General Climate Change

[jethro]

I know Y.S. , it's that 'extra mile' that we have today taking us above and beyond what we see from past 'cyclical warming' that troubles me too!

I'm with 'mainstream science' as to what it is that has 'made the difference' to tip the balence and bring us to the point we find ourselves today.

In the past 'normal service' has been resumed within a generation or so but ,here we are, 3 generations on and STILL warming????

The generally accepted figure for a generation in terms of determining a timeline is a period of 30 years, we have not been warming for 90 years. In terms of generations, we have been warming for the last one, cooling for the generation before and warming for the generation prior to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg

[Gray-Wolf]

Global warming is real .... no dispute from me ...... my belief is that the warming is natural, can be explained by natural cycles, and we are likely to cool over the next few years.

Y.S

I've never had a problem with natural cycles (for the moment) running the show over the last 150yrs but our influence is there and measurable in terms of lost Forrest's, air pollution, extinctions and ,now, climate change via our messing.

The Arctic is the place where warming is accelerated (magnified?) and so our impacts there are to (look at the ozone issue over the south pole) and this time around the 'warming' there has had an extra shove from us. Is this 'shove' leading us to an ice free Arctic and all that brings with it?

Should we loose our Arctic Ice over the next 7 years then all the models will be 'wrong' as they do not cater for such rapid change over such a short period.

I have no issue with the main thrust of the models though and feel we ought to be looking at plans to mitigate the impacts of the changes even if these are only contingency plans.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

Should we loose our Arctic Ice over the next 7 years then all the models will be 'wrong' as the do not cater for such rapid change over such a short period.

By default, climate modelling is always wrong, since, generally, assumptions are modelled by extrapolation of the known facts. There will be, for instance, some form of cloud parameter which will be a function of known factors (such as pressure systems) and likelihood (risk) of cloud cover, and what it means - that is not the same as creating a weather model that predicts clouds from first principles.

That is not to say that climate models are without use. The construction of such models certainly furthers our understanding, and almost certainly highlights the areas needed for further research.

Edited April 29, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

By default, climate modelling is always wrong, since, generally, assumptions are modelled by extrapolation of the known facts. There will be, for instance, some form of cloud parameter which will be a function of known factors (such as pressure systems) and likelihood (risk) of cloud cover, and what it means - that is not the same as creating a weather model that predicts clouds from first principles.

That is not to say that climate models are without use. The construction of such models certainly furthers our understanding, and almost certainly highlights the areas needed for further research.

I fully agree V.P. ,I cannot understand why folk should expect them to be identical to the outcomes. Most models I know are 'representations' of things, any more and they would BE the 'thing' being modelled (apart from my Airfix Spitfires you understand?).

To say they are 'useless' because they are not perfect is plain daft in my opinion. Surely we learn from finding 'Why' they fail to model and this knowledge then goes into improving the next one? (almost like fractals with the detail becoming ever more refined but always a distance from reality???).

[Yorkshiresnows]

I fully agree V.P. ,I cannot understand why folk should expect them to be identical to the outcomes. Most models I know are 'representations' of things, any more and they would BE the 'thing' being modelled (apart from my Airfix Spitfires you understand?).

To say they are 'useless' because they are not perfect is plain daft in my opinion. Surely we learn from finding 'Why' they fail to model and this knowledge then goes into improving the next one? (almost like fractals with the detail becoming ever more refined but always a distance from reality???).

Yes, but I think we are missing the point. If the modals show runaway warming, but actual data shows that this is not happening for whatever the reason, it means that the fundamentals that the modals run off ...... are wrong.

I have posted before on the fact that these computer modals have to date taken little to no account of ocean cycles or cloud cover / solar impacts and rely on speculative feedback effects of Co2 forcing in relation to cloud formation and its positive feedback effects(for which their is plenty of conflicting peer reviewed literature).

Well so far, today (see earlier video links and Met office web site), this is plainly showing its hand.

The argument regarding .... let the modals have a go and then tweak them to see how to correct mistakes is okay to a point, but what to tweak and correct if you are not going to question the basic premise they are based on.

I guess that whatever, if we clean up our world and change to a low carbon energy world, this is a noble pursuit and I'm all for it, I just think we are possibly seeing science narrow gauging on a single point, wrongly believing that this is the only cause of the recent warming, when there is more and more evidence every day, that seriously questions this assumption.

Y.S

Edited April 29, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Yes, but I think we are missing the point. If the modals show runaway warming, but actual data shows that this is not happening for whatever the reason, it means that the fundamentals that the modals run off ...... are wrong.

I have posted before on the fact that these computer modals have to date taken little to no account of ocean cycles or cloud cover / solar impacts and rely on speculative feedback effects of Co2 forcing in relation to cloud formation and its positive feedback effects(for which their is plenty of conflicting peer reviewed literature).

Well so far, today (see earlier video links and Met office web site), this is plainly showing its hand.

The argument regarding .... let the modals have a go and then tweak them to see how to correct mistakes is okay to a point, but what to tweak and correct if you are not going to question the basic premise they are based on.

I guess that whatever, if we clean up our world and change to a low carbon energy world, this is a noble pursuit and I'm all for it, I just think we are possibly seeing science narrow gauging on a single point, wrongly believing that this is the only cause of the recent warming, when there is more and more evidence every day, that seriously questions this assumption.

Y.S

Exactly!

That is an excellent post.

[VillagePlank]

Yes, but I think we are missing the point. If the modals show runaway warming, but actual data shows that this is not happening for whatever the reason, it means that the fundamentals that the modals run off ...... are wrong.

No, if the output is not correct (and I am certain that most of the time it is 'incorrect' (although we shall see that that word is a faulty use of the English language), since that is why a range of values is given) it is a non-sequitor: that is, it does not follow that the mathematics in the model is wrong. It is an inherent flaw in measuring most natural systems

If I may, let's go back to Lorentz and his climate model - possibly one of the very first to attempt to model the climate of a hypothetical world. He was using a Royal Honeybell computer, which was renowed for being unreliable, and one day it crashed. His software used umpteen decimal places, but to save time, he only typed in the printed out data, for the starting point, to 6 decimal places (I think - I can't remember the exact stuff, and all this is from memory)

He found that whilst he could get a good match to the model output after a few iterations after a few more iterations the output varied wildly. He gave a speech to a symposium, I think in New York, entitled the 'Butterfly Effect' And chaos theory was born.

Anyway the point of all this is that the data might only be ever so slightly out, and the model output will differ. This is a known side-effect of non-linear modelling - indeed it's why we have ensembles for weather forecasting. So that we can have a range of values. One output run might show runaway warming, and a lot of people like to hook into that idea, but the ensemble range is much more modest. Perhaps, even, at the other end of the scale only a very minimal (and not dangerous) level of warming.

We don't hook into weather ensembles and pick one run, which fails to verify, and then say, necessarily that the model is therefore wrong. Do we?

I think it is better, rather like Turin espoused, to think of it like this: there is no difference between data and a program - they are both data.

Edited April 29, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.nature.co...ature09051.html

I don't see how the above 'observations' contradict the general ideas/models of the decay of Arctic ice and the positive feedbacks we were modelled to expect.

As with any model it is flawed from the get go because of our lack of understanding but how do we learn if not by trying? To say "you can't trust models" puts us in a position to do what?

Any fool can criticise after the fact (hindsight has 20/20 vision) but , Like V.P. shows us, we CAN all have a go ourselves by respecting the 'data' we have accrued and using our nous.

V.P. is conversant in maths but I'm sure a well reasoned idea (with our 'working out' highlighted by our sources) is better than nowt'.

My own attempts to understand the Arctic are obviously not as 'extreme' a stance as some would wish them to be (as paper after paper, data after data, model after model) seems to confirm.

Those who find me 'extreme ' in my Arctic 'views' never reciprocate with data/papers/Articles to the contrary (almost as if they don't exist in the same kind of numbers?).

Edited April 29, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Yorkshiresnows]

Exactly!

That is an excellent post.

Thank you.

Y.S

[Yorkshiresnows]

http://www.nature.co...ature09051.html

I don't see how the above 'observations' contradict the general ideas/models of the decay of Arctic ice and the positive feedbacks we were modelled to expect.

As with any model it is flawed from the get go because of our lack of understanding but how do we learn if not by trying? To say "you can't trust models" puts us in a position to do what?

Any fool can criticise after the fact (hindsight has 20/20 vision) but , Like V.P. shows us, we CAN all have a go ourselves by respecting the 'data' we have accrued and using our nous.

V.P. is conversant in maths but I'm sure a well reasoned idea (with our 'working out' highlighted by our sources) is better than nowt'.

My own attempts to understand the Arctic are obviously not as 'extreme' a stance as some would wish them to be (as paper after paper, data after data, model after model) seems to confirm.

Those who find me 'extreme ' in my Arctic 'views' never reciprocate with data/papers/Articles to the contrary (almost as if they don't exist in the same kind of numbers?).

Hi GW

Please be careful and do not misquote me (if the above was intended for my benefit). We all know arctic temperatures do fluctuate depending on the ENSO conditions .... amongst other factors.

In my previous posts I was commenting on Global temperatures, but that there is at least anectdotal evidence to suggest that there was less ice than now in the arctic region during the medievil warm period and also the Roman period.

Regarding the modalling, then I would disagree with your and VP assessments. There are many examples of poor modalling e.g. 1983, The UK governments modalling of radioactive waste dumping in the NorthAtlantic and modal predictions of dispersion and sedimentation ..... which proved wholly inaccurate (Taylor, 1985; Taylor and Jackson 1991a; Taylor, 1993). There is also a general review of the issue of models and their limitations, these have been summarised in chapters in 'The International Politics of the Environment (Oxford University Seminars, published by Clarendon Press, 1993).

Currently I wonder if we what we are seeing is not just resistance to changing an old paradigm of prediction but also resistance to new data that contradicts the models that underlie the paradigm.

There is a good example that should alert us to the processes that operate whenever scientific institutions have made key commitments to a model that underpins wide-ranging political and economic interests:

For Example: The first data indicating a loss of ozone over the Antarctic were generated by US satellite monitors. It was so unexpected (though there had been plenty of warnings in Environmental Science) that the data were 'not-believed' and assumed to be instrument error. It was the less sophisticated British Antarctic programme's ground monitoring that confirmed the losses.

This illustrates the propensity of the monitoring community to narrow their focus according to the expectations of the model (which may translate into inadequate or absent monitoring in areas that could be important) and to disbelieve data that contradict the expectation.

Further to this and something that could well feed into the model debate is the following taken from teh below reference:

The current consensus of a rise from 280 ppm to 380 ppm CO2 since the eighteenth century relies upon

a) regarding past analytical techniques as unreliable and hence subject to much exclusion of data that does not meet the expectation, and

modern analytical techniques developed since 1950.

There is therefore the potential to miss longer term cycles of change (Beck, 2007 "180 years of atmospheric gas analysis by chemical methods', Energy and Environment, 18, 2.

Couldn't be what we are seeing now could it?

Y.S

Edited April 29, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[Gray-Wolf]

Currently I wonder if we what we are seeing is not just resistance to changing an old paradigm of prediction but also resistance to new data that contradicts the models that underlie the paradigm.

There is a good example that should alert us to the processes that operate whenever scientific institutions have made key commitments to a model that underpins wide-ranging political and economic interests:

For Example: The first data indicating a loss of ozone over the Antarctic were generated by US satellite monitors. It was so unexpected (though there had been plenty of warnings in Environmental Science) that the data were 'not-believed' and assumed to be instrument error. It was the less sophisticated British Antarctic programme's ground monitoring that confirmed the losses.

This illustrates the propensity of the monitoring community to narrow their focus according to the expectations of the model (which may translate into inadequate or absent monitoring in areas that could be important) and to disbelieve data that contradict the expectation.

Y.S

I would agree that folk are taken by surprise whilst 'looking' for something else. The loss of the perennial through the late 80's and 90's did not get picked up until after 07' when the sub-Logs and buoy movement data was examined , and reinterpreted again.

As far as the ice is concerned there would be plenty of evidence from the past 12,500yrs were this type/scale of ice loss were a repeat. I have never been shown any such evidence but have seen plenty of evidence to support the continuous ice cover of the Pole since the decline of the last ice age.

Yes, summer ice has always varied in 'extent' but the central core of perennial maintained throughout the period. The central core now no longer exists.

We all need to grasp that 'a little extra' can cause great changes, something to do with 'Camels backs' and 'straws' methinks.

When you see the Arctic ice gone will you then start to question 'why' these things are occurring that haven't occurred before (since before the onset of the latest glacial period) and ,if so, might you just concede that the major difference between all of that period and 'now' is mans influence across the environment?

[VillagePlank]

Regarding the modalling, then I would disagree with your and VP assessments. There are many examples of poor modalling e.g. 1983, The UK governments modalling of radioactive waste dumping in the NorthAtlantic and modal predictions of dispersion and sedimentation ..... which proved wholly inaccurate (Taylor, 1985; Taylor and Jackson 1991a; Taylor, 1993). There is also a general review of the issue of models and their limitations, these have been summarised in chapters in 'The International Politics of the Environment (Oxford University Seminars, published by Clarendon Press, 1993).

This is not a matter of opinion. Agreeing or disagreeing is well beside the point.

Of course, there are plenty of models where the internal mathematics has been shown to be faulty. But, as far as I can ascertain - and I concede that I really haven't researched your claims that heavily - you have only shown that the models output is different from your own opinion.

And, if I may be so bold, trust me - I am not married to 'old' ways of doing things.

Finally - your claims about modelling are still non-sequitors. You've said nothing to change that.

Edited April 29, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.theatlant...y-stones/39594/

Seems it's not just the extent ,and repeats, of UK flooding that have insurers twitchy. The cost of health care in the U.S. is funded by insurance comp's and they are growing concerned about the impacts our warming will bring.

Lymes Disease (tick bourne infection) already cost's the U.S. 2.5 billion $ and the areas the ticks can live in is increasing as we warm (doubling in the next 70yrs??).

EDIT:

http://en.rian.ru/sc.../158688146.html

Russian claiming more 'proof' of global warming to be found in the Arctic Ocean's contents.

And it seems that big business (who exist to make money) take our warming very seriously indeed!!!

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-04-16-betting-on-change/P1

Silly them eh? biggest fraud in all of time and those silly money makers fall for it!!!

Edited April 29, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

If it's not too Granpa.......EEEPA!, EEEEPA!

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/ClimateIndicators_full.pdf

[Yorkshiresnows]

If it's not too Granpa.......EEEPA!, EEEEPA!

http://www.epa.gov/c...cators_full.pdf

I take it that you have not looked at the posted video blog of global temperatures from the Accu-weather site, or the MET-office global temperature predictions versus observed ?

No time today.

Doom, gloom and more doom !!

Y.S

[Gray-Wolf]

I take it that you have not looked at the posted video blog of global temperatures from the Accu-weather site, or the MET-office global temperature predictions versus observed ?

No time today.

Doom, gloom and more doom !!

Y.S

Found this but no video;

http://www.accuweath...e-satellite.asp

Found this from accuweather but not any video.

http://www.accuweath...ntually-s-1.asp

and this;

http://www.accuweath...m-warming-o.asp

and this;

http://www.accuweath...s-acceler-1.asp

and this;

http://www.accuweath...d-to-caus-1.asp

EDIT: and I found this over on MetO but no temp predictions against measured temps;

but no video????

Edited April 30, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Yorkshiresnows]

Found this but no video;

http://www.accuweath...e-satellite.asp

Found this from accuweather but not any video.

http://www.accuweath...ntually-s-1.asp

and this;

http://www.accuweath...m-warming-o.asp

and this;

http://www.accuweath...s-acceler-1.asp

and this;

http://www.accuweath...d-to-caus-1.asp

EDIT: and I found this over on MetO but no temp predictions against measured temps;

but no video????

Give up .... believe what you will.

Like I said, you have obviously not seen the latest on ACCU-WEATHER.

For somebody who claims to be on the pulse of what's happening you seem somewhat .... out of date .... either that or its selective access !!!

Good night

Y.S

p.s I apologise as the previous link and all attempts by myself to post it seem to end up with a locked screen .....

You need to go to Accuweather UK - then Jo laminate floori - then see his posted link on world temperatures versus predicted (video link).

Edited April 30, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[Yorkshiresnows]

Give up .... believe what you will.

Like I said, you have obviously not seen the latest on ACCU-WEATHER.

For somebody who claims to be on the pulse of what's happening you seem somewhat .... out of date .... either that or its selective access !!!

Good night

Y.S

p.s I apologise as the previous link and all attempts by myself to post it seem to end up with a locked screen .....

You need to go to Accuweather UK - then Jo laminate floori - then see his posted link on world temperatures versus predicted (video link).

There is also this:

Pretty poor correlation between Co2 and temps don't you think !

Here's another link: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_5GH_IPCC_GHG.htm

Cheers Y.S

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Has something happened to the plot through March?

Folk had been telling me it was the 'highest' ever and it looks high but not 'the highest'????

[VillagePlank]

There is also this:

Pretty poor correlation between Co2 and temps don't you think !

Here's another link: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_5GH_IPCC_GHG.htm

Cheers Y.S

YS,

I think it's the sun wot did it. Really, I do.

However, you don't need to look at this chart, even closely, to realise it's rubbish. For sure, the figures are spot on - they are an accurate (I presume) representation of the data that each organisation has produced.

However, the HadCRU data for instance is an anomaly against an average of 30 years of data. I'll say it again. 30 years of data. One more time 30 years of data - what is the anomaly of CO2 against it's 30 year average? Not it's actual value?

And, also, so why only go back to 1998? (some 12 years ago)

[Solar Cycles]

YS,

I think it's the sun wot did it. Really, I do.

However, you don't need to look at this chart, even closely, to realise it's rubbish. For sure, the figures are spot on - they are an accurate (I presume) representation of the data that each organisation has produced.

However, the HadCRU data for instance is an anomaly against an average of 30 years of data. I'll say it again. 30 years of data. One more time 30 years of data - what is the anomaly of CO2 against it's 30 year average? Not it's actual value?

And, also, so why only go back to 1998? (some 12 years ago)

Exactly VP, we seem to base all our assumptions on 30 years of data. What can we really learn from such a short time scale?

For me too, the correlation between solar activity and global temps, is simply impossible to dismiss out of hand.

Then we have the oceans acting as one big giant radiator. Again simply impossible to dismiss out of hand.

But when it comes CO2, 30 years of data is enough to convince us all, that the nasty pollutant Mr CO2, is the real cause of warming.

[Gray-Wolf]

That's a bit naughty S.C.

We use the relationship between temp /CO2 that stretches back through geological time. We may not have the level of detail that we'd like right now but we can see that when CO2 is 'high' we have a warmer world and when CO2 is depleted we have a colder world. We have increased our GHG's at a superfast rate but I'm sure that ,over time, temps will adjust to the new atmospheric levels of GHG's (as they have always done in the past).

As you point out there are many 'natural' factors that can negate/augment the changes over the short term but ,as in the past, over time these 'swings and roundabouts' will get evened out.

Our problems are surely spotting and mitigating the changes as they occur (staying 1 step ahead of the changes) and ,if our past is anything to go by, making a quick buck as we go (check out China's plans for exploiting an ice free Arctic....or Russias claims to the reserves there....)

[Solar Cycles]

That's a bit naughty S.C.

We use the relationship between temp /CO2 that stretches back through geological time. We may not have the level of detail that we'd like right now but we can see that when CO2 is 'high' we have a warmer world and when CO2 is depleted we have a colder world. We have increased our GHG's at a superfast rate but I'm sure that ,over time, temps will adjust to the new atmospheric levels of GHG's (as they have always done in the past).

As you point out there are many 'natural' factors that can negate/augment the changes over the short term but ,as in the past, over time these 'swings and roundabouts' will get evened out.

Our problems are surely spotting and mitigating the changes as they occur (staying 1 step ahead of the changes) and ,if our past is anything to go by, making a quick buck as we go (check out China's plans for exploiting an ice free Arctic....or Russias claims to the reserves there....)

But GW we still don't really know if excess CO2 followed or proceeded rising temps with the limited data we have.

The only thing we can be certain of, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is that more likely to cause rising temps than water vapour.

[VillagePlank]

Exactly VP, we seem to base all our assumptions on 30 years of data. What can we really learn from such a short time scale?

I wasn't really criticising the use of the 30 years average. For sure, there are certainly criticisms that can be levelled, such that we should, probably, have three forms of average published: perhaps 100 yr, 30 yr, and 10 yr - and all plotted on the same graph, so it is much easier to put stuff into context - one might like to think of it in a similar way to technical analysis in the finance markets (FOREX, in particular)

What I was criticising YS for, was to mix and match, without being explicit, "real"-time data, with anomaly data against the average. Whilst, for sure, one might say that the CO2 data is comparable, I rather think it isn't - since we can produce, say, the 1970-2000 CO2 average, and then plot the CO2 anomaly against the HadCRU anomaly.

I haven't done this since all my data is on a USB stick at work (and won't be returning until Tuesday) - but, since we have that data, why not plot like for like? To not do so, and, further, to put claims of doubt even though one might not have done what one might say is 'formal' groundwork (ie pulling a chart off the web from somewhere) seems a little bit, err, erroneous in my view.

Pedantry it is, for sure - but we have to be careful when we make a point such as 'the correlation doesn't look too strong' that the underlying process, and the underlying data is well picked, well chosen, and well presented. And, even more certain, is that to criticise the current consensus, the methodology must be perfect, and everything must be absolutely transparent.

Edited May 2, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

We use the relationship between temp /CO2 that stretches back through geological time. We may not have the level of detail that we'd like right now but we can see that when CO2 is 'high' we have a warmer world and when CO2 is depleted we have a colder world. We have increased our GHG's at a superfast rate but I'm sure that ,over time, temps will adjust to the new atmospheric levels of GHG's (as they have always done in the past).

There's that same old argument again! The argument which I have pointed out to be flawed time and time again. There are huge leaps of logic in your assertion which are not substantiated by any research of which I am aware.

Please stop using this argument - it's bobbins!

CB