i) and (ii) are self-reinforcing which strongly implies that, since temperatures, in the recent record (1940's ish), have gone down, whilst, for instance, CO₂ continued to rise, then something else is responsible for breaking out of this cycle and that (i) and (ii) are not equally effective, or sensitive to the other one.

Of course, as a result of my machinations and reasoning, I think that (ii) is over-stated, whilst others might think that (i) is overstated.

Edited December 5, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Iceberg]

A simple question. Does the temperature of the ocean, correlate directly with the strength of the solar energy upon it? If it doesn't why can it therefore be cooler, or perhaps warmer - as observationally observed in the SST anomaly record?

As a prelude - just started rewrite of the LI, today, actually - any system that is dynamical must necessarily exhibit hysteresis. The first 'controversy' that this raises is that, if true, tf means that the climate system cannot be determined deterministically, and that, therefore, attempts to do so severely limit such an attempts success.

For the first question SST's not not correlate directly with solar energy, it's too complicated for that But Ocean heat content probably has a stronger correlation not just with solar but with atmospheric heating ability.

The deterministic modelling of climate uses the current heat content of the oceans and atmosphere as a starting point and builds upon this by each time frame, very much in the essence of hysteresis IMO they are not mutually exclusive.

Piers was on the BBC just now saying that the globe has cooled since 2000, it really doesn't matter how much data you put infront of some people they will still believe what they want to believe (BTW there isn't a single global temperature source that shows cooling since 2000)

[Gray-Wolf]

The fact that so many of the last few months have been very very high can't be ignored, especially in light of being two years into a solar minimum, negative PDO etc

I've asked this and it appears we are to expect some kind of 'lag' before we see temps drop.

Maybe we are so far on with our current 'warming' that some natural drivers are now less potent in their impacts than they used to be (PDO-ve?)?

[VillagePlank]

The deterministic modelling of climate uses the current heat content of the oceans and atmosphere as a starting point and builds upon this by each time frame, very much in the essence of hysteresis IMO they are not mutually exclusive.

Determinism requires that you have a model (or equation) and it's state at any point in time and from just that data you can compute any future time, and any past time. If a system demonstrates hysteresivity then that requires the complete history of the system as well as current state to determine anything useful from it.

[Iceberg]

I actually do, and, furthermore, I think that this is why there is some woolly reasoning with respect to the CO₂ debate since both

(i) Temps raise CO₂ levels

(ii) CO₂ levels raise temps.

... we end up wih circular reasoning; such reasoning is trained out of most of us when we are children. It also means that (i) and (ii) are self-reinforcing which strongly implies that, since temperatures, in the recent record (1940's ish), have gone down, whilst, for instance, CO₂ continued to rise, then something else is responsible for breaking out of this cycle and that (i) and (ii) are not equally effective, or sensitive to the other one.

Of course, as a result of my machinations and reasoning, I think that (ii) is over-stated, whilst others might think that (i) is overstated.

That something is reponsible for breaking us out of the cycle us the main principle of AGW !

Have temps gone down since the 1940's ? Or are you saying they did for 30 years whilst co2 increased?, if it's the later then yes, climatic sensitivity to co2 is not the only forcer over a factor of 30 years but probably is a major forcer of 500 years, ice cores don't really show 30 year temperature trends.

[VillagePlank]

That something is reponsible for breaking us out of the cycle us the main principle of AGW !

That something must exist is certainly a point we can agree on <_< however, I think it's the sun.

[Methuselah]

Are we not directly adding CO₂ to the atmosphere, irrespective of any other processes??

[VillagePlank]

climatic sensitivity to co2 is not the only forcer over a factor of 30 years but probably is a major forcer of 500 years, ice cores don't really show 30 year temperature trends.

I think you'll find the CO₂/temperature correlation error rate is more like a (rather generous) +/-5000 years, not 500 - and it gets much more worse as we go back to about 400,000 years.

Are we not directly adding CO₂ to the atmosphere, irrespective of any other processes??

Certainly are. It's the effect of that, I think, that is the core of the debate.

Edited December 5, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Solar Cycles]

I wonder why we don't see any coldest months on record at all, in global terms??

Simple Pete, it takes far longer to disperse all that extra heat!

[Gray-Wolf]

Simple Pete, it takes far longer to disperse all that extra heat!

And if this 'dispersal' has cost us the majority of the perennial ice changing the way the globes thermostat functions what then?

I still can't get away from the fact that ,back in the Beebs Slow-watch days, folk were calling for the PDO-ve phase (that was overdue then!) and here we are supposedly in the middle of it and on the back of two (or was it just one long one???) Nina's we are still popping top ten temperatures both in month and in years. Surely somethings up with that?

You know me and you know my position.I no longer give a hoot about 'what's to be done' 'cause even if we could 'do something' we wouldn't be bottomed to try.

We ,who have the luxury of knowledge,deserve all we are bound for.

Both us believers for letting the deniers win and the deniers for what they will cost us.

I cannot rightly express how I mourn for the innocents who are to bare the brunt of our "shalln't 'till you prove it" mentality.

The loss of those who knew nothing (of what we have done to their world) yet will pay with their lives (whilst we squabble about tax rises) .

I should steer clear of the Shiraz at Grannies....it has me maudlin'.........like some prophetic 'End timer' I look for an irrefutable sign that what I fear we have done we have actually done,

I thought the loss of the Arctic would be enough yet we are still here squabbling ('cause even with their snouts in the trough of truth the denial pig can't taste it .........it needs to be more 'flavoursome yet')

We need a 70c Christmas and still then folk will try and tell me it's all happened before we started pumping long hidden carbon out into the system.

We neither of us will listen to anything but our own truths but only one of those truths is right.

So we wait.

May the Gods bless me with being wrong!

[Essan]

The warming is due to the hitherto unexplained escape from the Little Ice Age (approx 2c globally).

What explanation do we have for this? We Know that N Hemispshere summers should be cooling, we know that, contrary to this, the Arctic is warming in summer.

AGW?????

[Solar Cycles]

And if this 'dispersal' has cost us the majority of the perennial ice changing the way the globes thermostat functions what then?

I still can't get away from the fact that ,back in the Beebs Slow-watch days, folk were calling for the PDO-ve phase (that was overdue then!) and here we are supposedly in the middle of it and on the back of two (or was it just one long one???) Nina's we are still popping top ten temperatures both in month and in years. Surely somethings up with that?

You know me and you know my position.I no longer give a hoot about 'what's to be done' 'cause even if we could 'do something' we wouldn't be bottomed to try.

We ,who have the luxury of knowledge,deserve all we are bound for.

Both us believers for letting the deniers win and the deniers for what they will cost us.

I cannot rightly express how I mourn for the innocents who are to bare the brunt of our "shalln't 'till you prove it" mentality.

The loss of those who knew nothing (of what we have done to their world) yet will pay with their lives (whilst we squabble about tax rises) .

I should steer clear of the Shiraz at Grannies....it has me maudlin'.........like some prophetic 'End timer' I look for an irrefutable sign that what I fear we have done we have actually done,

I thought the loss of the Arctic would be enough yet we are still here squabbling ('cause even with their snouts in the trough of truth the denial pig can't taste it .........it needs to be more 'flavoursome yet')

We need a 70c Christmas and still then folk will try and tell me it's all happened before we started pumping long hidden carbon out into the system.

We neither of us will listen to anything but our own truths but only one of those truths is right.

So we wait.

May the Gods bless me with being wrong!

Wow, now that's what I call a rant GW. One word of advice, don't say no to the shiraz, it's what makes me see the nicer things in life!

[Gray-Wolf]

Wow, now that's what I call a rant GW. One word of advice, don't say no to the shiraz, it's what makes me see the nicer things in life!

When you quaff a glass or two maybe.........the second bottle seems to do it for me

........oh yeah, did I ever tell you? I love you guys.........

now where's that 3rd bottle?

[Iceberg]

Determinism requires that you have a model (or equation) and it's state at any point in time and from just that data you can compute any future time, and any past time. If a system demonstrates hysteresivity then that requires the complete history of the system as well as current state to determine anything useful from it.

Sorry VP, this is really OT for this thread (which is still talking about spencer who has just admitted that November 2009 was the warmest november on record ! ).

Maybe the global temps peak in 1999 since then it's been all down hill brigade will stop and say, wait a minute it hasn't been all down hill.

But anyway VP, sorry I stopped as I wasn't feeling to good and had to have a lie down.

Yes you are correct, but...

In your LI example of the Leaky bucket, if you know the volume of the bucket, the drip in and out and the level of water in the bucket then you can predict going forwards, you don't have to know the complete history of the bucket.

The same is true of climate modelling, as long as you know the details you work forward a single timeframe, you then using the results and the rules use this to go forward again, repeat, repeat.

Climate models also generally run from 1900 to present 2050-2100, this is done for two reasons.

1 To compare with past global temperatures to benchmark and baseline.

2 To ensure that that are not any hidden lags (such as LI).

The models do not model LI in the way that your doing tmk, yet still manage to replicate past temperature changes.

Anyway this should really be continued in another thread.

[Methuselah]

Let's see what happens after the MetO releases 160 years' worth of data..?

Should be interesting, to say the least!

[SleepyJean]

I have a question. Erm, where do I start? Right, now, according to all the graphs of temperature reconstructions the temperature has gradually shown an increase over time. Since the instrumentation took over the increase has got more and more rapid, apparently. At the same time the scientists keep saying that they have newer, more accurate ways of taking temperature readings. My question is two-fold, I suppose.

Could the "increased accuracy" actually be responsible for some or all of the increase, and also this business of proxies, is it possible that there is some kind of loss of data over time that makes temperatures appear to cool the further back you go? Has a comparative study been done of proxy data now compared to measured temperatures in order to "calibrate" the older proxy readings?

These might be really stupid questions, but it has been bugging me for ages and I have only just got up the nerve to ask .

SJ

[VillagePlank]

In your LI example of the Leaky bucket, if you know the volume of the bucket, the drip in and out and the level of water in the bucket then you can predict going forwards, you don't have to know the complete history of the bucket.

Yes, true. However, the volume of the bucket is critically dependent on it's history - like all quantities in a dynamical system; so, whilst, what you say is absolutely accurate, the volume cannot be determined without it's history.

Indeed, it is also a one-way function, too (a one-way function is a mathematical function that can only be calculated one-way - a good example is when you log onto Windows: your password is encrypted and sent across the network using a one-way function so that it is impossible to 'crack' it. All Windows passwords are stored in Active Directory as the result of the one-way function) This means, that even if you know the volume in the bucket, there is no way to reason how such a quantity came to be.

You can, of course, reason what is likely to happen given a volume, though. I hope this makes sense ...

(Sorry for the OT moment, mods)

Edited December 7, 2009 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

SleepyJean,

If I remember rightly ( always a speculative venture....) yes it has been done but it didn't work. Pre 1960 was ok, post 1960 and it didn't match.

Don't know if you've seen this but thought you may find it interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm

[SleepyJean]

SleepyJean,

If I remember rightly ( always a speculative venture....) yes it has been done but it didn't work. Pre 1960 was ok, post 1960 and it didn't match.

Don't know if you've seen this but thought you may find it interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.u...000/8311373.stm

Gosh, so tree rings are actually a better proxy for sun-spot data! Well that would enable a study of the effects of solar cyles on global climate at any rate, something I understand hasn't been well-studied because of a lack of proxies. If this tree-ring study shows good correlation then a proxy has been found - but it means they are rubbish for temperature data!

Interesting the proxy data didn't match physical temperature readings post 1960. Isn''t that basically the point where AGW is supposed to have taken off? I would think that would make people question their data, surely? At least make them ask why it doesn't match? Personally I would wonder what I'd done wrong and re-check all my figures....

[Iceberg]

Yes, true. However, the volume of the bucket is critically dependent on it's history - like all quantities in a dynamical system; so, whilst, what you say is absolutely accurate, the volume cannot be determined without it's history.

Indeed, it is also a one-way function, too (a one-way function is a mathematical function that can only be calculated one-way - a good example is when you log onto Windows: your password is encrypted and sent across the network using a one-way function so that it is impossible to 'crack' it. All Windows passwords are stored in Active Directory as the result of the one-way function) This means, that even if you know the volume in the bucket, there is no way to reason how such a quantity came to be.

You can, of course, reason what is likely to happen given a volume, though. I hope this makes sense ...

(Sorry for the OT moment, mods)

The volume can't be determined without it's history but it can be measured, which is where the input variables come into play and the use of ensembles as small changes to ensure you have measured correctly.

SJ, I think they have checked there figures twice(at least), indeed the same or incredibly similar figrues have been created by a number of independent researchers, by a variety of methods, using a mixture of sources.

[Gray-Wolf]

Interesting the proxy data didn't match physical temperature readings post 1960. Isn''t that basically the point where AGW is supposed to have taken off? I would think that would make people question their data, surely? At least make them ask why it doesn't match? Personally I would wonder what I'd done wrong and re-check all my figures....

You'd need to go back and read up on the 'global dimming' phenomena and decide if you can accept it.

By 1960 we still had nigh on 20 years of impacts to come and , to my mind, no matter how spotty the sun was if you impact it's potential on the surface (shield it?) by your photo-chemical smog then it will have it's impact on stuff dependant on it (be it living material or temp records) altered.

Maybe if you have tree ring data from after one of the more notable eruptions (that placed some of the agents responsible for the dimming into the atmosphere) then you'd be able to compare impacts against temp/rainfall data?

Edited December 7, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[SleepyJean]

The volume can't be determined without it's history but it can be measured, which is where the input variables come into play and the use of ensembles as small changes to ensure you have measured correctly.

SJ, I think they have checked there figures twice(at least), indeed the same or incredibly similar figrues have been created by a number of independent researchers, by a variety of methods, using a mixture of sources.

I told you I was stoopid But why don't the proxies fit the measured temperatures post 1960? What could cause that kind of anomoly? It is a very important question, surely, because either the temperatures pre-60s are wrong or the figures post-60s are wrong. Which set of data is it, and does it need adjusting upwards or downwards?

Edited December 7, 2009 by SleepyJean

[VillagePlank]

The volume can't be determined without it's history but it can be measured, which is where the input variables come into play and the use of ensembles as small changes to ensure you have measured correctly.

Please see LI thread. Although highly edited, the core maths is preserved, so that should answer your query.

[SleepyJean]

You'd need to go back and read up on the 'global dimming' phenomena and decide if you can accept it.

By 1960 we still had nigh on 20 years of impacts to come and , to my mind, no matter how spotty the sun was if you impact it's potential on the surface (shield it?) by your photo-chemical smog then it will have it's impact on stuff dependant on it (be it living material or temp records) altered.

Maybe if you have tree ring data from after one of the more notable eruptions (that placed some of the agents responsible for the dimming into the atmosphere) then you'd be able to compare impacts against temp/rainfall data?

I'll have to have a look at that. What about other proxies, though. Tree ring data can't go back for more than a few thousand years in any more than a patchy way (fossilised and petrified trees aside, it relies on the living, doesn't it. Well, and ancient timbers and stuff), but still the proxy records go back tens and hundreds of thousands of years. So have they also been compared to modern measurements, since the correlation between tree ring data and temperature seems uncertain?

I will look up global dimming in the morning - I have heard of it, of course. It really came to notice after 9/11 although I daresay some scientist or other had noted and probably even studied it before then. Anyway, off to deal with other stuff....

Thankyou for your patient answers everyone

[VillagePlank]

As I understand it there are 12 lines of evidence for producing proxy climate data. None of these, individually, are perfect (so it's always a favourite with some) but together they do conglomerate to provide an overall picture