General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

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

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)?

First sentence helps nothing GW.

Re next one, firstly PDO is a small [shortlived] cycle as they go and so the bigger cycle [which was of warming] will just suffer a mere hiccup. -ve PDOs in further past would accentuate cooling I would think if in a cooldown.

Now the point which is in bold.....that my friend I very much beg to differ.

BFTP

[Cycles]

I still have not seen my question answered from 3 pages ago..

So here is a question again. The very cold and snow areas of the earth are seeing 100 year records tied or broken. Are the warm areas seeing the opposite...100 year records?

The ocean areas we do not know about, records do not go back far enough, using satellite data versus sparse shipping reports is the same as comparing apples to oranges.

Regards

David

[Devonian]

I still have not seen my question answered from 3 pages ago..

So here is a question again. The very cold and snow areas of the earth are seeing 100 year records tied or broken. Are the warm areas seeing the opposite...100 year records?

The ocean areas we do not know about, records do not go back far enough, using satellite data versus sparse shipping reports is the same as comparing apples to oranges.

Regards

David

Not sure we should be playing the records game but here are three:

Record warm weather in Vancouver

Record warm weather in Iceland (post number 2)

Record warm weather in the Balkans

[Iceberg]

I still have not seen my question answered from 3 pages ago..

So here is a question again. The very cold and snow areas of the earth are seeing 100 year records tied or broken. Are the warm areas seeing the opposite...100 year records?

The ocean areas we do not know about, records do not go back far enough, using satellite data versus sparse shipping reports is the same as comparing apples to oranges.

Regards

David

David, your question doesn't really make sense,

Firstly snow is irrelavent as is amount of snow, it has no bearing on temperatures other than telling us that an area of the globe has DP's below 0.

Re records, what areas of the earth are seeing 100 year cold records broken.?

If 10% of the n.Hemi is breaking 100 year cold records then the other 90% only has to be above average to still record abvoe average temps.

You don't figure out global or hemispheric temperatures by comparing the amount of cold records to warm records.

Not true re ocean areas unless you have no faith in reynolds re-analysis etc.

The blunt honest answer is that N.hempspheric temperatures, by ocean/land or together have been well above average.

Re BTFP and his Jet stream.

The Jet stream position does not *create* more cold weather globally, it merly distributes it unless the laws of science have been re-written.

[Guest]

I have just spent half an hour reading online comments in the Telegraph about climate change (mostly against) and then half an hour reading comments (mostly for) in here. Can I go back to the fence for another sit and think about it??

[sunny starry skies]

I still have not seen my question answered from 3 pages ago..

So here is a question again. The very cold and snow areas of the earth are seeing 100 year records tied or broken. Are the warm areas seeing the opposite...100 year records?

The ocean areas we do not know about, records do not go back far enough, using satellite data versus sparse shipping reports is the same as comparing apples to oranges.

Regards

David

Maybe because it is a poor and irrelevant question? Here's why:

1: individual weather extremes are much larger than climate averages, so cold events can still be broken by the right weather conditions.

2: Do you believe that it is impossible for severe cold weather to happen in a warming world? If you don't believe that then you'll realise that your question is unnecessary. Nobody has ever said that cold weather was impossible in a warming world, except maybe the tabloid media...

3: A releated question is: do you believe that it is impossible for warming to actively contribute to an increase in certain kinds of extreme event, in particular high snowfall?

We observe that there is more water vapour in the atmosphere, and we observe increased heat in the atmosphere. This can quite reasonably lead to more severe snowstorms where the warm air interacts with the cold air - with this year's weather that is over some heavily populated areas of the developed world. But on a global scale, the world is warmer, without the need to have 100-year records broken.

But I'm sure you'll be aware of the research showing that statistically there is an approximately 2:1 ratio of warm records being broken compared to cold records in the US this century, showing an increased likelihood of warm over cold extremes. Note that this is not a 2:0 ratio, as it is perfectly possible to break a cold record. Additionally, research like this below that indicates a relationship with the predicted effects of AGW:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030948.shtml

sss

[Thundery wintry showers]

Unfortunately among the general public there are popular head-burial attitudes of "don't worry about it unless it's affecting you, now" and "if it might affect you, assume it'll be for the best and just get on with your life". The latter bit in particular promotes a good deal of genuine denialism- a large majority of the comments I see to tabloid articles are of the head-burial variety.

I'm referring to people who have little or no understanding of the subject but reach strong opinions on it- as distinguished from those who are sceptical for good reasons, i.e. they have a significant understanding of the subject and have doubts about whether the arguments of the IPCC and others really add up.

Regarding the recent global weather patterns, it's easy to forget that most of America/Canada has had a warmer than average winter, with the exception of the south of the region, and NE Canada has been particularly anomalously warm. Most of the cold has been concentrated over Eurasia.

[VillagePlank]

I still have not seen my question answered from 3 pages ago..

So here is a question again. The very cold and snow areas of the earth are seeing 100 year records tied or broken. Are the warm areas seeing the opposite...100 year records?

The ocean areas we do not know about, records do not go back far enough, using satellite data versus sparse shipping reports is the same as comparing apples to oranges.

Regards

David

I thought I had made it clear.

If there are cool records being made, and the global average is up, then either the quantity of warm areas must also be up, or the magnitude of warm areas must be equally as massive, if not more. Perhaps you missed my post.

This is not a matter for vague assertions about climate, this is a matter of simple childhood arithmetic.

Edited March 5, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Iceberg]

Very much correct TWS.

Here's what is expected from a typical El Nino from the NCEP.

not far from what occured, the big snow storms for the washington region etc are due to the meeting of the PJS and the warmer Pacific JS.

The Polar JS has been unusual this year and the Pacific Jet further south.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Iceberg

[Cycles]

Thankyou for answering my question. We all know the El Nino distributes temperatures around the global due to the change in the atmospheric circulation. And we all know that record high temperatures normally have record low temperatures occuring elsewhere.

I was merely asking the question about 100 year records falling, cold and warm. And some of both are occuring. But during a warming earth it would seem more difficult for 100 year cold temperatures to occur, thus it should point somewhat to what I was referring to...a possible transition from warming to cooling, just like you see in the spring, a transitional fight between spring and intrusions of winter/or summer weather.

Just pointing this out, we have not seen this occurance so dramatic during the past 15 years, or perhaps since the 1940s following the ending of the first global warming 9-year temperature spike. And yes, the El Nino is also playing a large role in what we are seeing.

Regards

David

[VillagePlank]

Thankyou for answering my question. We all know the El Nino distributes temperatures around the global due to the change in the atmospheric circulation. And we all know that record high temperatures normally have record low temperatures occuring elsewhere.

I was merely asking the question about 100 year records falling, cold and warm. And some of both are occuring. But during a warming earth it would seem more difficult for 100 year cold temperatures to occur, thus it should point somewhat to what I was referring to...a possible transition from warming to cooling, just like you see in the spring, a transitional fight between spring and intrusions of winter/or summer weather.

Just pointing this out, we have not seen this occurance so dramatic during the past 15 years, or perhaps since the 1940s following the ending of the first global warming 9-year temperature spike. And yes, the El Nino is also playing a large role in what we are seeing.

Regards

David

A common mis-perception.

A study of standard deviation over the climate record should show you what the variability of the climate is. For absolute error I would multiply std-dev by three - it's absolute limits, perhaps. For decadel changes the normal form of a 1.96 multiple is suitable, I think, and it helps show 'abnormal' changes since it is not unlikely that some years will post outside that range.

[Cycles]

Not true re ocean areas unless you have no faith in reynolds re-analysis etc.

When I talk about ocean temperatures, I am referring to satellite temperatures comparing ocean temperatures to ocean temperatures prior to accurate measurements. We do not have a good handle on ocean temperatures at the peak of the interglacial periods that occur approximately every 123,000 years. When temperatures and CO2 peaked 123,000 years ago, do we know how warm the oceans were as compared to todays oceans? No we do not. Did we have glacial melting? Yes we did and during all 5 peaks of what I call mega warming cycles which occur approximately every 120,000 years.

And CO2. The IPCC and other groups indicate that instrument readings of 385 ppm has never occured before (during the past half million years). We must remember that ice core samples taken to determine CO2 are meaned over a 1 to 4 thousand year period (unlike todays 1 year mean). By doing so, spikes which are called noise are eliminated. Thus mean values of 280ppm taken over the course of a 2 or 3 thousand year mean eliminates individual 200 year warming and cooling cycles. Thus the mean of 280 ppm likely has spikes well above 300 ppm (and possibly near 360 or greater).

Maybe we should take the 385 ppm during the past year and average it with data over the past 4 thousand years...what do you think we would see?

Regards

David

[Iceberg]

I agree in part David, but was talking about recently i.e last 100 years, since this is the timescale you refered to re warm/cold record.

Geologically speaking past climatic conditions are far from perfect, but kind of irrelavent as we arn't currently talking about geological drivers or comparisons.

[Cycles]

I agree in part David, but was talking about recently i.e last 100 years, since this is the timescale you refered to re warm/cold record.

Geologically speaking past climatic conditions are far from perfect, but kind of irrelavent as we arn't currently talking about geological drivers or comparisons.

But my research is based on past climate, past and future lunar cycles as the driver of climate. So it does have a great deal to due with what is happening now "climate intrustion fight between warm and cold" cyclical climates. If we are not comparing like data (present to past), then we cannot achieve the proper goal.

Regards

David

[sunny starry skies]

When I talk about ocean temperatures, I am referring to satellite temperatures comparing ocean temperatures to ocean temperatures prior to accurate measurements. We do not have a good handle on ocean temperatures at the peak of the interglacial periods that occur approximately every 123,000 years. When temperatures and CO2 peaked 123,000 years ago, do we know how warm the oceans were as compared to todays oceans? No we do not. Did we have glacial melting? Yes we did and during all 5 peaks of what I call mega warming cycles which occur approximately every 120,000 years.

And CO2. The IPCC and other groups indicate that instrument readings of 385 ppm has never occured before (during the past half million years). We must remember that ice core samples taken to determine CO2 are meaned over a 1 to 4 thousand year period (unlike todays 1 year mean). By doing so, spikes which are called noise are eliminated. Thus mean values of 280ppm taken over the course of a 2 or 3 thousand year mean eliminates individual 200 year warming and cooling cycles. Thus the mean of 280 ppm likely has spikes well above 300 ppm (and possibly near 360 or greater).

Maybe we should take the 385 ppm during the past year and average it with data over the past 4 thousand years...what do you think we would see?

Regards

David

Really? That's interesting. The same ice cores that have as good as annual layer resolution going back 10,000 years? The ones that have accurately-determined closure ages (to correct for the fact that the gas is younger than the ice), and crucially good estimates of the time during which the gas samples will be shut off from the surface, called the age width (~15 years for Greenland Summit, ~100 years for the slower-accumulating South Pole). See sections 3.2-3.4 of the article below:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119246689/PDFSTART

What's your source for suggesting that ice core gas is not isolated until 4000 years have passed? No denier blog please, but a respectable source, from someone who has actually done the science, maybe even a peer-reviewed paper that has stood the test of time? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

sss

[Iceberg]

um...we've jumped from recent records to geological records.

Geological drivers of climate are generally different, with much bigger magnitudes of scale.

We will likely never know geological climatic conditions to within 100mm of water or really to within 1C over a 10 year period.

At to it having a great deal do with current climatic conditions, frankly no it doesn't. The weather over recent months has nothing to do with climatic drivers/conditions over geological timeframes.

"And CO2. The IPCC and other groups indicate that instrument readings of 385 ppm has never occured before (during the past half million years). We must remember that ice core samples taken to determine CO2 are meaned over a 1 to 4 thousand year period (unlike todays 1 year mean). By doing so, spikes which are called noise are eliminated. Thus mean values of 280ppm taken over the course of a 2 or 3 thousand year mean eliminates individual 200 year warming and cooling cycles. Thus the mean of 280 ppm likely has spikes well above 300 ppm (and possibly near 360 or greater).

Maybe we should take the 385 ppm during the past year and average it with data over the past 4 thousand years...what do you think we would see?

Regards

David "

Have to admit I don't know what to make of the above...it's a bit like walking into a bar, asking for a Whiskey and getting handed a glass of milk.....

Your wrong on the 1 to 4K period, wrong on the 200/300 year warming cooling cycles not showing, wrong on the averaging of 4K years.

Sorry David.

[MR EXTREMES]

Just goes to show though if the met office admit the science is flawed with longrange forecasting then maybe there's give or take on the climate change issues,

and this type of thing is what makes me so skeptical about a fire ball earth,as I'm skeptical of solar forecast and the ipcc.

Once you start convincing a planet full of people that we are to blame and we need to pay then you can't turn round and change your mind,

even more so in a world full of coruption were we are not in control of political figures.

[sunny starry skies]

Just goes to show though if the met office admit the science is flawed with longrange forecasting then maybe there's give or take on the climate change issues,

and this type of thing is what makes me so skeptical about a fire ball earth,as I'm skeptical of solar forecast and the ipcc.

Once you start convincing a planet full of people that we are to blame and we need to pay then you can't turn round and change your mind,

even more so in a world full of coruption were we are not in control of political figures.

It's a completely diferent science though, badboy, and so problems with one are not transferrable to the other. A bit like saying the brakes are broken on your bike, therefore you won't drive your car to work. I'm glad that the Met Office are no longer publishing these long-range forecasts, as they weren't very good. But you know that their short-term forecasts and their annual global climate forecasts are very good. Short-term weather is easier than long-range weather, for very obvious reasons, while the global climate forecast for next year is a completely different methodology, based on the forcing of CO2, ENSO, volcanic and solar.

sss

[Cycles]

What's your source for suggesting that ice core gas is not isolated until 4000 years have passed? No denier blog please, but a respectable source, from someone who has actually done the science, maybe even a peer-reviewed paper that has stood the test of time? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

sss

References including a reference for ice cores are in my ebook on my web site.

David

um...we've jumped from recent records to geological records.

Geological drivers of climate are generally different, with much bigger magnitudes of scale.

Have to admit I don't know what to make of the above...it's a bit like walking into a bar, asking for a Whiskey and getting handed a glass of milk.....

Your wrong on the 1 to 4K period, wrong on the 200/300 year warming cooling cycles not showing, wrong on the averaging of 4K years.

Sorry David.

Must admit sometimes the IPCC papers do appear to come from a group walking out of a bar...I surely agree with you on this.

But the averaging is documented and is how it is done...they do not take a 1 year reading like the IPCC group does.

Sorry if I have burst some bubbles, so to speak.

Regards

David

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Re BTFP and his Jet stream.

The Jet stream position does not *create* more cold weather globally, it merly distributes it unless the laws of science have been re-written.

No it doesn't, but it does mean tropical airmasses do not puncture as far north. If maintained an overall colder picture will be seen. You see we had posters telling us that the jetstream pushed further north causing warmer temps in out latitudes due to CO2 AGW and prevented any chance of colder winters. Well yes a jetstream further north produces overall more warmth, the reverse will I suggest do just that, help reverse the temps.

Re my recent postings re El Nino, it seems it is really showing signs now of collapsing anmd the trend that thr ECM showed of sharp decline, I still agree is on the money IMO.

It'll be very interesting to see what happens with monthly anomalies as Jan and Feb are for sure very much affected by significant El Nino and record -AO readings.

BFTP

Edited March 7, 2010 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm not aware of a more southerly tracking jet. I'm aware of a jet with more amplitude (more energy in the system), and our place the wrong side of it over the past couple of summers, but am wholly unaware of any noted shift south. I'm still running on the assumption that the science is correct and we have seen a shift north over the past 70 years or so.

With a jet showing more amplitude we can get warm up to places usually cold and cold in areas usually mild. Were we to be getting progressively colder surely we would see this manifest across the pole first? As it is we see the Arctic in meltdown mode (over the past 30yrs) with no sign of any letup.

I'm will ing to be convinced if the data is there but ,as things stand ,I'm sure there are as many areas south of the jet, who are usually north of it , as those North of it ,who are usually south of it.

[Iceberg]

No it doesn't, but it does mean tropical airmasses do not puncture as far north. If maintained an overall colder picture will be seen. You see we had posters telling us that the jetstream pushed further north causing warmer temps in out latitudes due to CO2 AGW and prevented any chance of colder winters. Well yes a jetstream further north produces overall more warmth, the reverse will I suggest do just that, help reverse the temps.

Re my recent postings re El Nino, it seems it is really showing signs now of collapsing anmd the trend that thr ECM showed of sharp decline, I still agree is on the money IMO.

BFTP

Re El nino the next update is out in approx 6 hrs time so will be interesting to see whether anything is collapsing, The weekly heat content has been rising for a few weeks now though....in connection with a new kelvin wave.

Re JS I still can't see how it effects global temps, regional temps yes as some areas are warmer and some colder.

GW I think your partly right, more energy into the mid lat JS rather than the Polar JS is sometimes called a more southerly Jet stream. However sometimes the mid Lat JS does go further south in response to the 3 cell hemispheric positioning. This past winter has been some of both IMO.

[sunny starry skies]

References including a reference for ice cores are in my ebook on my web site.

David

Must admit sometimes the IPCC papers do appear to come from a group walking out of a bar...I surely agree with you on this.

But the averaging is documented and is how it is done...they do not take a 1 year reading like the IPCC group does.

Sorry if I have burst some bubbles, so to speak.

Regards

David

So your 'book', which includes a mere 37 references, many of which you have misused or misquoted, is riddled with errors, poor referencing, missing referencing.

What's the length of the lunar cycle? you quote 27.5 or 27.3 days, in consecutive paragraphs. Why use the sidereal cycle instead of the synodic cycle, when many phenomena are correlated with the latter?

You mistype the latitudinal displacement of the high pressures, 4442km is rather a lot.

Who is "Bryon", presumably you mean "Bryson"?

While Jean Meeus is a well-respected calculator of astronomical phenomena, surely you could have found, and used, a better reference than a 1981 article in Sky and Telescope, a magazine for amateur astronomers, when you were looking for data on lunar cycles?

Lake Vostok virtually ice-free 420,000 years ago? Interesting theory, no reference in your 'book'. Given the EPICA core has >800,000 years ice only 500km away, this seems obviously unlikely, quite apart from the idea requiring the almost complete deglaciation of the EAIS and the greater part of 60m sea level rise above present. No evidence for that either.

From Fischer et al (1999), the most recent of your three ice core references:

" The internal temporal resolutionof ice core air samples is restricted by the age distributionof the bubbles caused by the enclosure process (10).This age spread is about 300 years for Vostok (11)and 140 years for the TD ice core (9) at present butabout three times higher for glacial conditions (11)."

Not 4000 years, as you claim. And these numbers are for relatively old ice too.

The ice age - air age difference is 2000-6000 years depending on the time period, but this is a totally different concept to the time for closure, which controls the temporal resolution. Maybe you confused the two concepts?

"Rind (2003)" is actually a NASA web page, which quotes David Rind on permafrost, and is not an article written by Rind himself - very bad referencing practice. You manage to get what he said wrong too. The permafrost is not 'newly exposed', but is melted by the warming Earth. Of course you gloss over (ignore) the comment about their effect as greenhouse gases by Rind.

I gave up at this point, having failed to find what I wanted, and found lots of bad information. It entirely justifies my comment on another thread about my not wishing to read your 'book'. Do you have any references to directly support your claims of us being unable to resolve the CO2 record at less than 4000 years?

Back to something more interesting? Surely we can test these ideas of discplaced jetstreams with evidence? Anyway, a southerly displaced jetstream may do no more than trap warmer air equatorward of it, which along with the relatively warm air near the poles, will more than offset the cold air in the mid-latitudes?

sss

Edited March 8, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Cycles]

1.

What's the length of the lunar cycle? you quote 27.5 or 27.3 days, in consecutive paragraphs. Why use the sidereal cycle instead of the synodic cycle, when many phenomena are correlated with the latter?

2. You mistype the latitudinal displacement of the high pressures, 4442km is rather a lot.

Who is "Bryon", presumably you mean "Bryson"?

3. While Jean Meeus is a well-respected calculator of astronomical phenomena, surely you could have found, and used, a better reference than a 1981 article in Sky and Telescope, a magazine for amateur astronomers, when you were looking for data on lunar cycles?

4. Lake Vostok virtually ice-free 420,000 years ago? Interesting theory, no reference in your 'book'. Given the EPICA core has >800,000 years ice only 500km away, this seems obviously unlikely,

5.This age spread is about 300 years for Vostok (11)and 140 years for the TD ice core (9) at present butabout three times higher for glacial conditions (11)."

Not 4000 years, as you claim. And these numbers are for relatively old ice too.

The ice age - air age difference is 2000-6000 years depending on the time period, but this is a totally different concept to the time for closure, which controls the temporal resolution. Maybe you confused the two concepts?

6 The permafrost is not 'newly exposed', but is melted by the warming Earth. Of course you gloss over (ignore) the comment about their effect as greenhouse gases by Rind.

sss

Quick answer to some of your question.

Item #1 I used different data than most researchers, exacted the data myself and this is the average lunar month the data showed...27.3 strong cycle using perigee and declination, so it differs from a straight declination cycle once the mean is taken.

Item #2 Yes there is a typo or two....this is a free book with no grant money, did our best with limited resources...and thank you for pointing out the Bryson mispelling in that one stance, we had not caught that one, most understand and get by it just fine.

Item #3 I am sure someone would have complained about anyone I used.

Item #4 Ice in Lake Vostok only goes to about 450,000 years ago...so it is different than the one you mention 500km from it...that is quite a difference and conditions can be different

Item #6 I am talking about permafrost newly exposed as glaciers retreat and melt, and as the 200 year warming cycles warm northern areas...so it is newly exposed in most cases.

Some good suggestions by you, but I could not cover all in my limited book available "free" for all to read.

If you would like to help with a more indepth book...we should do it.

Thank you for your comments...and it was nice to see they did not change my findings.

Regards

David

[Cycles]

From Fischer et al (1999), the most recent of your three ice core references:

" The internal temporal resolutionof ice core air samples is restricted by the age distributionof the bubbles caused by the enclosure process (10).This age spread is about 300 years for Vostok (11)and 140 years for the TD ice core (9) at present butabout three times higher for glacial conditions (11)."

Not 4000 years, as you claim. And these numbers are for relatively old ice too.

The ice age - air age difference is 2000-6000 years depending on the time period, but this is a totally different concept to the time for closure, which controls the temporal resolution. Maybe you confused the two concepts?

I plotted the Vostok ice core samples and the plot was available only had meaned data points for anywhere from about 1000 to 4000 years...did not have points anywhere near 140 years or 300 years. The values are meaned over a long period of time to rid noise (such as seen in 4 or 5 year running means for world temperatures during the past 100 years). Yes they may analyze data every 140 or 300 years or so, but it is then meaned over a much longer period of time.

And it should be noted that takes several thousand years for snow to compact to form ice, thus new ice from 4 to 8 thousand years ago does have problems as you noted in the earlier thread. I recognize this and talk about it during power point presentations. This is the main reason we do not have a history of CO2 from 1900 back several thousand years.

Regards

David Dilley