General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

jethro · January 12, 2010

Here's an interesting item about the Sun, apologies for the source....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/07/suns-magnetic-index-reaches-unprecedent-low-only-zero-could-be-lower-in-a-month-when-sunspots-became-more-active/

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

jethro · January 12, 2010

Happy Birthday Mr. Tattum!

Methuselah · January 12, 2010

Happy Birthday Mr. Tattum!

Thanks, Jethro!

I think I'll have a day-off from this thread??? :yahoo:

BLAST FROM THE PAST · January 12, 2010

And therefore the highlighting of cold weather was anti AGW propaganda... simples?

No Dev, the highlighting of the -ve AO that was in place. No wonder folk give up on discussing anything with you. You'd swear blind snow was BLACK just to support AGW.....so pointless even debating anything with you on this thread...over and out.

BFTP

Edited January 12, 2010 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

Devonian · January 12, 2010

No Dev, the highlighting of the -ve AO that was in place. No wonder folk give up on discussing anything with you. You'd swear blind snow was BLACK just to support AGW.....so pointless even debating anything with you on this thread...over and out.

BFTP

I could say ditto... But, I'm not going to imply things untrue of your chanacter like you just have of me

I have NEVER EVER claimed AGW is proven or that the predictions are a certainty. Painting me as you have wont change that...I do, though, defend the science from what I see as unfair attack (nothing wrong with that?) and I really really dislike named scientists being personally attacked and will attack back on that (ditto?).

Now, please point out where I've denied the AO is a reality. The difference between you and I is thus I don't dismiss the likelyhood that predicted AGW happens. I can live with that - if the evidence changes so will my view.

Edit: Let me just clarify this: I think AGW is a reality - in that there is and will be amount of human caused global warming because adding ghg to the atmosphere will have a warming effect. I think this is a scientific given, though I know a few people disagree about the properties of ghg's. However, I don't know how much it is or will be, but I accept the prediction because they, to me, make scientific sense.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Devonian

Methuselah · January 12, 2010

Please behave folks??? :(

And, Fred? What's a one-off -ive (or +ive) AO got to do with global climate??

sunny starry skies · January 12, 2010

I've looked countless times (albeit not recently) and actual temperature graphs are nowhere to be found, all I've ever found are anomaly graphs. Does anyone have any graphs of actual temperatures for the last 30-40 years?

Hi Jethro,

You're right, it does seem to be the fashion to produce the material as anomaly graphs these days! But it's still a bit irrelevant, as you can generally find out what the baseline is, and the anomalies are just the deviation from the baseline, if you look at the original reference. Then you could produce the actual temperature graph by changing the numbers on your Y axis (the data points will of course stay in the same place in relation to each other). A bit of a faff, but you're not changing the data in doing this, contrary to some of the snide comments that will inevitably follow this post!

Anomalies are useful when you are looking at spatially variable data such as the global maps, where the 'base' figure is not constant across the map; however I don't think they are quite as useful for a linear timeseries of a single variable (e.g. global mean temp). It is important to know what the baseline is, so that you understand the significance of the anomaly (VP's point).

I would agree, in line with my earlier reply to VP, that actual temperature graphs would be useful to have - even though they show the same thing, then we don't have to worry about the moving baseline.

Blast, you can't have it both ways - that's what Dev is saying. You were insinuating that Dev, the BBC, myself, the Met Office and others were being biased in indicating that significant chunks of the globe were actually unusually warm, but this is in balance to the obvious observation that parts are unusually cold at the mo, making the odd news story over the past few weeks . Dev was hardly seeing things that weren't in the data, so your personal attack on him was unnecessary.

sss

BLAST FROM THE PAST · January 12, 2010

Blast, you can't have it both ways - that's what Dev is saying. You were insinuating that Dev, the BBC, myself, the Met Office and others were being biased in indicating that significant chunks of the globe were actually unusually warm, but this is in balance to the obvious observation that parts are unusually cold at the mo, making the odd news story over the past few weeks . Dev was hardly seeing things that weren't in the data, so your personal attack on him was unnecessary.

sss

You too haven't read what I initially stated, the news report that 'highlighted' AND ONLY HIGHLIGHTED Greece and Turkey region as being mild/warm was due to AGW at work. I said it is usual for the set up [warm Greece/Turkey] under a negative AO. The report highlighted NO OTHER REGION [had they highlighted other larger warm anomalies the report may have been better] and pinned it on AGW and that is the point THE REPORT ONLY mentioned this area and that is the crux of my post and argument...poor reporting, misleading.

No, looking at Dev's responses even from the first one he was flippant and inflammatory saying that they should have coloured the warm anomalies blue to make me happy...yep nice response yes?Like I say it ain't worth even trying to discuss anything with him on this thread as it is a road to nowhere.

BFTP

Edited January 12, 2010 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

Devonian · January 12, 2010

You too haven't read what I initially stated, the news report that 'highlighted' AND ONLY HIGHLIGHTED Greece and Turkey region as being mild/warm was due to AGW at work. I said it is usual for the set up [warm Greece/Turkey] under a negative AO. The report highlighted NO OTHER REGION [had they highlighted other larger warm anomalies the report may have been better] and pinned it on AGW and that is the point THE REPORT ONLY mentioned this area and that is the crux of my post and argument...poor reporting, misleading.

This report? Watch it (as the reporter trudges through the snow) and decide.

No, looking at Dev's responses even from the first one he was flippant and inflammatory saying that they should have coloured the warm anomalies blue to make me happy...yep nice response yes?Like I say it ain't worth even trying to discuss anything with him on this thread as it is a road to nowhere.
BFTP

So far in this thread we've had these comments: "global warming barmpots", "beardy-halfwit", "Uni' of East Anglia - AKA - "HQ Biggest Fib Ever "", a post form Rocky Litchfield alleging financial and scientific corruption on a massive scale - and that's the first few pages.... Not one of those post did you complain about... Yet I make a jokey reply (with a big grin - it was a grin) and all of a sudden I'm the offender? You're kidding me, right?

jethro · January 12, 2010

If anyone has any objection to any post, please press the report button, that's what it's there for.

This kind of tit for tat discussion is a route to nowhere, for everyone - it's little wonder that this area attracts so few new posters and has lost so many good, knowledgeable ones.

Enough already!

BLAST FROM THE PAST · January 12, 2010

This report? Watch it (as the reporter trudges through the snow) and decide.
So far in this thread we've had these comments: "global warming barmpots", "beardy-halfwit", "Uni' of East Anglia - AKA - "HQ Biggest Fib Ever "", a post form Rocky Litchfield alleging financial and scientific corruption on a massive scale - and that's the first few pages.... Not one of those post did you complain about... Yet I make a jokey reply (with a big grin - it was a grin) and all of a sudden I'm the offender? You're kidding me, right?

Don't agree with or support them posts either.

BFTP

VillagePlank · January 12, 2010

... when you are looking at spatially variable data ...

Ah yes - and there's a whole host of interesting mathematics associated with that! First stop, the transverse mercator projection .... And all you climate-science fans - don't pretend you've never heard of it ....

OK perhaps I should start a new thread ....

Edited January 12, 2010 by VillagePlank

Devonian · January 13, 2010

Ah yes - and there's a whole host of interesting mathematics associated with that! First stop, the transverse mercator projection .... :lol: And all you climate-science fans - don't pretend you've never heard of it .... :lol:

Will try to, have done so already so don't have to pretend

Edited January 13, 2010 by Devonian

sunny starry skies · January 13, 2010

You too haven't read what I initially stated, the news report that 'highlighted' AND ONLY HIGHLIGHTED Greece and Turkey region as being mild/warm was due to AGW at work. I said it is usual for the set up [warm Greece/Turkey] under a negative AO. The report highlighted NO OTHER REGION [had they highlighted other larger warm anomalies the report may have been better] and pinned it on AGW and that is the point THE REPORT ONLY mentioned this area and that is the crux of my post and argument...poor reporting, misleading.

No, looking at Dev's responses even from the first one he was flippant and inflammatory saying that they should have coloured the warm anomalies blue to make me happy...yep nice response yes?Like I say it ain't worth even trying to discuss anything with him on this thread as it is a road to nowhere.

BFTP

Sorry mods, my last post on what is a bit of a dead horse. Blast, I've just watched the report twice once again in a search for that AGW bias BFTP is talking about. It is an important issue as biased reporting on both sides is what clouds the debate these days.

The report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8447262.stm

Firstly the areas highlighted on the graphic in the news report. These are David Shukhman's actual words in describing the graphic: "This Met Office map shows today's temperatures around the Northern Hemisphere. There's cold air over us, but warmer air elsewhere. Further south and east, there's an unusually warm band of air there. Then, further east, and over China, another very cold pocket."

Now, BFTP you're trying to tell me that the report highlighted NO OTHER REGION (your caps) than Greece and Turkey being warm. What about him saying "cold air over us" and "further east, and over China, another very cold pocket." In fact, he mentions more cold areas than warm areas!! So "the crux of your argument" required you to be conveniently hard of hearing for most of his descriptions.

You see why I'm a little perturbed by your apparently seeing (or not) what you want to see?

Now, you said he "pinned it on AGW":

The report starts with a piece on Britain's cold. Moves on to comments from a skeptical scientist Dr Benny Peiser - [actually a social anthropologist and historian of ancient sport BTW (see below)] who fronts a skeptical climate foundation. Then makes the obvious comment that it's weather, not climate [i think that's is the nub of the argument, and one that many viewers may not have previously understood]. Then the graphic, which highlights more cold areas than warm (see above). Then Rob Varley from the Met Office reiterating the fact that the climate has warmed over the last 100 years (absolutely true), and stating that the science is clear on it getting warmer in the future, fair enough comment given the scientific consensus. Then a gardner from Kew on how the seasons have changed, and how he believes that UK climate warming is real, from observation. To a background of that natty view of frozen Britain from space, the report concludes: "The icy conditions are set to continue, as will questions about our climate changing."

Now, that seems quite balanced. There's no part of the report that says "this cold is because of AGW." Or "this cold is despite AGW." Based on observations and facts, the report could happily have ignored Benny Peizer, who merely trotted out the old fallacy suggesting that dodgy seasonal forecasts = dodgy climate modelling, and could certainly have finished with something like "our climate is warming, but we're still going to get some cold weather like this occasionally". It didn't, on both counts, making it a pretty balanced piece of reporting. One skeptic, one Met Office man, and one gardner who (not surprisingly) has observed warming climate so sides with the Met Office man. Some reports on the cold weather, and the difference between weather and climate. Given the observational evidence, I'm not sure who or what else they could have dug up to say the world (or Britain) is not getting warmer and hasn't over the last 40 years?

I could argue that the report was biased the other way, as it should not have included the skeptic as he wasn't qualified to comment on climate, nor did he state any verifiable facts beyond that the Met's seasonal forecasts are garbage. The report should probably have had a stronger conclusion than "as will questions about our climate changing" IMHO. But then you'd say I'm biased...

Dr Benny Peiser, from Wiki:

"Dr Benny Josef Peiser, born 1957 in Haifa, is a social anthropologist and a senior lecturer in the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences at Liverpool's John Moores University.^[1] He was educated in West Germany and studied political science, English studies and sports science in Frankfurt^[2] and previously was an historian of ancient sport at the University of Frankfurt.^[3] Peiser is the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, editor of CCNet ^[4], co-editor of Energy and Environment ^[5], a scientific advisor to the Lifeboat Foundation ^[6] and a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society ^[1].

[Oddly enough an editor of "Energy and Environment", the worst of the denier "journals". Frankly, not even qualified for that job!]

Benny Peiser is no climate scientist, yet he clearly feels qualified enough to comment on it. How many viewers of the report would have realised that his PhD was not in climate science or even anything remotely close? This is the kind of thing that I get really angry about - because he has misled the public as to his credentials by appearing as Dr Benny in the report. He clearly also feels qualified enough to sit on the editorial board of a journal in which he appears to have no academic right to do so (not sure where social anthropology and history of sport sit in relation to Energy or Environment)...

sss

Methuselah · January 13, 2010

Thanks for that, sss...You ask what Sports History has got to do with Climate??? Isn't it obvious? The Ancient Greeks did their Olympic sports naked! What more proof (that GW is a myth) could one ever need!!! :wub:

Gray-Wolf · January 13, 2010

What more proof (that GW is a myth) could one ever need!!!

noggin · January 16, 2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/14/swine-flu-elusive-as-wmd

An interesting point of view here, regarding "overhyping" of stuff, by government, scientists, those with vested interests and the media. It is written with particular regard to swine flu, but as the writer says, it can apply to so many other issues, too, including other diseases such as SARS and WMD and global warming.

I, for one, am sure that global warming has been as "overhyped" as many other things, including those mentioned above.

NB....and, no, I am not suggesting that we carry on polluting and plundering our precious planet...... :lol:

Gray-Wolf · January 16, 2010

http://www.guardian....-elusive-as-wmd

An interesting point of view here, regarding "over hyping" of stuff, by government, scientists, those with vested interests and the media. It is written with particular regard to swine flu....

I understand what you mean about H1N1, I know it's not over (by a long chalk) and I know it was a successful exercise in the making,and distribution, of the 'new' responsive type of vaccine but it does nothing for the public perception of things.

Again the media will have a Beano further undermining the public's confidence in any 'warnings' that the powers that be put out (the boy who cried Gray-Wolf???) but it does not mean that (as in the story) the danger is not out there and present.

As with AGW, had the planet not been trying (unsuccessfully) to go into it's 30yrs cooling over the past 10 years then we would have already seen the scary stuff (enough to convince the staunchest skeptic) that we will now be seeing and we would (by now) all be fully behind efforts to mitigate our plight.

As it is (as in the story) no one is now listening and the danger is real and upon us.

At least no one can say they weren't told (whatever excuses they make for themselves internally and in public....)

EDIT: just read it! Ha,ha,ha.....very funny, his name is Bugs Bunny!

H5N1 is the one we were ,and still are, watching.

H1N1 is the covenient vehicle to bring it to a readily transmissible version.

Checked out the co-infections in H5N1 'hotspots' recently? thought not.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

jethro · January 16, 2010

As with AGW, had the planet not been trying (unsuccessfully) to go into it's 30yrs cooling over the past 10 years

How? What mechanisms have been trying to cool us for the last 10 years?

**Thundery wintry showers** · January 16, 2010

The NAO has been less strongly positive in the 2000s than in the 1990s and ENSO moved towards a more neutral state as opposed to the strong bias towards El Nino that we saw during the 1980s and 1990s, and solar activity declined.

I don't think those three factors on their own should produce much cooling, but they should produce some cooling, and the fact that temperatures have instead remained constant to within a few hundreths of a degree suggests that something else has been offsetting those forcings. To my mind everything so far has remained pretty consistent with AGW contributing around 0.1-0.2C of warming per decade, but the events of the last decade have cast serious doubt on any suggestions that it's any more than that as yet.

jethro · January 16, 2010

Solar activity declined?

**Thundery wintry showers** · January 16, 2010

I thought that was the general consensus- we've had a slight decline in solar activity, including a recent minimum, and the question marks are over whether the effects of this on temperature are immediate or have a lag?

jethro · January 16, 2010

Now there's a whole can of worms - TSI, length of cycle, degree of lag, magnetic field, Solar wind.

What are your thoughts about the logarithmic effect of CO2 and seeing the largest impacts at the beginning of the industrial revolution?

sunny starry skies · January 17, 2010

Now there's a whole can of worms - TSI, length of cycle, degree of lag, magnetic field, Solar wind.

What are your thoughts about the logarithmic effect of CO2 and seeing the largest impacts at the beginning of the industrial revolution?

TSI - trivial, and no demonstrated mechanism to amplify to climate. Anyway, variations do not match climate trends over the observed period.

Length of cycle - thoroughly debunked, years ago - Friis-Christensen and Lassen either accidentally or deliberately messed up the last few data points on their graph in 1991, and the correlation collapses further over the 18 years since the paper.

degree of lag - a favourite delaying tactic. Well, the oceans are warming, so they may be soaking up some warming to be released to the atmosphere at a leater date. But why is that not the CO2-induced warming, for which we have a demonstrated mechanism?

magnetic field, solar wind - no demonstrated mechanism again. If through cosmic rays, the suggested mechanism is cloud cover, therefore the response should be immediate, but the correlation is very weak. Very interesting though, and one that should be demonstrable given the exceptional solar minimum and recent maxima.

We're back to the fact that there's no demonstrable evidence that that Sun's variations are dominating global climate.

A rebuttal of one of the more recent comedy attempts to link Sun and climate here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Svensmark-Friis-Christensen-rebut-Lockwood-solar-paper.html

This is really quite funny and pathetic, actually:

The key point is that in their attempt to link the Sun and climate, published as a 'report' at the Danish National Space Center detrended the temperature data with: ENSO, NAO, volcanic aerosols "and also a linear trend (0.14 § 0.4 K/Decade)." Then tried to say that cosmic rays are responsible for climate!!! They actually did pretty much what most attribution studies have done, but in reverse. They find the influence of ENSO, volcanic, NAO, and another linear trend, and come up with the solar component. But that's not new science. The only difference is that we know what the cause of their 0.14C/decade trend is

A wealth of studies exist to show that the Sun's influence on climate change is slight, coming at the very most third behind GHGs and ENSO, some are linked in the skepticalscience rebuttal.

You can find relationships between the Southern Oscillation index, but it's merely explaining some of the wobbles (e.g. 1998 max, 2000s levelling off) on the overall upward trend. A recent paper tried to say that ENSO explained the trends, but the paper was debunked as it didn't realise that it's statistical methods detrended the data at the start, leaving the ENSO-induced wobbles that dominated the signal!

The paper is McLean, DeFreitas and Carter 2009, one rebuttal of it with a neat explanation is here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/

Sign In

General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Our picks

Picked By

Picked By

Picked By

Picked By

Latest Weather News