General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

BFTP, the whole focus of the article was to separate the weather from the AGW climate argument, which is probably not something that the average layperson is likely to do. the temp map is of course in line with a -ve AO setup, as that is what we have! It's still possible that the NH as a whole might post average or above average temperatures though for December or this month, though it may not feel like that to us. The reporter was saying that you need to look at the whole globe and preferrably over many (I think he said 30) years before you worry about climate, specifically to separate out what happens in this individual month from any discussion about the climate. It does not, however, sit well with reports in the past that have said XX weather in YY place is due to gobal warming (and the BBC has had a fair few of those). Again that's weather, not climate and the media need to separate out the two or they get into these kinds of knots.

sss

I'm not in a knot, and that is the point the report was very poor, folk will think that the warm Greece and Turkey is very unusual [not in -ve AO]. He did say 30 years but he also didn'rt mention 10 years of flat line temps. PDO on its own is not the be all and end all. There is the perturbation cycle changed since feb 07 which has very very good correlation with the NAO and hence the jetstream positioning. It will take time to cool from the natural forcings, remember less than 1c in 100years to warm. so rather a lack of fair play there to suggest that we have 'perfect' conditions and should see temps like the 60s in such a short time. ITCZ expanded over 150 years, now stopped in 2001, jetstrewam moving north now heading south over past 3 years.

BFTP

"Warm Greece and Turkey does not have anything to do with AGW as the report suggested." Not anything? how do you know? I think that is a misleading thing to say. And yes, there is a index of broad pressure changes called the AO, but just because there is doesn't mean AGW isn't having an impact as well.

SO, three years is now climatologically significant? Surely not, else we'd have 'proven' AGW years ago...

Prove it does Dev....you can't so unnecessary argument really but we can say that with a -ve AO we expect very mild winter temps in that part of the world..we can say that so it is not out of the ordinary. 3 years, nope not significant but certainly well against the grain and worth watching. Why has it shifted south with CO2 AGW driving the climate?

BFTP

Edited January 8, 2010 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Methuselah]

So, how does this -AO compare to previous ones??

[Gray-Wolf]

Well each of the past 2 -ve PDO cycles (the 30yrs ones) were an average degree warmer than the last one so if we are seeing that 'cold' cycle warming wouldn't we expect to see the same of the AO-ve?

[stewfox]

I'm posting the data and the evidence. A 'I'm not bothering any more' reply doesn't convince me it's wrong.

What you posted was out of date data from mid December . 90% of North America is now in deep freeze

Of course some parts of Canada even at -30c wont show a 'anormal temp' but it would be useful to see latest stats

[paul tall]

Sorry BFTP but you were clearly being quite blinkered in watching that. What he was saying was just what I've been trying to say to people here the last few days. There is a fundamental difference between weather and climate. It is very unusual weather we are having, but when all is done and dusted, practically nothing to do with global climate. It was quite a good graphic to show that some parts of the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average and others cooler. Remember that places such as North Africa are in the Northern Hemisphere too (and were warmer than average I think), quite apart from the other side of the globe that he didn't show. Good chart Dev - please, people, look at the NH and try and say that it's all cold?!?!

Some people seem a little quick to take a few years that are not as warm as the hottest years ever recorded as a cooling trend, when they were quite unwilling to take 30 years of mostly warming trend as evidence of warming! Just a tad hypocritical perhaps? Remember 2009 is still comfortably in the top 10 ever warmest years, so no real sign of "cooling".

Some papers coming out now that appear to be demonstrating the "missing link" in observations of AGW:

if the theory goes thus: 1: CO2 (and methane etc) is a greenhouse gas, 2: we are emitting vastly more of them into the atmosphere, 3: we observe a significant global temperature increase, then 4: we most likely cause GW.

Most people ageee with steps 1 to 3, but some have trouble with 4, maybe beacause they think perhaps we haven't actually observed the CO2, methane etc actually doing the warming.

Well it seems that we have:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml

http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

...to name but a few. Basically the concept is that we can actually observe the outgoing longwave radiation (a measure of Earth's cooling to space), or observe from the surface of Earth the downward longwave radiation increase that is the signature of warming due to increased GHGs. You can tell it's the GHGs doing the warming because of the specific wavelengths that the radiation is emitted at. These papers are suggesting direct observations to prove the theory of AGW. And they are not just hearsay on a random blog either, they're in JGR and Nature. I'm sure there are more out there but I've no time to look just now.

I would expect more articles in the future to corroborate these observations.

Oh, mike Meehan - I think you need to get some global climate 101 before you waste too much time on inaccurate pieces. It's a well-known fact that CO2 changes followed climate rather than leading it during ice ages, and on a geological scale there is even more going on, such as weathering of carbonates. But that's old news, as we know there is more than one way to force the climate of the earth. Some of those ways are (whisper it) natural in origin, likely including the source for the MWP, which was NOT global, or the mid-Holocene Optimum. The key argument is that today we're forcing it in one particular way, with CO2 this time leading, not following.

If you really want to get your knickers in a twist, how about this one:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h328n0425378u736/

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8014.html

Bill Ruddiman has spent some significant time with this theory, and having seen a talk by him it's actually quite reasonably convincing... that our impact on the climate system actually began 6-8000years ago with the dawn of agriculture. He showed a graph at that talk connecting small sudden declines in atmospheric CO2 concommitant to episode of devastating war or disease around the world over the past 1000 years or so. Interesting theory. For me the best evidence is the comparison between global temperature during the past half-dozen or so interglacials, insolation levels and how the Holocene temperature just does not decline as it should have. It sounded like Ruddiman's having trouble convincing some of his colleagues, but he's got some quite persuasive evidence.

Food (or agriculture) for thought!

sss

Do you work for the Climate Change Industry?

[Devonian]

What you posted was out of date data from mid December . 90% of North America is now in deep freeze

But, the anomalies haven't changed much - see below

Of course some parts of Canada even at -30c wont show a 'anormal temp' but it would be useful to see latest stats

And here they are, from here. Graphic adjusted to be equal area.

Though note this is raw data. Otoh, people some don't trust the checked and verified stuff so perhaps it's acceptable? Two really cold areas on the big continents, but not much else. Still warm over Africa, the med, south west Asia, NE Canada and much of the Pacific.

[paul tall]

There looks to be just as much cold as warm to me, and the cold spots look more extreme than the warm ones.

[Devonian]

Do you work for the Climate Change Industry?

Be very careful to have the evidence of what you suggest or imply - we can all (if provoked) sling mud.

[Methuselah]

Well each of the past 2 -ve PDO cycles (the 30yrs ones) were an average degree warmer than the last one so if we are seeing that 'cold' cycle warming wouldn't we expect to see the same of the AO-ve?

My suggestion is, that we should be comparing like with like: that the deniers' penchant for starting at one exceptional El Nino peak as their chosen start-point for all future comparison is a waste of time?? Only when we encounter a similarly strong El Nino (all other things being controlled for) can we make any useful/meaningful comparison??

But, the same degree of control will also be needed, if we're ever going to untangle the AGW signal from all the noise... :lol:

In the mean time - the bickering will continue!!! :lol:

[Devonian]

There looks to be just as much cold as warm to me, and the cold spots look more extreme than the warm ones.

Does there? Ahh, then I see your problem :lol:

[paul tall]

Be very careful to have the evidence of what you suggest or imply - we can all (if provoked) sling mud.

I was asking you a question.

Do you work in the Climate Change Industry or not. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Does there? Ahh, then I see your problem

Or perhaps I can see your problem.

[Devonian]

I was asking you a question.

Asking SSS I thought?

Do you work in the Climate Change Industry or not. A simple yes or no will suffice.

There is no climate change industry. I'm not a meteorologist or climatologist by training or occupation. If I'm anything I'm a layman who knows he's such.

Or perhaps I can see your problem.

Imitation and all that...

[sunny starry skies]

Do you work for the Climate Change Industry?

nope.

Though I'm unsure what you would mean by a 'climate change industry'. Renewable energy?? Hydrocarbons [there's a climate change industry!]?

If a climate researcher wanted to make a large amount of money he/she would not work in an academic setting. He/she would go where the money is and work for big oil or some such, and make a mint. Funny they don't seem to do that isn't it? Maybe it's because they actually believe in their work and the supporting evidence for it?

I do work in a university (hence why I saw Bill Ruddiman's talk amongst many others), and I've met many a researcher directly into present/future climate change. I've also seen glaciers retreat substantially in the Arctic over the time I've visited it, so it's not just news on the TV for me.

While I do not deal with CO2, or present/future climate change, I do understand the mechanics of climate change, what constitutes climate (past, present or future), and what constitutes a change of it. Therefore when I see deluded people on here and elsewhere gullibly gobbling up misinformation from the internet and spouting it as fact to other credible people I tend to get a wee bit frustrated! Be skeptical, yes, but be skeptical and open-minded in equal measure, and don't just believe what you want to believe unless there is sound corroborating evidence.

sss

[paul tall]

There is no climate change industry.

There is.

However, we'll pretend there isn't and play by your rules. What shall we call it, the climate change "field"? Do you work in the climate change field? Yes or no will suffice.

I'm not a meteorologist or climatologist by training or occupation. If I'm anything I'm a layman who knows he's such.

Is that a "no" then?

Imitation and all that...

I think you are missing the point. I'm looking at the picture as it is, you are viewing through your warm bias. Except you think you see it as it is, and I'm viewing through cold bias.

[stewfox]

But, the anomalies haven't changed much - see below

And here they are, from here. Graphic adjusted to be equal area.

Though note this is raw data. Otoh, people some don't trust the checked and verified stuff so perhaps it's acceptable? Two really cold areas on the big continents, but not much else. Still warm over Africa, the med, south west Asia, NE Canada and much of the Pacific.

I see Iraq/Iran and Quebec warmer then average

The rest of the Northern Hempishere colder then average. South Africa and South America Central Africa and Australia largely colder then average

Whats you take on why Australia South Africa and South America (Chlie,Argentina etc) are colder then average

ps having had another look i do see one red dot in Africa

[paul tall]

Sorry Dev, it was the other bloke who I was asking if he worked in the climate change industry, not you! Mind you, all you warmists look alike to me.

But as an aside, maybe you should let the subject of the question answer in the future rather than jumping in for him, then there'll be less confusion. Thanks!

[Methuselah]

Come on, folks...Behave??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Devonian]

I see Iraq/Iran and Quebec warmer then average

The rest of the Northern Hempishere colder then average. South Africa and South America Central Africa and Australia largely colder then average

Whats you take on why Australia South Africa and South America (Chlie,Argentina etc) are colder then average

ps having had another look i do see one red dot in Africa

Yellows and oranges are above average as well. So, adding in the parts of Africa north of the equator which is pretty much all above average, the Med, SW Asia, SE Asia, most of NE Canada and that a fair wodge (given the Pacific is in strong EN condition as well).

It's all weather though...

Sorry Dev, it was the other bloke who I was asking if he worked in the climate change industry, not you! Mind you, all you warmists look alike to me.

But as an aside, maybe you should let the subject of the question answer in the future rather than jumping in for him, then there'll be less confusion. Thanks!

Party fair comment but I did just talk about the implications of your question...

Edited January 8, 2010 by Devonian

[sunny starry skies]

I see Iraq/Iran and Quebec warmer then average

The rest of the Northern Hempishere colder then average. South Africa and South America Central Africa and Australia largely colder then average

Whats you take on why Australia South Africa and South America (Chlie,Argentina etc) are colder then average

ps having had another look i do see one red dot in Africa

Lovely selective viewing glasses you have there - can I order a pair? Yellow's warmer than average too - so on the latest chart (see Dev's link) that takes in most of North Africa, the entire Med, Arabia, the 'stans/central Asia, parts of China, SE Asia, NE Canada, SW USA, Bering region, Japan. A pretty significant land area with above-average temperatures I think! How about we all wait for the mean temperatures to be calculated? And Aussie-land looks pretty average to me - slightly above and slightly below average temps over the landmass.

Oh, Paul Tall - "the other bloke" would be interested to know in what industry you work? Do you have any vested interests to declare? Just because you state "there is." doesn't make a statement true. Care to back it up? Or to discuss quantitavely any of the science? or will you dismiss it all as being part of the great conspiracy?

sss

[paul tall]

There are no implications in my question. I asked if he worked in the Climate Change (in my belief industry). That is a pretty straightforward question, and infers nothing.

[paul tall]

Lovely selective viewing glasses you have there - can I order a pair? Yellow's warmer than average too - so on the latest chart (see Dev's link) that takes in most of North Africa, the entire Med, Arabia, the 'stans/central Asia, parts of China, SE Asia, NE Canada, SW USA, Bering region, Japan. A pretty significant land area with above-average temperatures I think! How about we all wait for the mean temperatures to be calculated? And Aussie-land looks pretty average to me - slightly above and slightly below average temps over the landmass.

Oh, Paul Tall - "the other bloke" would be interested to know in what industry you work? Do you have any vested interests to declare? Just because you state "there is." doesn't make a statement true. Care to back it up? Or to discuss quantitavely any of the science? or will you dismiss it all as being part of the great conspiracy?

sss

I tried to answer this before but the forum bloody died on me and I'm not typing it all over again. No, I have no vested interests to declare.

I also never said it was all a great conspiracy, however it is obvious to me that climate change is now an industry (think of all the jobs that now depend on it, think of the taxes than can be levied against it)

I'm wary about future implications once politicians get involved. My wife is wanting to go out we'll have to continue this later.

[sunny starry skies]

Just had a quick play with Dev's equal-area projected figure of global temperature anomalies for last week. It's rough, and apologies for errors/significant inaccuracies, but I wanted to get an idea of whether the cold areas corresponded to the warm areas in extent, or if one was much larger than the other. I don't have the software to calculate polygon areas it seems, but a visual inspection will do...

The top figure outlines the warmer (red) and cooler (black) areas of the Northern Hemisphere, in an equal-area projection. Below are polygons only, with some rotated to make a visual comparison of area. I'm not sure what to do with the spare "warm polygons" ! On a more serious note, the colder areas, while more restricted in extent, appear to contain more of the darkest colour, and maximum anomaly (though it is hard to tell quantitatively. Therefore I'd conclude from a pretty un-scientific study that more land area of the globe is warmer-than-average at present, but the overall temperature anomaly may be closer to zero because of the intensity of some of the cold spots. And I'm not trying to be combative here, it certainly doesn't prove "climate" one way or the other as it's one week only!

sss

[paul tall]

I would actually agree with that, for what its worth, although I think it is possibly cooler than the global mean overall, but like you say very hard to tell.

[sunny starry skies]

I tried to answer this before but the forum bloody died on me and I'm not typing it all over again. No, I have no vested interests to declare.

I also never said it was all a great conspiracy, however it is obvious to me that climate change is now an industry (think of all the jobs that now depend on it, think of the taxes than can be levied against it)

I'm wary about future implications once politicians get involved. My wife is wanting to go out we'll have to continue this later.

I will agree with you in one way - people will try and make money out of the situation whatever the 'situation' is... but so long as you agree it's not the climate scientists! It's like the big hike in petrol prices during shortages, or the marketing of disinfectants to be "effective against swine flu". However, it will be necessary one way or another to reduce our CO2 / fossil fuel outputs, pretty much whether we like it or not either for climate reasons or for fuel shortage reasons. Look at the gas situations this week!

sss

[Thundery wintry showers]

I was asking you a question.

Do you work in the Climate Change Industry or not. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Or perhaps I can see your problem.

There is no climate change industry- just a load of climate scientists most of whom simply wish to learn and discover more about the complexities of our climate systems and the effects that anthropogenic forcings are likely to have on them over the coming century. There are also a load of politicians who would like to abuse the climate change issue in order to help grind political axes. But terrorism is also used as an excuse to grind political axes and yet that says nothing about the existence of terrorism- the same is true for AGW.

I will agree with you in one way - people will try and make money out of the situation whatever the 'situation' is... but so long as you agree it's not the climate scientists! It's like the big hike in petrol prices during shortages, or the marketing of disinfectants to be "effective against swine flu". However, it will be necessary one way or another to reduce our CO2 / fossil fuel outputs, pretty much whether we like it or not either for climate reasons or for fuel shortage reasons. Look at the gas situations this week!

sss

I often say, I wish the politicians, plus the scientists who get involved with the political side, would get more involved with the general "sustainability, pollution and cleaning up our act" angle rather than just focusing on AGW when it comes to policymaking- for your last two sentences are spot on.

The problem is that we're told by the politicians that AGW is certain to become a very serious problem, and while there's a large body of evidence to support that view, there's still a fair amount of uncertainty regarding feedbacks, and I think many people can see that we're being told that it is more certain than it really is and are switching off. On the other hand, these sustainability issues will become a very serious problem, and I think the general public, industries and politicans alike would be more inclined to take action if more emphasis was put on this.