General Climate Change

[Gray-Wolf]

Well some good news from our warming world!

A land ownership dispute between India and Bangladesh has been solved by AGW.

The island under dispute has now disappeared under the waters of the Bay of Bengal sat. images confirm.............

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cif-green/2010/mar/24/india-bangladesh-sea-levels

[jethro]

See, every cloud has a silver lining.

[laserguy]

A land ownership dispute between India and Bangladesh has been solved by AGW.

No it hasn't,whatever anyone may tell you otherwise. You're waving the AGW banner again and trying it on,GW! The thing was only there for ten minutes,geologically speaking,and it's disappearance amounts to nothing more than shifting sands - literally.

http://en.wikipedia....Talpatti_Island

[Yorkshiresnows]

Last one for the day - I think it's looking increasingly likely we can quite safely put the "world hasn't warmed since 1998" rubbish to bed. As I've shown many times (with reference to Tamino's excellent graphs, see his 'riddle-me-this' post), the world has continued to warm exactly as it was predicted to do throughout the 2000s, with ENSO-induced variations about the mean and the decrease in solar activity making the noise in the signal not peak above 1998 (if you use HADCRU). If you use GISS which adds the Arctic, 2005 was unsurprisingly hotter than 1998. 2009 ended and 2010 has begun with a bang as far as high global temperatures are concerned, and exactly as you would expect in a noisy rising trend, a new high global temperature is imminent, when the cyclically-varying factors (ENSO, solar) trend in the right direction. This time, the El Nino isn't even particularly remarkable, solar activity is still pretty low, and yet 1998's record is under threat. Only a dramatic La Nina or a big volcanic eruption can save the day for the "no warming since 1998" loonies...

http://climateprogre...satellite-data/

Of course, by 2011 there'll be a "no warming since 2010" crowd too...

1998: close to solar maximum, record El Nino

2010: close to solar minimum, moderate El Nino, yet matching and beating 1998. Looks like some other forcing factor has changed... can it possibly be the AGW effect we have already observed to be occurring?

sss

Edit: CB, I await your explanations. I absolutely understand that you should always be alive to alternative explanations. But solar activity has a hard time explaining the observed energy balance changes in longwave radiation, as well as the stratospheric effect, hence why GHGs are an easy winner at present.

Agree that 2010 has started warm. But, this is no big suprise with a moderate strength El Nino and cold polar air displaced to mid lattitudes over the winter. Warm Arctic and winter and summer heat in the Southern hemisphere = Warm start.

However, El Nino is collapsing and the -PDO conditions set to continue and strengthen a cooling signal over the coming few years. La Nina could well be stablished by the end of the summer. I believe that summer world temps will be down on average.

Don't agree with your assessment of continuing global warming since 1998. Satellite data suggest otherwise. I am also as time goes on becoming more and more cynical of CO2 as a main driver. Cloud cover and solar absorbance being more of an issue in my mind. My thoughts on this have been heavily influenced by recent reading of the book 'CHILL' by Peter Taylor that ploughs through a lot of the data that goes into the IPPC reports as also the various disagreements within the variosu working groups.

Check it out for yourself. Anyway, guess that time will tell.

Y.S

[Devonian]

Agree that 2010 has started warm. But, this is no big suprise with a moderate strength El Nino and cold polar air displaced to mid lattitudes over the winter. Warm Arctic and winter and summer heat in the Southern hemisphere = Warm start.

However, El Nino is collapsing and the -PDO conditions set to continue and strengthen a cooling signal over the coming few years. La Nina could well be stablished by the end of the summer. I believe that summer world temps will be down on average.

Don't agree with your assessment of continuing global warming since 1998. Satellite data suggest otherwise. I am also as time goes on becoming more and more cynical of CO2 as a main driver. Cloud cover and solar absorbance being more of an issue in my mind. My thoughts on this have been heavily influenced by recent reading of the book 'CHILL' by Peter Taylor that ploughs through a lot of the data that goes into the IPPC reports as also the various disagreements within the variosu working groups.

Check it out for yourself. Anyway, guess that time will tell.

Y.S

We get the idea about the book - are you Peter Taylor

Cloud cover is a response, CO2 change is a forcing.

[kold weather]

YS, I made a post to a similar extent however it does need to be noted that there is a lag with global temps, esp with strong El Nino events and it takes some time for the global temps to drop away, so may not be till the Autumn at this rate till we see any real cooling if La Nina does develop.

Also as I said its not just the Arctic, the Atlantic pattern has been super condusive for warming, esp thanks to the record breaking -ve AO and the tropical Atlantic is record breakingly above average, the combo of the warm cycle plus the complete lack of subtropical high pressure cell has been quite amazing.

I'd say odds are we will be a top 3 year in terms of warmth, though the earth will be cooling through the year relative, as you'd expect when you come out of a STRONG El nino and having a very impressive Arctic/Atlantic warmth combo...I suspect however 2011-2013 will be the start of a protracted slight decline in global temps, though it may take a little longer to really kick in depending on how long the warm cycle of the Atlantic holds for, but as soon as it flips we should see lower temps...not as cold as the 60s and 70s but relative to the last 12 years cooler then what we've seen.

As I said before, the real test for AGW is coming once we flip both the Pacific and the Atlantic cold for a *prolonged* period at the same time during the next solar min as we move into the next decade. IF we still come in well above average, then game, set and match to AGW....

[Yorkshiresnows]

We get the idea about the book - are you Peter Taylor

Cloud cover is a response, CO2 change is a forcing.

If you check out the data you will that your statement is not 100% correct (I'm at work right now, but will come back to this point later).

Co2 lags behind temperature change and hence I cannot see it being a major forcing factor (please note that I have not dismissed it compeltely). Given the IPCC data for the increase in heat energy (Earth absorption, given in irradiance /metre square) for the estimated increase in CO2 since the major industrialisation compared to measured impacts of even small fluctuations in cloud cover (as per satellite data), you can see how little forcing power Co2 seems to exert (again I'll come back with published references to back this up).

There is ever increasing evidence that Solar output, and Ocean cycles impact our climate, particularly during phase alignments ..... much as was seen towards the end of the last century. Is this coincidence ......... I don't think so, but hey, nothing is certain.

Y.S

YS, I made a post to a similar extent however it does need to be noted that there is a lag with global temps, esp with strong El Nino events and it takes some time for the global temps to drop away, so may not be till the Autumn at this rate till we see any real cooling if La Nina does develop.

Also as I said its not just the Arctic, the Atlantic pattern has been super condusive for warming, esp thanks to the record breaking -ve AO and the tropical Atlantic is record breakingly above average, the combo of the warm cycle plus the complete lack of subtropical high pressure cell has been quite amazing.

I'd say odds are we will be a top 3 year in terms of warmth, though the earth will be cooling through the year relative, as you'd expect when you come out of a STRONG El nino and having a very impressive Arctic/Atlantic warmth combo...I suspect however 2011-2013 will be the start of a protracted slight decline in global temps, though it may take a little longer to really kick in depending on how long the warm cycle of the Atlantic holds for, but as soon as it flips we should see lower temps...not as cold as the 60s and 70s but relative to the last 12 years cooler then what we've seen.

As I said before, the real test for AGW is coming once we flip both the Pacific and the Atlantic cold for a *prolonged* period at the same time during the next solar min as we move into the next decade. IF we still come in well above average, then game, set and match to AGW....

Yes, you make good points .... agree, perhaps I'm being too bullish about global temps this year.

Y.S

[Essan]

Co2 lags behind temperature change and hence I cannot see it being a major forcing factor

When CO2 rises in response to temp it acts as a possitive feedback. When, as now, CO2 rises ahead of temp is acts as a primary forcing. It's not an either or situation :lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you Essan, I've been trying to put that point across for years!!!!

It's a very rare global event when CO2 leads the chase and doesn't follow on behind as a response to the warming. It would appear that this then leads to a 'response' in the carbon cycle (as if it was just the normal warming due to planetary positioning) and we find much more atmospheric CO2 and much higher Global temps.

I've given up on the 'old school' denier with their CO2 lags temp blag.....

We should be in a position (in space and time) where the carbon cycle is starting to wind down from this interglacial but we have interrupted the 'normal ' run of things and are tricking Mother N. into thinking we are approaching a heating optimum............and she's been fooled and is starting to respond.

Humankind will of course continue on with the polluting for a while yet so we will face a 'double whammy' of positive feedbacks (as usual as temps rise) and our own little additions (to support the global lifestyle).

None so blind..........

[Yorkshiresnows]

Thank you Essan, I've been trying to put that point across for years!!!!

It's a very rare global event when CO2 leads the chase and doesn't follow on behind as a response to the warming. It would appear that this then leads to a 'response' in the carbon cycle (as if it was just the normal warming due to planetary positioning) and we find much more atmospheric CO2 and much higher Global temps.

I've given up on the 'old school' denier with their CO2 lags temp blag.....

We should be in a position (in space and time) where the carbon cycle is starting to wind down from this interglacial but we have interrupted the 'normal ' run of things and are tricking Mother N. into thinking we are approaching a heating optimum............and she's been fooled and is starting to respond.

Humankind will of course continue on with the polluting for a while yet so we will face a 'double whammy' of positive feedbacks (as usual as temps rise) and our own little additions (to support the global lifestyle).

None so blind..........

I have to laugh.

Okay, lets look at the facts regarding CO2 and how this is supposed to impact world temps:

In relation to water vapour, co2 is one of a number of naturally occurring greenhouse gases. However, co2 is not the main greenhouse gas (though of course it is the main anthropogenic addition and hence all arguments relating to recent temp changes).

The main greenhouse gas is invisible water vapour and the greenhouse 'effect' that results is also mediated by condensed water vapour (clouds). Here's a bit from my favourite book !

All textbooks quote the natural or pre-industrial level of CO2 to be 280 parts per million (approx 1 molecule in very 3000 molecules of air). This has risen to 380 -400 parts per million under the influence of fossil fuel burning etc. and it is generally agreed that natural CO2 levels have not risen appreciably (though there are certain issues with this as there is evidence to suggest a higher natural content of CO2 in the 19th century).

It is perhaps lesswell known that all modellers (those influencing the computer models etc) are in agreement that on its own, even a doubling of the CO2 concentration would have a minimal effect on the overall heat balance of the planet. All the models assume an amplyfication factor in relation to carbon's interplay with water vapour.

This amplifying factor is estimated in IPCC models at 300% ........ but is entirely theoretical !!! There is no evidence for it outside the models.

It is based on the assumption that any warming caused by co2 also increases the capacity of the atmosphere to hold more water vapour, which is a potent greenhouse gas and hence a positive feedback is created.

The IPCC summary reports and all references to this basic science do not refer to it as controversial, but controversy has surrounded this from the very outset and withi the IPCC body of experts. For example Professor Lindzen, professor of meterology at MIT (and member of IPCC) questioned this assumption (he sat on a pannel of experts to review the IPCC'S 3rd assessment report in 2001) and consistently argued that additional water vapour could eadily turn to cloud and hence reverse the supposed feedback effect (data is published 1991).

To emphasise the importance of this issue: if the computed mid-range future projected warming expected from a doubling of co2 (to say 560 parts per million) were a dangerous 2.5 degrees C, this expectation would have to be reduced to 0.8 degrees C and become of less serious importance.

So, just a taste of what I have been looking at these past few months, you would be very suprised at the amount of 'consensus' there is within the IPCC on many factors associated with 'man-influenced' global warming.

Also I see that the UK MET have released the latest global temp anomaly charts going back over the past 50 years etc. It shows again that since 1998 there has been no overall warming of the planet with actutal temperatures departing quite widely from those predicted from computer models. Also see that Joe B has seen this and has a video discussing it. He also thinks that we will be in La Nina (strong one at that) by the end of the summer.

Also very odd that the recent satellite images show massive warmth over both polar regions and yet overall world sea ice is around average ...... as Joe B has already commented, this does not add up ..... could it be that man manipulation of world temps prior to the satellite age to allow temp deviations from'normal' are a bit misleading ?

Y.S

[VillagePlank]

Frankly, YS, I find this sort of reply as a little bit disingenuous.

Primarily, I find that this is the case because you mix a book, which I've never read, and am highly unlikely to read, with peer-reviewed research. It becomes that case, then, that your posts are dismissed out of hand, unfortunately.

I am no fan of AGW, nor it's catastrophic conclusions, but, at least, I don't 'have to laugh' about it. People have different areas of expertise, and, I know, I have been more than critical of some on here; but you need to assert a theorem, and then you need to build it up - preferably from first principles.

Asserting that it is the case is not enough - at least, assert what you want, but the provisos must be there.

When CO2 rises in response to temp it acts as a possitive feedback.

No it doesn't - since all the data and evidence shows that the two are constantly working together.

As a real in your kitchen experiment, boil your kettle and observe what comes out of the spout when stuff is heated. Then start with the Maxwell's equations. Then continue with Beer's law. After all that, you might like to have a quick peek at a bit of quantum mechanics - and the cherry on the cake is to link it all together with the Stefan Boltzmann law. And when you ready for the big bit - read the laws of thermodynamics.

Then describe the positive feedback to me in a real atmosphere with real (non uniform) gaseous mixtures.

Alternatively, I've set out a grossly simple mathematical model on GW's thread, and you could contribute to it if you want.

Thank you Essan, I've been trying to put that point across for years!!!!

<snip>

None so blind..........

Yep, cheers, GW. :lol:

Edited March 26, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Yorkshiresnows]

Frankly, YS, I find this sort of reply as a little bit disingenuous.

Primarily, I find that this is the case because you mix a book, which I've never read, and am highly unlikely to read, with peer-reviewed research. It becomes that case, then, that your posts are dismissed out of hand, unfortunately.

I am no fan of AGW, nor it's catastrophic conclusions, but, at least, I don't 'have to laugh' about it. People have different areas of expertise, and, I know, I have been more than critical of some on here; but you need to assert a theorem, and then you need to build it up - preferably from first principles.

Asserting that it is the case is not enough - at least, assert what you want, but the provisos must be there.

No it doesn't - since all the data and evidence shows that the two are constantly working together.

As a real in your kitchen experiment, boil your kettle and observe what comes out of the spout when stuff is heated. Then start with the Maxwell's equations. Then continue with Beer's law. After all that, you might like to have a quick peek at a bit of quantum mechanics - and the cherry on the cake is to link it all together with the Stefan Boltzmann law. And when you ready for the big bit - read the laws of thermodynamics.

Then describe the positive feedback to me in a real atmosphere with real (non uniform) gaseous mixtures.

Alternatively, I've set out a grossly simple mathematical model on GW's thread, and you could contribute to it if you want.

Yep, cheers, GW.

Sorry, but I do not understand your reply. This is a discussion thread right? The points I have made can be discussed, disagreed with (with some sort of explanation or evidence).

Everything stated by me is backed up by peer reviewed publication. Seems okay to me. Gray Wolf dismissed my earlier post with a cast off remark about CO2. I am just backing up my case. Nothing more.

Y.S

[VillagePlank]

Sorry, but I do not understand your reply. This is a discussion thread right? The points I have made can be discussed, disagreed with (with some sort of explanation or evidence). Everything stated by me is backed up by peer reviewed publication. Seems okay to me. Gray Wolf dismissed my earlier post with a cast off remark about CO2. I am just backing up my case. Nothing more.

OK - IPCC amplification of feedback is 300%. Can you provide the peer-reviewed publication that shows that, please?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thank you Essan, I've been trying to put that point across for years!!!!

Yes, and I've been pointing out the flaw in that point for years, too!!!!

CB

[Yorkshiresnows]

OK - IPCC amplification of feedback is 300%. Can you provide the peer-reviewed publication that shows that, please?

Hi VP,

Yes, hows about the following for starters:

Lindzen, R.S (1991), 'some uncertainties with respect to water vapour's role in climate sensitivity', Proceedings of NASA workshop on the role of water vapor in climate processes, October 29-November 1, 1990 in Easton, Maryland (D.O'C. Starr and H. Melfi, eds).

Lindzen, R.S, Hou, A.Y. and Farrell, B.F. (1982), 'The role of convective model choice in in calculating the climate impact of doubling CO2', J. Atmos. Sci., 39, 1189-1205

IPCC first and second Reports (available as pdf downloads free of charge)

Further to the above, more recent work of the Hungarian physicist Ferenc Miskolczi (an atmospheric physicist formerly at NASA) places estimates of the warming power of CO2 much lower than the IPCC and moreover develops an argument that predicts a fall in water vapour content in the troposhere as a consequence of increased carbon dioxide - something that Miskolczi claims has actually been observed. this theory argues that compensatory mechanisms reduce the carbon effect virtually to zero.

Miskolczi, F. (2007), 'Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres', Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meterological Service. 111, (1), January-March 2007, 1-40.

More recently still there has been a publication in the newsletter of the American Physical Society in which Christopher Monckton outlines a critical overview in the way the IPCC has chosen its physical variables and relies upon this unproven water-vapour feedback in its equations.

Monckton, C. (2008), 'Climate sensitivity reconsidered', Forum for physics and society, American Physical Society, July 2008.

These lead me to believe that the foundation of carbon dioxide science is not without controversy and the assumption of a consensus on the issue unsound.

Y.S

[Yorkshiresnows]

OK - IPCC amplification of feedback is 300%. Can you provide the peer-reviewed publication that shows that, please?

Hi VP,

My apologies, here is a link to a further discussion on the IPCC feeback query (10th April 2008)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/has_ipcc_inflated_feedback_factor.html

Y.S

[Essan]

As a real in your kitchen experiment, boil your kettle and observe what comes out of the spout when stuff is heated. Then start with the Maxwell's equations. Then continue with Beer's law. After all that, you might like to have a quick peek at a bit of quantum mechanics - and the cherry on the cake is to link it all together with the Stefan Boltzmann law. And when you ready for the big bit - read the laws of thermodynamics.

Then describe the positive feedback to me in a real atmosphere with real (non uniform) gaseous mixtures.

Alternatively, I've set out a grossly simple mathematical model on GW's thread, and you could contribute to it if you want.

I'm not an atmospheric physicist and won't even pretend to have a basic understanding of the processes involved. So perforce I just go along with what all atmospheric scientists tell me.

And likewise I don't know whether you're arguing that contrary to accepted science, a doubling of CO2 (all else being equal) in the atmosphere will not result in a ~1c rise in temp or not. Or whether you disagree that a warmer atmosphere will hold more CO2 - hence the positive feedback I referred to.

[VillagePlank]

Hi VP,

Yes, hows about the following for starters:

Lindzen, R.S (1991), 'some uncertainties with respect to water vapour's role in climate sensitivity', Proceedings of NASA workshop on the role of water vapor in climate processes, October 29-November 1, 1990 in Easton, Maryland (D.O'C. Starr and H. Melfi, eds).

Lindzen, R.S, Hou, A.Y. and Farrell, B.F. (1982), 'The role of convective model choice in in calculating the climate impact of doubling CO2', J. Atmos. Sci., 39, 1189-1205

IPCC first and second Reports (available as pdf downloads free of charge)

Further to the above, more recent work of the Hungarian physicist Ferenc Miskolczi (an atmospheric physicist formerly at NASA) places estimates of the warming power of CO2 much lower than the IPCC and moreover develops an argument that predicts a fall in water vapour content in the troposhere as a consequence of increased carbon dioxide - something that Miskolczi claims has actually been observed. this theory argues that compensatory mechanisms reduce the carbon effect virtually to zero.

Miskolczi, F. (2007), 'Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres', Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meterological Service. 111, (1), January-March 2007, 1-40.

More recently still there has been a publication in the newsletter of the American Physical Society in which Christopher Monckton outlines a critical overview in the way the IPCC has chosen its physical variables and relies upon this unproven water-vapour feedback in its equations.

Monckton, C. (2008), 'Climate sensitivity reconsidered', Forum for physics and society, American Physical Society, July 2008.

These lead me to believe that the foundation of carbon dioxide science is not without controversy and the assumption of a consensus on the issue unsound.

Y.S

Which one quotes the 300% figure?

(and, btw, the IPCC report is a summary and not peer reviewed science)

And likewise I don't know whether you're arguing that contrary to accepted science, a doubling of CO2 (all else being equal) in the atmosphere will not result in a ~1c rise in temp or not. Or whether you disagree that a warmer atmosphere will hold more CO2 - hence the positive feedback I referred to.

It depends on where we are on the power law curve. If we are low, then the temperature will be nowhere near ~1, more like ~6C, if we are very high then the temperature, again, will be nowhere near ~1C, more like 0.01C.

Pretty obvious, really, and I am a little bit embarrased to have to point it out.

Edited March 28, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Hiya]

It depends on where we are on the power law curve. If we are low, then the temperature will be nowhere near ~1, more like ~6C, if we are very high then the temperature, again, will be nowhere near ~1C, more like 0.01C.

Pretty obvious, really, and I am a little bit embarrased to have to point it out.

This "doubling" thing has been popping up again and again over the last few weeks and I've bit my tongue about it, I got into a big argument a year or two back about this and came to the conclusion that there is no point in posting anything of substance. This concept is probably about as basic as you can go, but it is just a turn of phrase to a lot of people.

I personally can't be bothered but you might be... to make a wee spreadsheet/table explaining where the above numbers came from.

[Devonian]

If CO2 conc is doubled from a pre industrial ~280ppm the warming effect of that change alone will be ~1C.

[Hiya]

If CO2 conc is doubled from a pre industrial ~280ppm the warming effect of that change alone will be ~1C.

Okay then, prove it.

[Devonian]

Okay then, prove it.

'Prove it'? Give me a break... You think I'm wrong? OK (to play your silly proof game) you disprove it . See where the proof game get us yet? Nowhere - which of course is the idea...

Sheeshh, can we give the proof game a rest here? There is no strict 'proof' with natural sciences.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Devonian

[rob48]

'Prove it'? Give me a break... You think I'm wrong? OK (to play your silly proof game) you disprove it . See where the proof game get us yet? Nowhere - which of course is the idea...

Sheeshh, can we give the proof game a rest here? There is no strict 'proof' with natural sciences

Talk about pots and kettles!

[Hiya]

'Prove it'? Give me a break... You think I'm wrong? OK (to play your silly proof game) you disprove it . See where the proof game get us yet? Nowhere - which of course is the idea...

Sheeshh, can we give the proof game a rest here? There is no strict 'proof' with natural sciences.

I would have been satisfied by a reference rather than a hissy fit.

1. I don't know if you are right or wrong, that is why I asked for proof to your statement.

2. Science isn't a game, even if it was you clearly don't know the rules.

3. You made a statement, you must provide a certain amount of evidence for it before there can be any disproving. This is how a scientist my decide if someone is telling the truth. If the onus was on other people to disprove stuff without first being presented with evidence then scientists would spend an awful lot of time trying to put down any number of statements with the knowledge that the claiment is right if no disproff can be given.

4. I'm sure even you know that last statement isn't true. At the risk of kicking the hornet's nest have you ever claimed that the science behind carbon dioxide - as proved in a lab - is "nailed" so to speak?

So can you or can you not prove that your original statement is true? Reference or calculation - either is good by me.

[Devonian]

I would have been satisfied by a reference rather than a hissy fit.

1. I don't know if you are right or wrong, that is why I asked for proof to your statement.

2. Science isn't a game, even if it was you clearly don't know the rules.

Yeah yeah.

3. You made a statement, you must provide a certain amount of evidence for it before there can be any disproving. This is how a scientist my decide if someone is telling the truth. If the onus was on other people to disprove stuff without first being presented with evidence then scientists would spend an awful lot of time trying to put down any number of statements with the knowledge that the claiment is right if no disproff can be given.

4. I'm sure even you know that last statement isn't true. At the risk of kicking the hornet's nest have you ever claimed that the science behind carbon dioxide - as proved in a lab - is "nailed" so to speak?

So can you or can you not prove that your original statement is true? Reference or calculation - either is good by me.

Try this.

Talk about pots and kettles!

If I've been inconsistent then please point out where.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Devonian