General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[Iceberg]

I don't think anybody we have had any respect for has said that the all the science of AGW is settled....I don't have a problem attacking a politician, maybe a little more direction who your saying is wrong in your post, or it becomes very close to a straw man.I am also not sure that GW said anything about somebody being more guilty.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Ow and the thread was doing so well for at least a little bit.

and what breaks would they be...the ones that give the Spencer data set the warmest months on record recently. !

I've also yet to hear how the position of the Jet stream causes temps to go down(even in the n.Hemisphere), again according to Spencer n.hemisphere land in his last update was the 2nd warmest anomaly recorded over the past 30 years.

Quite, don't get embroiled Tamara........time will tell and not that much time either and of importance cycle 25 is the one where Dalton proportions are forecast, 24 is leading us into that. However, sunspots are just part of the solar effect as we know, so whether 0.3c is correct or not is not too much an issue [looking at Icebergs summation, thst seems reasonable]. The solar driven ocean cycles [Perturbation, PDO, AMO etc] may well account for the rest, the longterm southerly movement of the jetstream [had been recorded as moving north over recent decades], the shrinking back of the ITCZ [has been spreading polewards over last 150 years but has now stopped since 2001 and for me both have added to the overall warming] will also have COOLING effect. GWO theory [PFM] two years ago, suggested temps of the 40-70s will be felt through 2008/9 onwards due to the cyclical shift southward of the jetstream...well interestingly are we seeing that? Well 40-60 deg north populated areas have experienced 40-70esque winters 08/09 and 09/10...but not globally.

With a record -ve AO [relative warm arctic] and hefty El Nino [global] warmth is the Jan and Feb talk....interesting to see how the year develops as the El Nino quickly wanes over coming couple of months.

BFTP

Iceberg, you did exactly what I expected and my above quote shows that on the last sentence....it was acknowledged by me that the readings are of warmth globally. We have seen record -AO values, -AO equates to relatively warmer arctic. The El Nino was a fairly significant El Nino and so combined I'm not too surprised re the satellite readings of overall Jan and Feb warmth, much of this is accounted for by the combination and certianly not proof of solely or dominating AGW driven warmth. Re the jetstream well as colder air is north of this the further south the more cold air there is around to tap into as David says. The arctic was still very cold but in relative terms it was 'warm' and IMO the RECORD -AO values will account for much of that and the southward spillage of severe cold into latitudes much further south. The longer this southerly jetstream persists and the fewer El Ninos then the less inroads north from 'real warmth' from southern latitudes will be felt.

Nicde to see you on here David, fascinating re the jetstream shift in line with PFM.

[Gray-Wolf]

[quote name='VillagePlank' date='05 March 2010 - 08:49 ' timestamp='1267778983' post='1792817'

And, no, "guilty" is a boolean entity. It is either true or false, you can't be more guilty or less guilty, in the same way you can't be more true, or less false. These are oxymora, and they do not make any sense.

[jethro]

But it's not more cold to tap into though, is it? It's the same amount of cold, redistributed. The argument for more cold being available would have more credence if we'd had a +AO but managed to have a cold NH winter.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Iceberg, you did exactly what I expected and my above quote shows that on the last sentence....it was acknowledged by me that the readings are of warmth globally. We have seen record -AO values, -AO equates to relatively warmer arctic. The El Nino was a fairly significant El Nino and so combined I'm not too surprised re the satellite readings of overall Jan and Feb warmth, much of this is accounted for by the combination and certianly not proof of solely or dominating AGW driven warmth. Re the jetstream well as colder air is north of this the further south the more cold air there is around to tap into as David says. The arctic was still very cold but in relative terms it was 'warm' and IMO the RECORD -AO values will account for much of that and the southward spillage of severe cold into latitudes much further south. The longer this southerly jetstream persists and the fewer El Ninos then the less inroads north from 'real warmth' from southern latitudes will be felt.

Nicde to see you on here David, fascinating re the jetstream shift in line with PFM.

With many AGW proponents very sceptical of global temps turning down in the light of the switch to negative cyclical drivers, in the same way as many of the same were sceptical that the jet stream would switch south on a more permanent basis and provide the colder winter synoptics with high latitude blocking as has been seen - we reach such another crossroads.

Once again a wait ensues, but the current apparent holding up of global temps in defiance of cyclical changes is part of 'dead cats bounce' imo that won't become apparent for a few more years yet. So for those who insist on cumulative ongoing warming, best caution against a premature and false dawn.

In the meantime unfortunately lots more 'oh no it isn't' and 'oh yes it is' to come

In terms of more -AO feedback, such as we have seen this winter becoming a more and more regular occurence as a result of the cyclical changes and the natural causes pattern that David eschews - then blocking at higher latitudes and a southerly tracking jet stream will produce cooler NH mid latitudes as arctic air is displaced southwards much more often. Initially this does provide a support for higher arctic temps as Fred correctly says, but over time as mid latitudes cool and sub tropical air frequents northern most latitudes much less frequently, then seas and oceans will cool, winter snow cover will provide an increasing albedo effect as well as more cloud cover, this in turn will produce more ice over time, this in turn will ultimately cool and refreeze the arctic. This in turn will mean that mid latitudes experience ever colder arctic outbreaks which cools mid latitudes further and ......etc so the negative cycle continues.

On this basis it can be seen how this is going to take some time, but supports waiting and seeing.

Edited March 5, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[jethro]

Anyway, so the case is stronger with respect to climate change, then? (here)

Don't get me wrong, but I thought (especially according to the UK's encumbent government) that the case was already settled? If it is settled, then how can such a case get stronger? It's like being convicted of a crime, and then being taken to court, from your prison cell, to be told, that, actually, you are not only guilty, you are more guilty.

By implication, is this an admission that the statements of yesteryear leading up to this announcement were not quite as strong as they were made out to be?

The thing I find most concerning with that article is that back in 2007 the IPCC said "unequivocal" we're causing the change and yet according to this latest study' We hadn't [until now] looked in detail at how the climate system was changing," says Dr Stott'.

How on earth do you reach the IPCC conclusion without first doing this?

[sunny starry skies]

The thing I find most concerning with that article is that back in 2007 the IPCC said "unequivocal" we're causing the change and yet according to this latest study' We hadn't [until now] looked in detail at how the climate system was changing," says Dr Stott'.

How on earth do you reach the IPCC conclusion without first doing this?

Quick one from me - can you show that this is exactly what the IPCC said. So far as I'm aware they said:

[from AR4 SPM] "The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling infl uences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence [7] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3., 6.5, 2.9}"

very high confidence meaning >= 90% confidence. Now that leaves room for improvement, so you can go from very high, to even higher, which is exactly what the Met office summary of recent research is showing. While all this spurious debate has been raging, the science has actually merely continued to confirm the broad findings, and in many cases show that the AR4 understated the effects. So not at all inconsistent.

The detail, I think, is in the higher-resolution patterns rather than the overall picture. The overall picture is much easier to determine than detailed impacts, such as (for example) changes in the frequency or magnitude of hurricanes. Just as in a weather model, you have a better idea of whether the air pressure will be low or high, but less idea if it will rain in 72 hours.

sss

[Iceberg]

Sorry Jethro, they said the below according to that article.

"In 2007 the IPCC's report concluded that there was "unequivocal" evidence that the Earth was warming"

i.e that they are sure the earth is warming, they only said it was likely that this was due to man.

[VillagePlank]

I don't think anybody we have had any respect for has said that the all the science of AGW is settled....I don't have a problem attacking a politician, maybe a little more direction who your saying is wrong in your post, or it becomes very close to a straw man.I am also not sure that GW said anything about somebody being more guilty.

You're right it's a straw-man argument.

Whilst, I see many people mauled by the logical imperatives around here, the use of a straw-man, which in this case is an extension, and amplification, to something silly that GW said, whilst indeed a logical fallacy, is not at all something to band around like some child in a playground pointing out that such and such has the lurgy. It is a useful tool.

(And before anyone goes on about this please look up first scientific consensus, and then look up argumentum ad numerum - perhaps a new thread for the fallacy of logic? (that was an intentional play on words, by the way))

For the avoidance of doubt. I named politicians in my first post, and Gordon Brown in my second. The point of the posts were to assess the ignorance of those who like to think in black and white. We had politicians, in Parliament, saying that the debate is over, and that those who do not subscribe to black must necessarily be white. ie - that those who do not subscribe to AGW must be a denier. In Parliament.

That aside (thanks for constructing a straw-man, about my straw-man Iceberg!) the point is an assertion has been made by the MSM, and by governments (who ought to know better) that something is true. Later on, in this case today, we are then told - hey chaps, it's even more true.

Whilst some accept that line of reasoning as valid. I cannot.

[jethro]

Sorry but you two are splitting hairs here.

How can any form of probability be concluded (50%, 70% or even 100%) without first looking in detail how the climate system was changing.

If you don't know in detail how it's changing, you cannot gauge what is natural and normal against what isn't - you need a comprehensive, detailed base-line against which to measure.

[VillagePlank]

.... in a world where only maths brings 100% certainty ....

Such a world, I'm afraid does not exist. Mathematics is an abstraction of the natural world, and when one builds an abstraction, assumptions must be brought to bear - ie some data is noise, etc etc.

[Iceberg]

But your saying VP that because the politicians are saying something which is wrong, the scientists themselves must be bound by this..

A scientist who has always said that it's likely mankind is causing rising temperatures, is perfectly and correctly entitled to say this his level of likely is going up to maybe very likely.

Again sorry Jethro no you can have a defined level of uncertainty without knowing everything. If you knew everything there would be no uncertainty....

[VillagePlank]

very high confidence meaning >= 90% confidence.

The problem is that whilst everyone else's risk strategy must be laid bare for the dissection of the interested, this is just a number with attributed words. Without the consequent methodology for the construction of risk - it's meaningless twaddle.

For instance - do we know, for sure, the attribution of each and every feedback. We sort of know, and we can sort of attribute most things. But that means we don't know with a quantitative degree of certainty. Even worse we don't know what we don't know about! (Also what degrees of freedom where there on the analysis. Does a random assertion do better, or worse, using the same methodology) These are all things you would ask of me, if I am to publish an alternate hypothesis.

It seems to me, rather like the number of units allowable for drinking each calendar day, that it is simply an assertion, albeit agreed by consensus.

But your saying VP that because the politicians are saying something which is wrong, the scientists themselves must be bound by this..

Is that a question or a straw-man?

[jethro]

Again sorry Jethro no you can have a defined level of uncertainty without knowing everything. If you knew everything there would be no uncertainty....

But very high confidence? 90%?

Me thinks their certainty was over-stated somewhat - doesn't mean the theory is wrong, I don't think it is, but I do think too much has been attributed to it.

[Gray-Wolf]

(Though I know he didn't) current denial-ism smacks of Nero Fiddling whilst Rome burns.

Todays paper on methane releases across the Arctic (Esp. East Siberian shelf) must be a cause for further concern surely?

We none of us deny the natural cycles of warm and cool that climate works through but our climate is trending warmer and ,as it does so, we risk triggering many positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle (as we have in past global warming scenarios).

To point to cold events and say "look, the cooling has started" whilst ignoring the positive feedbacks which will accelerate warming beyond the human forcings appears silly to me. We cannot be so blinkered as to not accept the Rheims of data of our warming in favour of natural cycle of cooling surely? During past PDO-ves we continued to warm.We are at a warmer place now than ever before so why should any cooling cycle act in any way differently to those over the past 100yrs (which have been milded by the warming climate)? If we now add in the emergence of super greenhouse gasses as a player that will gain in significance as the next 20 years pass us by where are we left?

It is sad that so many folk are misled by the hope that 'we didn't do it' brings.

It is a very attractive position to adhere to. No nasty shocks, no enforced changes, no guilt at the responsibility that being 'planet killers' brings with it but all a falsehood that will crumble and fall as our impacts grow and self replicate through the emerging warmth driven feedbacks. Many folk will (wrongly) feel anger that they were fed such 'false hope' when the truth was always there to be embraced if only they had been allowed to accept it without being spoon fed a 'nicer' alternative.

[jethro]

(Though I know he didn't) current denial-ism smacks of Nero Fiddling whilst Rome burns.

Todays paper on methane releases across the Arctic (Esp. East Siberian shelf) must be a cause for further concern surely?

We none of us deny the natural cycles of warm and cool that climate works through but our climate is trending warmer and ,as it does so, we risk triggering many positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle (as we have in past global warming scenarios).

To point to cold events and say "look, the cooling has started" whilst ignoring the positive feedbacks which will accelerate warming beyond the human forcings appears silly to me. We cannot be so blinkered as to not accept the Rheims of data of our warming in favour of natural cycle of cooling surely? During past PDO-ves we continued to warm.We are at a warmer place now than ever before so why should any cooling cycle act in any way differently to those over the past 100yrs (which have been milded by the warming climate)? If we now add in the emergence of super greenhouse gasses as a player that will gain in significance as the next 20 years pass us by where are we left?

It is sad that so many folk are misled by the hope that 'we didn't do it' brings.

It is a very attractive position to adhere to. No nasty shocks, no enforced changes, no guilt at the responsibility that being 'planet killers' brings with it but all a falsehood that will crumble and fall as our impacts grow and self replicate through the emerging warmth driven feedbacks. Many folk will (wrongly) feel anger that they were fed such 'false hope' when the truth was always there to be embraced if only they had been allowed to accept it without being spoon fed a 'nicer' alternative.

Where on here has anyone said "we didn't do it"? I can think of one or two people who take that stance, the vast majority on here are middle-grounders - yup, we've played a part but the debate is focussed upon the degree of impact.

This endless adherence to "them" and "us" is sooooooooooooo tedious and utterly misrepresentative of the vast majority of folk on this forum.

[VillagePlank]

(Though I know he didn't) current denial-ism smacks of Nero Fiddling whilst Rome burns.

[sunny starry skies]

But very high confidence? 90%?

Me thinks their certainty was over-stated somewhat - doesn't mean the theory is wrong, I don't think it is, but I do think too much has been attributed to it.

Hmmm, I think there are several problems weaved together here. On the IPCC - with the IPCC going for "virtually certain" or something similar that the Earth is warming, and going for "very likely" or "very high confidence" that it is due to Man. The IPCC being a consensus report, ie something different from a normal scientific paper, in that all the interested parties had to agree on all parts of it, makes me wonder whether the levels of certainty expressed in the report are, as VP would reasonably ask, statistically-derived, or whether they are agreed on by the members (which I think they are). To my knowledge (and I may be wrong) some of the level of scientific uncertainty is downplayed somewhat in the IPCC report, in order for all members to agree and sign off on the details. But to test this, we would need to look at the relevant papers to assess their uncertainty levels, and how they were derived.

Then we have politics and the media. Both of whom like absolute certainty, the black-or-white approach, which does not fit with scientific practice at all. While the relevant scientists are really confident of their results, they will not be saying that it's 100% this, or that. The media, and politicians, have a nasty tendency to drop mention of the uncertainty level, which leads to awkward positions. Which then feeds back to the scientists, who have been misrepresented or misinterpreted, and have to pick up the pieces. And the media/politicians then don't know how to report it when the scientists increase their levels of certainty based on further research. Hence "how can something that was certain now be more certain"!

I don't like it when something is touted as certain when it is, by definition, not 100%. Especially not in Parliament. But I think we have a problem with language, where something that has a level of "uncertainty" associated with it will be pounced on by the non-scientifically literate people (politicians, media, credulous others, especially people looking for a story), who then convert scientific "uncertainty" into "uncertain" in the sense of "we don't really know". Which is a false line of reasoning. We know quite enough to act on climate change, of that the community of climate science is sure. 100% certain? No. Is there uncertainty? Yes, but it is small.

sss

[VillagePlank]

Yes, SSS, as you allude, the IPCC report is not a scientific one; it is a summary for policy makers. I think that it is my error that I elevate it to something that it simply is not.

It is curious, however, that many scientific papers cite various parts of the report, and not the source-paper where it might be derived. I don't suspect conspiracy, I just find it curious; I guess it's because the report is produced by some sort of super-peer-review process.

I suspect that the percentage risk is one of agreement - ie it is derived from the 'wisdom of crowds' - and not from any laid out methodology. That, in and of itself, in my opinion, is fine.

I'd much prefer them to quote the reciprocal, though. Instead of stating certainties, state the degree about which they think the figures might be in error. So, instead of saying 'we're 90% certain of this' they should say 'there's 10% chance of there being an error, here'

[jethro]

Hmmm, I think there are several problems weaved together here. On the IPCC - with the IPCC going for "virtually certain" or something similar that the Earth is warming, and going for "very likely" or "very high confidence" that it is due to Man. The IPCC being a consensus report, ie something different from a normal scientific paper, in that all the interested parties had to agree on all parts of it, makes me wonder whether the levels of certainty expressed in the report are, as VP would reasonably ask, statistically-derived, or whether they are agreed on by the members (which I think they are). To my knowledge (and I may be wrong) some of the level of scientific uncertainty is downplayed somewhat in the IPCC report, in order for all members to agree and sign off on the details. But to test this, we would need to look at the relevant papers to assess their uncertainty levels, and how they were derived.

Then we have politics and the media. Both of whom like absolute certainty, the black-or-white approach, which does not fit with scientific practice at all. While the relevant scientists are really confident of their results, they will not be saying that it's 100% this, or that. The media, and politicians, have a nasty tendency to drop mention of the uncertainty level, which leads to awkward positions. Which then feeds back to the scientists, who have been misrepresented or misinterpreted, and have to pick up the pieces. And the media/politicians then don't know how to report it when the scientists increase their levels of certainty based on further research. Hence "how can something that was certain now be more certain"!

I don't like it when something is touted as certain when it is, by definition, not 100%. Especially not in Parliament. But I think we have a problem with language, where something that has a level of "uncertainty" associated with it will be pounced on by the non-scientifically literate people (politicians, media, credulous others, especially people looking for a story), who then convert scientific "uncertainty" into "uncertain" in the sense of "we don't really know". Which is a false line of reasoning. We know quite enough to act on climate change, of that the community of climate science is sure. 100% certain? No. Is there uncertainty? Yes, but it is small.

sss

With respect SSS, your post is merely a longer, more eloquent exercise in splitting hairs.

If you're going to measure something, you need a baseline, to get the baseline, you need to do detailed studies, if you haven't done the detailed studies then you're making assumptions - that holds true in all walks of life including politicians, scientists and journalists.

[MR EXTREMES]

climate change leads to thease kind of things http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/8550929.stm pay through the nose for something thats not 100% valid yet.

it also means during our warming planet things like this happen lmao:whistling:.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8550687.stm

Edited March 5, 2010 by badboy657

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think the main reason why we appear to have had more cold records being set than in recent years is because the prevailing synoptic pattern has favoured cold anomalies over heavily populated areas of the world and warm anomalies elsewhere- in stark contrast to most recent winters. This would explain why we can get more noteworthy cold events happening over populated areas yet not a colder global average.

I don't like it when something is touted as certain when it is, by definition, not 100%. Especially not in Parliament. But I think we have a problem with language, where something that has a level of "uncertainty" associated with it will be pounced on by the non-scientifically literate people (politicians, media, credulous others, especially people looking for a story), who then convert scientific "uncertainty" into "uncertain" in the sense of "we don't really know". Which is a false line of reasoning. We know quite enough to act on climate change, of that the community of climate science is sure. 100% certain? No. Is there uncertainty? Yes, but it is small.

sss

I too think the conclusions of the IPCC reports probably downplay the uncertainty as part of reaching the agreements- this becomes evident when reading the literature reviews within the reports, which seem to give a pretty balanced overview of current scientific thinking, but often point to greater uncertainty than the conclusions suggest (while still generally supporting AGW).

Regarding the scientific certainty I feel that there's a popular political line of "make out that the science is more settled than it really is, to avoid creating unnecessary doubt among the general public". The assumption is that the public will interpret uncertainty as "we don't really know", but the downside of lying to them is that if they're intelligent enough to recognise that they're being lied to, support for the AGW case will diminish, and furthermore, it will diminish for very bad reasons. Unfortunately it is very hard to speak out against this particular consensus view because it seems to be as ingrained in political culture as the AGW argument, despite having nowhere near as strong a supporting basis.

[Gray-Wolf]

, glad you approve V.P.!

I'll be more specific then eh? The Denialist Blogs (mainly U.S.) who have focused on unseasonal weather as a proof of climate where all around post above ave. temps.

Had we had a exceptionally cold arctic that had spilled over into the more temperate zones then we may have to look closer but the Bilobal setup across the pole seems to be settling into a pattern where we import stonkingly warm temps across polar regions (leading to the kinda mush we have across the Arctic ocean at present) and cold outbreaks across more temperate regions (be it Greece , Japan, Somalia or here). We have been noting this since at least 03' with news reports of stadia roof collapses and travel chaos in areas not set up for extended cold impacts.

Again the answers will become most apparent across polar regions first and I would imagine this northern summer will reveal just have far along we are into the transition to a seasonal polar pack and an Arctic ocean that is mixing down to 200m and extending warm water influx into the high pole.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[sunny starry skies]

With respect SSS, your post is merely a longer, more eloquent exercise in splitting hairs.

If you're going to measure something, you need a baseline, to get the baseline, you need to do detailed studies, if you haven't done the detailed studies then you're making assumptions - that holds true in all walks of life including politicians, scientists and journalists.

Where do you think we're missing a baseline, or missing the detailed studies? Baselines come from palaeoclimate, and in some cases, instrumental records. They are less detailed than today's Earth observation, but still quite sufficient to support the theory. If you're looking for a perfect representation of the Earth, there isn't one of course (we don't have a spare), but if you're looking for a theory that explains the observed changes in a way that no other theory does, it's there. And there is plenty detailed data to be confident about that. Are you perhaps taking Stott's quote out of context? He's referring to high-resolution details, not the core science which generally deals with the lower resolution data. Or do you think that the thousands of studies that support the theory (and the >100 newer ones that support even higher confidences of the theory), don't qualify as "detailed"? [apologies if that sounds strongly-worded, I just wish to understand what you mean here]

Edit: Excellent post TWS!

sss

Edited March 5, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[jethro]

Where do you think we're missing a baseline, or missing the detailed studies? Baselines come from palaeoclimate, and in some cases, instrumental records. They are less detailed than today's Earth observation, but still quite sufficient to support the theory. If you're looking for a perfect representation of the Earth, there isn't one of course (we don't have a spare), but if you're looking for a theory that explains the observed changes in a way that no other theory does, it's there. And there is plenty detailed data to be confident about that. Are you perhaps taking Stott's quote out of context? He's referring to high-resolution details, not the core science which generally deals with the lower resolution data. Or do you think that the thousands of studies that support the theory (and the >100 newer ones that support even higher confidences of the theory), don't qualify as "detailed"? [apologies if that sounds strongly-worded, I just wish to understand what you mean here]

Edit: Excellent post TWS!

sss

Sorry for not explaining myself adequately, flicking in and out of here whilst supposedly working....

I haven't taken it out of context and at no point have I intimated that the theory is wrong - in fact going so far as to say it isn't. The devil is in the detail and the detail counts. Proxie studies give broad brush strokes, that' inevitable. The distinction between a warmer world and an human induced warmer world is important, you can gauge the former by looking at palaeoclimate and proxies, you need detail for the latter.

The IPCC report said we're warmer and warming still - broad brush strokes, not a problem. They also said with a considerable degree of confidence, that we're responsible - it is this statement which needs support of detailed studies. Broad brush strokes cannot supply this answer.

Regarding TWS's post, I'm one of those who are intelligent enough and have read enough peer reviewed papers to know the stance portrayed of "science is settled" is wrong. It isn't settled and the IPCC report along with everything which followed over-stated confidence.

I'm happy that the basic theory is right, the detail however is far from certain.