General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.odplegacy.org/PDF/Admin/Workshops/1998_12_Isotope_Stage11.pdf

Why didn't anyone tell me either about MIS 11 or the continuing work around it? Solar forcing??? Milankovich??? GHG loadings/ Hmmmmm

[Gray-Wolf]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_re_us/us_asian_ozone

Well this won't please the Yanks.

I did wonder what would happen when the super development of the East started to impact western U.S. just how they'd cope....not an import you can tax out of existence really.

[jethro]

Here's an interesting article on why the Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected, together with links to the paper and the abstract.

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=1067

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI3461.1&ct=1

There's been much debate on here about how much cooling/reduction in forcing is due to natural variation, how come temperatures haven't dropped despite Solar minimum/negative PDO etc. The general consensus being that as temperatures haven't dropped, despite this natural variation then it must be CO2 causing the warming. This paper puts a figure on how much cooling could be expected due to natural variation - 15%. Much less than many here have suggested.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report

How do we square the alleged temperature 'plateau' with the decade being the warmest ever recorded and "smashing" the previous global record high?

As for temps not acting as 'expected' we have a good working understanding of the issues of 'global dimming' and can see the impacts of lessening the atmospheric burden of the culprits but what of 'haze' and 'vapour trails/con trails'?

My other area of uncertainty is the deep ocean currents and any temp rises occurring there. We have a working knowledge of the top 1,000ft of the ocean but what of the waters subducted? are we to find modified temps in the cold upwelling some time soon or are we certain that anoms the scale of that in the southern pacific do not find there way down into the oceanic deep currents?

In the same way that it has cost a lot of energy to bring the pole to it's current state of collapse what of the energy needed to raise our 'cold currents' 0.5c?

Our deep ocean currents are another of my great concerns about our current warming phase as ,though it takes a great deal of time to heat up an ocean from top to bottom, once heated throughout it takes a long time to dissipate that accrued heat.

Raise ocean temps and you insure yourself against the type of cold phases we have just witnessed and also challenge the sustainability of the planets ice sheets.

[jethro]

GW - do you have any links to papers which show warming of the deep oceans? Is there any evidence that any warming of the oceans is deeper than the surface boundary layer?

[Gray-Wolf]

GW - do you have any links to papers which show warming of the deep oceans? Is there any evidence that any warming of the oceans is deeper than the surface boundary layer?

This is what I would love to discover. To me I would suspect that the subduction of surface waters must involve any difference in salinity /temp and must end up modifying their temp/salinity profiles at depth (over time).

If it didn't we could not have had periods in earths history with such high ocean temps or ubiquitous ocean temps or could we?

I cannot remember a time when the oceanic SST charts have looked to have a negative anom overall and though, this being a surface measure, you'd expect this heat to be shed into the atmosphere what of any heated waters overturned in the mixing zone?

I am a simple man with simple imaginings but when I'm on for a 'long soak' ,and top up the bath, that hot water gets to my bum pretty darn quick!!!

Edited January 21, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[sunny starry skies]

GW - do you have any links to papers which show warming of the deep oceans? Is there any evidence that any warming of the oceans is deeper than the surface boundary layer?

Hi Jethro,

I don't know what your access to journals is like, but try this, cited in the AR4. There was also a Hansen et al paper but haven't looked at that one.

Barnett et al, 2005: Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans. Science, Vol. 309. no. 5732, pp. 284 - 287.

The ocean data within that paper I think comes from the paper below.

S. Levitus, J. Antonov, T. Boyer, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L02604, doi: 10.1029/2004GL021592 (2005).

Additionally, six other papers are referenced (in Barnett) as assessing the same thing, only Barnett et all say they do a better job of it! There may also be more recent papers too - there's a long list of papers that have cited Barnett et al in that Science link.

So the conclusion from various of these studies I think is that there is warming into the deep ocean (to 3000m) beyond the boundary layer and that it cannot be naturally forced. But I haven't read the papers in detail, just dug them out for you to look at if you can.

sss

http://www.odplegacy...ope_Stage11.pdf

Why didn't anyone tell me either about MIS 11 or the continuing work around it? Solar forcing??? Milankovich??? GHG loadings/ Hmmmmm

That does seem very interesting GW. MIS 11 is the closest analogue to the Holocene, so it's perhaps particularly important that we understand it well. It's one of those used for Ruddiman's 'early anthropocene' hypothesis. It also seems to have periods of cooler temperature but 20m higher sea level, perhaps indicating a successful collapse of Greenland IS and/or the WAIS [reminds me of the steadily retreating grounding line in the Ross Sea]. From what little I read of that report you posted, maybe that was due to a longer phase at maximum (Holocene-like) temps before the beginning of cooling... Ummm...

sss

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm still wading through the more recent data S.S.S. esp. the extension to the Vostok cores as they seem a little compromised at the point of contact with MIS 11 so we loose confidence in the GHG levels due to messed up basal ice.

The C-Dome seems to cover all of MIS 11 but I have been unable to find any ref. to GHG levels in the earliest phase of it (thus far).

I would be truely concerned if we found a combination of factors leading to a short term (thousands of years) spike in GHG's which allowed ocean temps to take control of the cycle (melting off sections of W.A.I.S and Greenland and forestalling the next few possible onsets for glaciation)

If we end up with GHG's no higher than our pre-Industrial levels (throughout the MIS 11 period) is this a reason for rejoicing or deep depression???

[laserguy]

http://www.best-news...-Global-Warming-

'AGW's reach is far and wide - found this on a MOTORCYCLE website,of all places!

[Rorky_Leicester]

If the Metoffice cannot predict seasonal weather, which they have done unsuccessfully (ie. BBQ summer and mild winter ) then how can we trust them to get the forecasts right for 20 years onwards when regarding climate change and rising temperatures. Long term forecasting is a new science and is not yet accurate. Also to add global temperatures have not risen since 1999.

[Devonian]

If the Metoffice cannot predict seasonal weather, which they have done unsuccessfully (ie. BBQ summer and mild winter ) then how can we trust them to get the forecasts right for 20 years onwards when regarding climate change and rising temperatures. Long term forecasting is a new science and is not yet accurate. Also to add global temperatures have not risen since 1999.

By realising there is a difference between weather and climate...

Oh, and temperatures have most certainly risen since 1999. I think you'll find the year you need to start you cherry picked period from is 1998

[Gray-Wolf]

By realising there is a difference between weather and climate...

Oh, and temperatures have most certainly risen since 1999. I think you'll find the year you need to start you cherry picked period from is 1998

Oh now Dev! let them have their final flurry......

I know you do not subscribe to holding folk responsible for their opines but I ,for one , do.

Folk hold me up as some 'devil of a doomsayer' yet I know I speak the truth.

Though I am willing to accept apologies it will mean nothing when the past 15yrs of bickering is shown to have cost us our 2/3 of humanity.

No manner of saying "I was wrong, I was Misguided, I was nought more than a self interested,self centred ,greedy fool"l will do it for me.

You spoke your piece (with authority) and you will be measured by it.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Yup, lets all slit our wrists now...

Jeez.

[Rorky_Leicester]

Oh now Dev! let them have their final flurry......

I know you do not subscribe to holding folk responsible for their opines but I ,for one , do.

Folk hold me up as some 'devil of a doomsayer' yet I know I speak the truth.

Though I am willing to accept apologies it will mean nothing when the past 15yrs of bickering is shown to have cost us our 2/3 of humanity.

No manner of saying "I was wrong, I was Misguided, I was nought more than a self interested,self centred ,greedy fool"l will do it for me.

You spoke your piece (with authority) and you will be measured by it.

I am going to archive this post so in 5 years when this whole masquerade has boiled over you can realise what a hyperbolic, ignorant post that was '2/3 of humanity' - give me a break.

[Gray-Wolf]

Well , if we trawl back 15 or so years I was pumping this out to audiences who did (or did not) see the pertinence....

Well I think it's kinda' strange,

to see a race who think they're sane.

Pump poisons in their waters an' then drink them,

Or pump Toxins in the air,

Whilst maintaining they still care,

'Bout the futures ,of the children they are killin',

An' I still don't understand , how by poisoning the land ,

They can really just be safeguarding our futures.....

CHORUS

LISTEN TO ME ,OH WON'T YOU. LISTEN TO ME?

DON'T YOU SEE ALL THE CHANGES THAT ARE HAPPENING?

HEAR WHAT I SAY ,OH NO DON'T JUST TURN AWAY,

WE AIN'T GOT TOO MUCH TIME TO SAVE OUR LIVES IN....

'Cause with the rainforest's all dead an' deserts growing' there instead,

Do you still believe ,you won't see no changes?

An' when the prairies start to dry ,an' all the grain there starts to die ,

Can you tell us of another source to feed us?

An' yet you still won't see ,it'll soon be you an' me ,

With pop bellies lookin' for non-existent handouts....

CHORUS

An' the sooner you decide, that this Global suicide, it really takin' place all around you.....

Well then the sooner we can try to save the millions that will die,

If the next 10yrs go by without some action....

You'd better start to criticise ,all the fiction and the lies,

that the powers of this world keep on preaching'

An' come on....

CHORUS

G,C an' D.....make it up as you go along (I do)

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

So, 15 yrs hence,

Ho Hum

Edited January 24, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[noggin]

Oh now Dev! let them have their final flurry......

.........and "we" must let you have yours too, wolfie!

Many are the times that I have thought to myself that I am not going to post on this merry-go-round again. But then I find myself irresistably drawn back into the fray.

What I find barmy really is the fact that we all seem to want the same thing.....a cleaner planet, sensible use of it's bounties and sustainable power into the future.

Ah, well, peace and love to all (except Gordon Brown and that lot).

[Devonian]

I am going to archive this post so in 5 years when this whole masquerade has boiled over you can realise what a hyperbolic, ignorant post that was '2/3 of humanity' - give me a break.

Good idea!

[Gray-Wolf]

.........and "we" must let you have yours too, wolfie!

Many are the times that I have thought to myself that I am not going to post on this merry-go-round again. But then I find myself irresistibly drawn back into the fray.

What I find barmy really is the fact that we all seem to want the same thing.....a cleaner planet, sensible use of it's bounties and sustainable power into the future.

Ah, well, peace and love to all (except Gordon Brown and that lot).

I know that to be our truth Nog's, none of us 'want' the things we have caused and I think each and every one of us would do our damnedest to have things different.

Kiddie and Mrs went to see Avatar......can't escape the message even whilst escaping eh?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

The Sunday Times does it again...

New evidence proves that there is no link between the increased cost of natural disasters and climate change, as the IPCC report stated in 2007.

(from a non published, no peer reviewed report, which when finally published in 2008 had caveats saying there was insufficient support to make the claim, which the IPCC failed to mention before the Copenhagen conference, despite knowing)

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

Full story here Or of course in the Sunday Times

One mistake, two mistakes, however many more

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Time to personally bin this thread. NASA now possibly fudging temps, the Himalayan glacier farce, the IPCC allegedly using false data to cajole governments into AGW policies...it stinks. And it will go on and on and on.

BFTP

[Optimus Prime]

Time to personally bin this thread. NASA now possibly fudging temps, the Himalayan glacier farce, the IPCC allegedly using false data to cajole governments into AGW policies...it stinks.

That's a ridiculous statement.

Anyway it makes me laugh people are still so ignorant and single minded that the population as a whole, in fact the huge over-population as a whole has no efefct on the climate.

We're leading ourselves into suicide and yet due ignorance, dumbness and denial nothings being done to stop this.

[pottyprof]

I have to be honest here.. I'm getting a little fed up with not being able to find actual temperatures for the globe. We have to accept anomaly charts. This year so far and the back end of last, we have had some interesting records regarding cold but we just have anomaly charts.

I'm sorry but what does an anomaly chart prove when you want to see the data? Something ain't right. It's like everything is hidden.. More so since a certain problem cropped up.

The governments want us to believe that we are warming but we cant see the figures and they wonder why all the doubt.....

Anyone got a link to the actual data??? ie current up to last week? It used to be available..

[pottyprof]

Time to personally bin this thread. NASA now possibly fudging temps, the Himalayan glacier farce, the IPCC allegedly using false data to cajole governments into AGW policies...it stinks. And it will go on and on and on.

BFTP

Fred.. No point in binning something when questions still need answering. Regarding the IPCC.. The problems that are now surfacing will happen while money is changing hands. Perhaps now they may look at how things are financed?

[Gray-Wolf]

Time to personally bin this thread. NASA now possibly fudging temps, the Himalayan glacier farce, the IPCC allegedly using false data to cajole governments into AGW policies...it stinks. And it will go on and on and on.

BFTP

The evidence of change will make itself ever more apparent.

Maybe the 'facts' will be brought to us by experts at first (weather cycles out of synch, missed monsoons and all the extreme events that local extremes in climate drive in the short term) but eventually they will be such as to have the most ardent serptic wondering.

If this is not so then there is not 'climate change'.

As ever the Arctic WILL be the place to show us the way.....

[Iceberg]

The Sunday Times does it again...

New evidence proves that there is no link between the increased cost of natural disasters and climate change, as the IPCC report stated in 2007.

(from a non published, no peer reviewed report, which when finally published in 2008 had caveats saying there was insufficient support to make the claim, which the IPCC failed to mention before the Copenhagen conference, despite knowing)

Full story here Or of course in the Sunday Times

One mistake, two mistakes, however many more

Sorry Matt but what a load of tripe. Robert published several papers in 2006 ALL of which claim/warn about the risk of GW on the insurance industry.

The times article however doesn't mention which one it's talking about.!.Nor does it mention the section of the AR4 report.

To me this looks like a case of pure journo nonsense trying to prolong a story.

I've said that the IPCC needs to change, but until the skeptics grow up a bit the mire will only get thicker.

PP, to my knowledge there has only been 1 issue with the IPCC, the rest is pure bunkum. You can also get absolute temp data from Spencer, MSU, and the NCDC data for global temps, nobody is trying to hide it. There is a useful site that shows a portion of Christies true global temps from sat which is updated daily but I don't have the link atm.