General Climate Change

[Gray-Wolf]

I just think that you are manufacturing 'a disaster scenario to fit' GW

This September is not the final D-Day for 'our world'. It is only D-Day in terms of the apocalyptic themes that exist within the mind inside your own head.

Surely it's not too long a wait to get me off your back NSSC???

I take it you have not really bothered to look at the ice this winter/spring and are satisfied we are in 'recovery' up north? What if you see the last of the perennial slipping away into the Atlantic;

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?A101101035

as we see on this mornings MODIS image (better view later on from TERRA so I'll update it then). If you zoom in you can see from the way the ice is 'pulling away' from the slab behind that this is already a 'train' on it's way south.

Or Lincoln sea and Davis straight perhaps?

Do they figure in importance as you understand the Arctic sea ice system?

For 2 years (since the 07' collapse) I've maintained that we have seen no recovery of the Arctic polar ice, just the opposite in fact, and when 'volume figures' and 'ice type' maps came out there we were, further decline. Last year I had Dr B's team giving us a first hand view of both the state of collapse and the reasons why Sat's had been fooled into wrongly reporting perennial extent.

This is the 3rd summer after the collapse and the ice is so messed from such a poor winters rebuild (the ice within the Arctic circle that is and not the 'cold weather ice' from outside) that those last remnant chunks of perennial are already heading south via the Arctic's exits.

Nobody wishes for an ice free Arctic and all it brings to the globe in terms of disrupted currents and weather patterns but we must face facts (sooner or later).

[VillagePlank]

Surely it's not too long a wait to get me off your back NSSC???

I take it you have not really bothered to look at the ice this winter/spring and are satisfied we are in 'recovery' up north? What if you see the last of the perennial slipping away into the Atlantic;

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?A101101035

as we see on this mornings MODIS image (better view later on from TERRA so I'll update it then). If you zoom in you can see from the way the ice is 'pulling away' from the slab behind that this is already a 'train' on it's way south.

Or Lincoln sea and Davis straight perhaps?

Do they figure in importance as you understand the Arctic sea ice system?

For 2 years (since the 07' collapse) I've maintained that we have seen no recovery of the Arctic polar ice, just the opposite in fact, and when 'volume figures' and 'ice type' maps came out there we were, further decline. Last year I had Dr B's team giving us a first hand view of both the state of collapse and the reasons why Sat's had been fooled into wrongly reporting perennial extent.

This is the 3rd summer after the collapse and the ice is so messed from such a poor winters rebuild (the ice within the Arctic circle that is and not the 'cold weather ice' from outside) that those last remnant chunks of perennial are already heading south via the Arctic's exits.

Nobody wishes for an ice free Arctic and all it brings to the globe in terms of disrupted currents and weather patterns but we must face facts (sooner or later).

Do you read anything else that might challenge your point of view?

[Devonian]

It strikes me that you'll dismiss anything other than CO2 being responsible

Read my post more carefully 'other anthro effects'...

, why don't you apply your probing questions at climate scientist.

I have, several times...

After all your willing to dismiss any scientific work, that may show AGW not to be the big bad wolf it's made out to be. I'm not saying it isn't Dev, but you, GW. and a few others will swallow any cock and bull story, if that story suits your ideologies!

Like what? I mean me, since you say that of me, what 'cock and bull story' have I (me!) swallowed? You should read my posts more carefully!

Have i said the world faces armageddon? Well? Have I said we face 6C warming? I'm a 2-4C chap - think about that...

I thought science was all about keeping an open mind, sadly this is no longer the case. HOW SAD!!

Ditto.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Devonian

[Yorkshiresnows]

Which means it's just coincidence that temperatures have risen just at the time the concentration of a significant ghg (CO2) have? Or, infact that CO2 isn't the ghg we, science, understand it to be? Some claim that, someone should go write it up

How big are the changes, I seem to remember we're talking mm's of movement to orbits million of Km big? I must say to argue that the planets (mostly Jupiter a mere ~780million Km from the Sun and (is it?) ~.001% of it's mass) and how they intereact with the simply vastly bigger Sun, have more effect on our climate than a rapid increase in CO2 (and other anthro effect) here on Earth is something I find very hard to accept indeed!

Did he accurately forecast these things? How accurately? How much wiggle room?

Hi Devonian,

Download the paper and take a look for yourself (freely available for download).

If you go back through the thread you will see that I have already provided various links and references.

It is argued, that Co2 whilst being a greenhouse gas, is weak. It is accepted science by all that to induce the kind of warming effect seen over the last century and indeed going forward by Co2 requires a potent feedback mechanism and relies on effects on water vapour. The feedback mechanisms are poorly understood, not clarified and controversial. Increased cloud formation can have either a warming or cooling effect depending upon solar absorption at the surface of the Earth and also where any increase in cloud formation occurs.

Estimates of the feeback factor that are quoted in the book 'CHILL' by peter taylor (there are references to back this up within the book, but I do not have this at hand) state this to be in the region of 300%.

However, why did we have a relatively warm 1920-1940, a cold 1950 to 1980 and then warm 1980 to 2000 if CO2 is the main driver?

There are clearly other cycles of action at work. Then go back further to the medievil warm period or even before that to the Roman conquest of Britain. Grapes and wine were produced in Northumberland ..... you can't do that now !

Then we have continuing evidence that besides the known 11 year sun-spot cycles there are deeper more profound cycles of solar activity that can lead to Dalton (1810) or Maunder minima (LIA), that have at least some correlation with Northern hemisphere climate. Throw in the oceanic cycles (a big El Nino or La Nina can affect world climate on their own), themselves more than likley influenced in some degree by solar activity and we have a complicated mix that is not adequately dealt with by the IPCC summary reports.

Theodor Landscheidt was no 'nut-case' and was himself involved with the IPCC and a myriad of other well known scientists. Google search his publications.

Anyway, Co2 may yet be the global driver and perhaps we are all doomed .......... or perhaps not !!

Y.S

[Gray-Wolf]

Do you read anything else that might challenge your point of view?

I read everything that plops down in front of me but , like you , I am only human and I do believe that what I have been seeing is occurring so when I see something that supports this (as I'm generally 'on my own' in my view of the Arctic whilst on here) it does impact me and further reassure me in my understandings (I'm sure you get this if something pops up to support your work on the LI?) .

I honestly do hope I'm wrong V.P. and, if so proven, I know a part of me will be wounded (that human bit again) but I'd rather that than be accused of 'satisfaction' when more folk see the same reality I witness unfolding before their eyes.

We have had the final phase of the collapse of the old perennial pack occurring before all our eyes over the past 8 years ,some years it has been more visible than others and some years it has remained quite hidden but it went on. All I see left are the shards of the old Arctic waiting to be swept up and carted away ( floated /melted away really via Fram and West Greenland).

Anyone looking at the clear views of ice in these areas will instantly see the 'old' , rounded floes now pulling away from the light skim that cemented them, together this year. Folk will also see that , unlike previous years, there are no big chunks that could act as 'blocks' to ice movement in either of the exits. Just single year mush and well weather perennial floes.

It is not as if this is just a small piece of the changes (or am I also mistaken as to the role the Arctic plays in the climate system?) once we drop below 1 million sq km then we have a 'seasonal pack' and a 'new' open ocean in our world.

[Admiral_Bobski]

...

We here a lot over on the LI thread of Hysteresis. This is how the planet used to keep things in check. Push for too long (with increasing pressure) and surely you overcome this reluctance towards change and a break point is reached.

...

I think you haven't quite got the idea of hysteresis, GW. Hysteresis is not something that can be "overcome" - it's not a "reluctance towards change".

hysteresis - noun

1. the lag in response exhibited by a body reacting to changes in the forces...affecting it.

2. the phenomenon exhibited by a system...in which the reaction of the system to changes is dependent upon its past reactions to change.

CB

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Surely it's not too long a wait to get me off your back NSSC???

I take it you have not really bothered to look at the ice this winter/spring and are satisfied we are in 'recovery' up north? What if you see the last of the perennial slipping away into the Atlantic;

http://rapidfire.sci....php?A101101035

as we see on this mornings MODIS image (better view later on from TERRA so I'll update it then). If you zoom in you can see from the way the ice is 'pulling away' from the slab behind that this is already a 'train' on it's way south.

Or Lincoln sea and Davis straight perhaps?

Do they figure in importance as you understand the Arctic sea ice system?

For 2 years (since the 07' collapse) I've maintained that we have seen no recovery of the Arctic polar ice, just the opposite in fact, and when 'volume figures' and 'ice type' maps came out there we were, further decline. Last year I had Dr B's team giving us a first hand view of both the state of collapse and the reasons why Sat's had been fooled into wrongly reporting perennial extent.

This is the 3rd summer after the collapse and the ice is so messed from such a poor winters rebuild (the ice within the Arctic circle that is and not the 'cold weather ice' from outside) that those last remnant chunks of perennial are already heading south via the Arctic's exits.

Nobody wishes for an ice free Arctic and all it brings to the globe in terms of disrupted currents and weather patterns but we must face facts (sooner or later).

You are not 'on my back' GW or at least I am not sure what you might mean by that. Also I have never expressed any 'satisfaction' about anything, including the ice conundrum. Just consistently followed a line that the likes of YS articulates so well on this pages (simply trying to think beyond the realms of just AGW'ism) and better than I could do and have attempted to do so many times on these threads previously.

I read a while back parts of the IPCC report(s). As much as was possible and that could be understood by me anyway. Mostly the parts pertinent to feedbacks and assumptions based on the existence of positive feedbacks that AGW depends upon to produce the progressive future warming projections - anywhere between 1/2 and 6C. I have seen assumptions in terms of the projections. I have subsequently made my own balanced judgement(s) based on being open minded and not being sold by an uncertain theory and just simply believing what they say without question.

However, I have seen AGW proponents on these pages grip these assumptions and either not bother, or simply dismiss (or both) a look at any other reasoning behind the ice waning and climate variation other than automatically putting it down to AGW supposition regarding runaway man made forces at work and decrying anyone else who doesn't do the same as them as being deluded or in 'denial'. And being warned of paying the price for such apparent denial.

It is hard to be in denial of something that hasn't even happened yet and is based on uncertain theory and supposition regarding possible positive warmth amplyfying feedbacks that have conflicting evidence in terms of their existence or not. So even if the ice has a bad season, come September, it still doesn't vindicate AGW as the culprit. As I have said before many times, AGW proponents can't have their cake and eat it by playing the short term card regarding the arrival of immediate cooling as a pre-requisite to rule out AGW whilst playing the long game in terms of defending AGW by stating that it is a long terms phenomenon in terms of the effect of these assumed feedbacks occuring over multi decades - such as the IPCC projections are spread.

Edited April 20, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Gray-Wolf]

I think you haven't quite got the idea of hysteresis, GW. Hysteresis is not something that can be "overcome" - it's not a "reluctance towards change".

hysteresis - noun

1. the lag in response exhibited by a body reacting to changes in the forces...affecting it.

2. the phenomenon exhibited by a system...in which the reaction of the system to changes is dependent upon its past reactions to change.

CB

Must be my OE and my interpretation C-Bob !!!

" the lagging behind of an effect when it's cause varies in amount etc.,esp. of magnetic induction behind the magnetising force...."

So I took it to mean the slow take up of change because mother N. had checks and balances in place to limit/offset cyclical forcings.

It's almost like Hooke's law (the way I see things) with 'extension of a spring' replaced with 'Hysterisis of the climate system' and 'elastic limit' being replaced by 'step change to a new point of balence'.....

EDIT:

Sorry NSSC I missed your post!

It does not need to be AGW just a point beyond which the Arctic is not able to recover it's previous levels of ice cover/thickness because of the scale of ice losses and the changes this allows across the Arctic Ocean.

If I was to drop any mention of 'cause' and merely voice my concerns about where we are at in the Arctic would that prove more palatable?

At the the end of the day "apportioning the blame" didn't solve any crisis....just made some folk feel even worse and some vindicated.

If we are entering a new global climate system then it would be useful to recognise the change even if we do not see the cause. Seeing as we have no records of the Arctic Basin acting this way in all the thousands of years humans have walked the globe we need to ask where this 'change' takes us.

The experts in the field are ever more confident that it leads us to a seasonal pack and the Arctic Ocean loosing it's novel setup that allowed the 'old perennial 'to arise.

Once this durable ice is out of the Arctic we are left with ice that readily melts out (not that bit's and bats will not remain in various places each year) and a lot of dark water where once was reflective white over summer.

It's not how we got here it's the 'here' that concerns me (though I will continue to mull over the 'how' you understand)

Edited April 20, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

Must be my OE and my interpretation C-Bob !!!

" the lagging behind of an effect when it's cause varies in amount etc.,esp. of magnetic induction behind the magnetising force...."

So I took it to mean the slow take up of change because mother N. had checks and balances in place to limit/offset cyclical forcings.

It's almost like Hooke's law (the way I see things) with 'extension of a spring' replaced with 'Hysterisis of the climate system' and 'elastic limit' being replaced by 'step change to a new point of balence'.....

The OED definition is a little simplistic (though similar to definition 1 that I gave above), but in all fairness the phenomenon of hysteresis has been discussed at great length on the relevant threads and so there should be no need to fall back on dictionary definitions anyway.

You are focusing a bit too much on "Mother Nature's checks and balances" - the fact is that hysteresis is a phenomenon which the world would exhibit, in some form, even if it were just a ball of rock with no atmosphere.

The comparison with Hooke's law is not really valid, since hooke's law says nothing of lags which are dependent upon the prior state of the system, so your analogy isn't really appropriate.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry to differ C-Bob but my 'Lovelokian' view of the climate system, and it's response to 'forcing' ,is pretty well served by the analogy.

It is only 'my' way of seeing things though!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sorry to differ C-Bob but my 'Lovelokian' view of the climate system, and it's response to 'forcing' ,is pretty well served by the analogy.

It is only 'my' way of seeing things though!

That's all well and good, GW, but it's not hysteresis, and to describe hysteresis as such is something of a misrepresentation of the LI.

CB

[VillagePlank]

The world is warming, and the ice is melting.

Yes. ALL the evidence points to that. To regurgitate all the evidence everytime a sentence is written is, frankly tiresome. Yes, there might well be catastrophic consequences as a result. Yes, mankind might indeed be in all sorts of problems directly attributable to a warming world.

This is NOT the same as AGW. AGW describes the reasoning behind the warming. AGW is a consensus and doesn't consist of proof - except by proof by magnitude of agreement.

This NOT the same as the GhG effect. The science behind CO2 is pretty much settled; there's not too much to be argued about - except the magnitude of it's effect: what point on the curve we're at, what mitigating factors exist in this Gaia.

All three are different. All three have different levels of certainty.

Edited April 21, 2010 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

That's all well and good, GW, but it's not hysteresis, and to describe hysteresis as such is something of a misrepresentation of the LI.

It certainly isn't hysteresis - since, rather like the valuation of inventory, you need the entire history (or a large proportion of it) to be at hand.

However, Hooke's law looks to me to be mathematically similar to the LI

Hooke's Law:

F=-kx

Leaky Integrator:

dx/dt=-Ax+C

Interesting ... (if you look at the papers I sent you CB there was a selection on dampening and it's effects)

[Solar Cycles]

For all the hot air that warmers tend to spout regarding a warming world, why is then that the data from ARGO Buoys are showing cooling Oceans?

[Admiral_Bobski]

It certainly isn't hysteresis - since, rather like the valuation of inventory, you need the entire history (or a large proportion of it) to be at hand.

However, Hooke's law looks to me to be mathematically similar to the LI

Hooke's Law:

F=-kx

Leaky Integrator:

dx/dt=-Ax+C

Interesting ... (if you look at the papers I sent you CB there was a selection on dampening and it's effects)

Hi VP

It did take me a while to respond to GW's post because I wanted to double-check my understanding of Hooke's Law and I found that there is a superficial similarity - at first I thought there might be something in it, but despite the similar construction it is what those terms relate to which renders them different (and the "+C" term, of course!).

Whereas the "k" term in Hooke's law is a constant, the "A" term in the LI is not (since "A", the "rate of leak", is dependent upon the other variables). If we look at the general solution to the LI we get:

x(t) = ke^-At+C/A,

in which "k" is also a constant. By comparing the two constant-containing expressions we now have two very different equations.

Having said that, my knowledge of maths is genuinely not as sharp as yours, so perhaps it is me who is misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) things. Could you clarify my assessment above please? (I'm starting to doubt myself!)

Cheers,

CB

EDIT - of course, having said that perhaps what I have just written is nothing more than mathematical semantics:

If the "F" in Hooke's law is equal to "x(t)", and the "x" in Hooke's law is equal to "e^-At" then we're still left with just one outstanding variable, "C/A" (except of course the "kx" has now changed sign).

Or, to put it mathematically,

if F = x(t)

and x = e^-At

and k is a constant

then,

F = kx + (C/A)

Hmmm...

EDIT! Bits in bold above I have just put in coz I left 'em out by mistake - oopsie!!

Edited April 21, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[VillagePlank]

.. snip ..

Looks OK to me, CB. I was referring to form, not to substance, such that we can say that an equation is linear if it falls into a specific form. Typing out loud as it were ... (but don't forget a missing constant might still be there; it might refer to 1 or 0, perhaps)

Edited April 21, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

For all the hot air that warmers tend to spout regarding a warming world, why is then that the data from ARGO Buoys are showing cooling Oceans?

And March's Global temps for the oceans was?

[Solar Cycles]

And March's Global temps for the oceans was?

Down to a decaying el nino my dear friend!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Looks OK to me, CB. I was referring to form, not to substance, such that we can say that an equation is linear if it falls into a specific form. Typing out loud as it were ... (but don't forget a missing constant might still be there; it might refer to 1 or 0, perhaps)

Thanks VP

Of course I've just noticed that in my edited substitution of Hooke's law at the end I have left out the constant - such are the perils of doing maths before noon! I think I need more coffee and cigarettes!

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Down to a decaying el nino my dear friend!

LOL!

I tend to think when we look to the deeper ocean regions we may find that a lot of our 'missing heat' was/has gone into warming those regions.

The volume of our oceans is immense and so I wouldn't expect any big temp differences but ,like a Tsunami in deep water, don't let such a lack of scale delude you! Once the temps do their full circuit and re-appear the 'little extra' will convert into a lot as we get a warming of the 'cold upwelling' and more energy free to warm oceans rather than moderate 'cold'.

[VillagePlank]

LOL!

I tend to think when we look to the deeper ocean regions we may find that a lot of our 'missing heat' was/has gone into warming those regions.

The volume of our oceans is immense and so I wouldn't expect any big temp differences but ,like a Tsunami in deep water, don't let such a lack of scale delude you! Once the temps do their full circuit and re-appear the 'little extra' will convert into a lot as we get a warming of the 'cold upwelling' and more energy free to warm oceans rather than moderate 'cold'.

I don't know if you realise it, but you are describing a possible mechanism for the leaky integrator.

[Gray-Wolf]

I really do admire your tenacious attitude towards your task V.P. ,My brain is far too 'Grasshopper' to commit so completely to such a task yet I do await your conclusions.

I hope you really are seeing 'common ground' in my wild thinking to your ordered studies V.P. .

I'm really not as 'closed' as C-B would paint me....just lost and hopeless really.... if you , and your 'logic', can bring me 'hope' then I'm all for it.

I hate my view of 'where we're at'....it stinks, it gives me no room for manoeuvre (and the 'science doesn't help! , if anything it just drives me deeper into my 'now').

Should you have hit upon something that negates mans inputs and makes them truly 'null and void' then I will be content ( not for 'me', you understand, but for my Lad an' Lass and their potential futures).

I don't want to 'look foreword' to their future's from where I find myself.

Better a 'reality' that puts things back in 'Mother N's' hands and absolves us from any of it all.

What I'm trying to say V.P. is give me another way forewords. Give me hope in you and your bucket. Tell me (with science) that our little push is as nothing compared to the 'Natural' workings and that we all have nothing to fear.

If not, thanks for your time ,money and effort.....we ALL appreciate it.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

Should you have hit upon something that negates mans inputs and makes them truly 'null and void' then I will be content ( not for 'me', you understand, but for my Lad an' Lass and their potential futures). I don't want to 'look foreword' to their future's from where I find myself.

Unfortunately, whilst I would be delighted to able to say that should this stuff actually turn out to have something concrete to it then we can live in the Garden of Eden at least for the next upteen generations - that would be lying through my back teeth.

The LI? - it is one for the catastrophists, and not the rationalists. The LI doesn't get rid of the warming problem; it reassigns some of the cause of the warming.

Warming we still have, and warming we will continue to have. If one wanted to tie up socio-politics with it, then it requires mankind to not reduce CO₂, but to eliminate our production of it virtually overnight since if it's the sun wot's doing the warming, that's the only thing we can do to mitigate it (slightly)

The LI is not some fairytale castle built for those wishing to hide from a catastrophic future. It is the opposite - AGW presupposes that mankind is to blame, and if we sort ourselves out then we sort the AGW out. What's the case if the sun's to blame?

We can't sort the sun out, can we?

(the corollary is, of course, that the LI hypothesis is the only natural-based hypothesis that requires much much much more intervention in our current way of life. Ironic, huh?)

Edited April 26, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

Of course, if the LI turns out to be correct and man's input is small (perhaps even insignificant) then it begs the question, "is there any point in reducing CO2?"

I'm not advocating a Business As Usual approach, I hasten to add - I'm simply saying that if all of our mitigation will have next to no effect on temperatures then would our funding not be better spent on adaptation rather than mitigation?

I have said before, one of the main reasons the human race is still here today is because we are masters of adaptation - more so than any other creature on the planet, because we are capable of altering our (local) environment. Is it not best to play to our strengths?

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Whatever the outcome C-Bob!

There is no way we will ever reduce our CO2 outputs until we have an energy source ,in place, that doesn't produce it in quantities.

The worlds 'energy demands' will not reduce as more and more of the developing world catches up with /demands the energy spent on folk in the developed world.

With population exploding this 'demand' will not reduce.

So whether we caused the warming or not warming is occuring and maybe we'd better just skip the 'blame game' and look to our future in terms of mitigating the impacts of any warming on our growing poulation.