In The News

[jethro]

You do tend to have your 'black and white' view paint a bleak picture of things P.P. !

I cannot name one person on these threads who has maintained there is only one cause for recent climate change and not acknowledged that 'natural drivers' have driven , and been augmented by AGW, for the 1900's.

The problem is that AGW has both an inertia built into it's forcings and is then further complicated by positive reinforcements once it becomes a force rivaling the 'natural' forcings. LI always seemed hell bent of showing the past changes could easily be attributed to 'natural' without the need for AGW forcings when AGW forcings at that time were consumed overcoming climate inertia and their own flip side of dimming?

The 21st century appears to have started with climate inertia being overcome and climate shift gaining steam. Once the polar ice secumbed to melt out then both the energy freed up from ice melt and the energies now absorbed (and re-emmited) begin to show impact even in a period of negative natural forcings.

But the problem with the above Ian is a clear example of why Cap'n & Boar reached the end of their tether in the first place. Their approach was one of exploration to see if current climate could be explained without AGW, your approach is explore everything having already decided that AGW is the culprit. Their intention was never to disprove AGW nor prove natural was responsible - merely unravel a puzzle. Your approach is to defend AGW at all costs - that's not scientific but a really good way of stifling debate.

[pottyprof]

You do tend to have your 'black and white' view paint a bleak picture of things P.P. !

Not Sure what you're on about Ian. Perhaps I'm interested in looking at things from different angles? By doing that, I get a better whole picture. If you read what BW and CB said at the time then you'll know that the LI project was just an idea that we could all join in with perhaps proving and disproving things along the way. This could have been great all ways round as a learning tool with regards to different components of the climate argument. It would have been a practical education. Perhaps those who objected were unsure that their side of things would hold up? Perhaps that's why some people still grumble at it's mention? Who knows?

I have to admit that I'd be a bit concerned if a bunch of government paid researchers published a chart revising their original ideas into one that resembled the output of a basic mathematical function from a few years earlier......

Oh... Hang on a mo!

Edited January 12, 2013 by pottyprof

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.ncadac.globalchange.gov/

The 4 year round-up of the US climate. Independent scientists compile this paper every 4 years. They do not appear to be in any doubt of the changes ongoing and , remember, this does not include most of the past year!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.news24.co...e-heat-20130114

Seems we are getting hotter, faster. Not bad for a globe that apparently hasn't warmed in 15 years???

Paper here;

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0668-1

Edited January 14, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.truthdig....ss_20130113/?ln

Modern capitalist societies, Wright argues in his book “What Is America?: A Short History of the New World Order,†derive from European invaders’ plundering of the indigenous cultures in the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries, coupled with the use of African slaves as a workforce to replace the natives. The numbers of those natives fell by more than 90 percent because of smallpox and other plagues they hadn’t had before. The Spaniards did not conquer any of the major societies until smallpox had crippled them; in fact the Aztecs beat them the first time around. If Europe had not been able to seize the gold of the Aztec and Inca civilizations, if it had not been able to occupy the land and adopt highly productive New World crops for use on European farms, the growth of industrial society in Europe would have been much slower. Karl Marx and Adam Smith both pointed to the influx of wealth from the Americas as having made possible the Industrial Revolution and the start of modern capitalism. It was the rape of the Americas, Wright points out, that triggered the orgy of European expansion. The Industrial Revolution also equipped the Europeans with technologically advanced weapons systems, making further subjugation, plundering and expansion possible.

When I read through this I suddenly realised that this 'ice age hunter', shaved and in a suit, was why we will let this catastrophe befall us. It is our 'hardwiring' that does not allow most folk to either grasp the danger or choose to react to it?

Ah well , back to the fiddling.........

Edited January 14, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[4wd]

So the end of the world started about 1492, previously all was sweetness and light, and a model we should go back to.

You know, I can think of a few problems with almost everything about that.

Edited January 14, 2013 by 4wd

[Gray-Wolf]

Oh you do appear silly 4!

As far as politics go I have always been more 'left' than right wing. It appears that the 'Right Wing' is far more Free market than Socialist and so is more readily uptaken by folks who 'naturally' are more ancient in their brain wiring?

Throughout history we have have folk pull away from the 'I, Me, Mine' , "I'm alright Jack" majority and been recognised as 'humanitarian' or Holy (as in 'easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle' type Holy) but though revered by the 'Right' their way of 'being' was far too alien for such ancient wired brains to fully embrace or truely understand.

I have no illusions that climate change will leave humanity unscathed and am accepting that nothing will be done until it is in response to a massive immediate threat (ancient wiring doesn't defend against unseen threats, it only reacts to life threatening, immediate danger).

The only hope is the way that the more evolved brain has been allowed to survive in our times and maybe will be the 'Way' of being that comes to predominate once the great die off has ended and the remnants of humanity take stock and move forward?

When you look historically the population squeeze, seventy odd thousand years ago, was probably that which finally did away with the 'Alpha'/Omega way of society but did not take away the allure of being 'Alpha' even if you did not have the physicality to have been so under the old order.

This new 'Squeeze' on human population will probably be the best opportunity for us to finally lay this 'better than you' mentality of greed ,waste and imagined power out of our 'being' and allow for a truely equal society where eveyr person is allowed equal access to all of lifes essentials as a right of birth and not of parentage?

Edited January 14, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk&feature=player_embedded

A nice little vid to show temps once you take out the major 'natural' elements leaving only the 'man made' temp rise for the past 16yrs.......seems to be no variation in that even if the natural drivers are

[4wd]

Without even clicking that it has clearly been manipulated.

You neatly sidestepped the other unfortunate historical events before the Spaniards stole the gold from the Incas.

How about the Black Death wiping out more than half the population for a start.

Those Crusaders were quite naughty..

Ghenghis Khan was a bit of a sod too.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Without even clicking that it has clearly been manipulated.

What makes you think that?

[Gray-Wolf]

Yes it has been manipulated! that is the point? First the suspot cycle and volcanoes are removed then the ENSO signatures are removed and so what remains is the human warming signature?

EDIT: You can do the same with the 80's exagerated warming trend to reveal the human dominated rise below it?

We all accept 'natural variation' still swamps the human signal (for now) but it works both ways 4. You cannot point to augmented warming and say it's all natural nor can you look at moderated cooling and see that as 'all natural'. Below lies the current rate of AGW warming?

Edited January 14, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk&feature=player_embedded

A nice little vid to show temps once you take out the major 'natural' elements leaving only the 'man made' temp rise for the past 16yrs.......seems to be no variation in that even if the natural drivers are

That's working on the very large assumption that we know all we need to know about natural drivers. That currently is an impossible assumption to make.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sorry J' I thought we had a good idea about the scale of impacts of such events? I was sure we had a good idea of how much temps are impacted, via observational experience, by major drivers such as Volcanics, ENSO, Solar?

Are you saying we have no idea of how much such events impact climate by? I thought we had a good idea, over the past 100yrs, how much the human contribution to warming is thought to be also?

Are you saying that we have no idea of any of these forcings?

If we do know how much mankind is warming the planet, and we know that his GHG impacts are growing (along with his deforestation/urbanisation/land use changes) then how would this impact suddenly reduce???

Somehow i get the feeling that you are playing the 'pedant card' here which is not really helpful when many folk are bamboozled by the myth that warming of the planet has stopped for 15yrs due to the massive exposure this myth has received via the media.

Either climate change is occurring ,and so part responsible for some of the terrible climate events we saw through 2012 and also the lives these cost or it's just a sham and we'd be better served not concerning ourselves over the changes that we are told it has a hand in?

[BornFromTheVoid]

It will likely always be the case that we can't know every natural driver perfectly, but It's not working off that assumption. There's plenty of variability remaining even after ENSO, solar and volcanics are removed (there are also CFCs, aerosols and more to consider). From what I can tell it's just demonstrating that the assumption many have, that CO2 induced warming has ceased, is false.

The wording is deliberately kept simple, which may add some ambiguity, but allows it to reach a wider audience.

More detail on the video and techniques used here

[jethro]

I'm sorry J' I thought we had a good idea about the scale of impacts of such events? I was sure we had a good idea of how much temps are impacted, via observational experience, by major drivers such as Volcanics, ENSO, Solar?

Are you saying we have no idea of how much such events impact climate by? I thought we had a good idea, over the past 100yrs, how much the human contribution to warming is thought to be also?

Are you saying that we have no idea of any of these forcings?

If we do know how much mankind is warming the planet, and we know that his GHG impacts are growing (along with his deforestation/urbanisation/land use changes) then how would this impact suddenly reduce???

Somehow i get the feeling that you are playing the 'pedant card' here which is not really helpful when many folk are bamboozled by the myth that warming of the planet has stopped for 15yrs due to the massive exposure this myth has received via the media.

Either climate change is occurring ,and so part responsible for some of the terrible climate events we saw through 2012 and also the lives these cost or it's just a sham and we'd be better served not concerning ourselves over the changes that we are told it has a hand in?

Pedantic or aiming to get a sense of balance without the claims of "we know it all already"?

Currently we know the Sun varies in output - this is based on TSI alone. Very, very recently Solar Physicists have realised that Solar variance has far greater consequences other than just TSI - they're still trying to figure out what exactly.

Ocean currents - we know of some currents and their cycles, we have very little idea of how they work or indeed why, let alone duration of events.

Clouds - we know they exist. We don't know how they work when it comes to balancing climate or indeed impacting climate - some may cool, some warm.

Deforestation - which has the greater impact on emissions, chopping trees down or clearing ground and planting new? Mature trees consume minuscule amounts of CO2 compared to young, growing trees.

Urbanisation and the creation of hard landscape where once arable land/soil existed before - locally, urbanisation creates a warming impact. Globally however, it isn't such an easy equation. Tarmac and concrete do not emit CO2, so other than their manufacture, have little impact on global temps. Soil on the other hand isn't so inert. If left undisturbed it will capture carbon, once tilled it releases it - how much arable soil is left unturned? None. Again, not an easy sum to figure out when it comes to good or bad.

The list goes on and on.......All those certainties that people claim enable them to make pretty graphs showing how much of the warming is due to mankind, are really little more than pretty pictures to entertain.

As for climate change happening, of course it's happening, climate isn't a static entity. As for playing the lives lost due to it card, that really smacks of.....I don't know, desperation, clutching at straws, possibly trying to guilt trip people into signing up to every claim made by the pro AGW gang? Since time immemorial there have been weather incidents which caused devastation and loss of life. Are there more of them now or do we just know more about them? A couple of hundred years ago, how many people in this country would have heard about a hurricane in the USA or a Tsunami in the Tropics?

IMO, the graph posted above should once again be treated to the Mark Twain philosophy..... There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

[Gray-Wolf]

You see this is not helpful J'?

As with individual weather events it is, at present, safer to say that AGW was involved in the event than saying it was the sole cause This is of course changing. The latest paper showing extreme temp records are running at least 5 times higher than before AGW impacts were being felt would suggest that we can say 80% of such records are due to AGW alone. Over time, as this figure accelerates, more 'new records' will increasingly supplant old 'AGW assisted' records bringing about a period where AGW is the only driver.

Climate derived loss of life "clutching at straws"??? I find this statement unsavoury at best J'. Are you saying you do not see any loss of life with an AGW fingerprint on it? Are you of the opinion that climate change will not have impacts on our lives across the planet? We have just had a run of years where major Grain producing regions have been blighted by rain/drought/cold/heat so how many more of such events are needed to remove them from your 'happened before' file and into a new 'this is odd' file? Recent crop shortfalls already impacts aid to countries but you seem to consign the deaths this causes to 'just nature and better reporting'? What will it take before this stance changes?

We know global climate warmed over the last century no matter what the 'natural drivers' were doing. Recently we have seen temps continue to rise through another period of 'natural cooling' but more than the temps still climbing we saw frightening changes sweep across the Arctic region. The impacts of those changes include extra energy now being accepted into the climate system and also energy, already in the system, now freed up to be re-deployed elsewhere begging the question "How can our climate not be impacted" by this 'new energy'?

As natural forcings again swing positive, and are increasingly augmented by human forcings, how will this new energy now impact the warming rates? We saw AGW's impacts on the warming through the 80's and 90's when natural forcings swung positive so how much more will we see over the next 30 yrs?

You know that I am a great believer in Mother N. and her potential to wrought change far faster and more extensive than mankind's impacts, we merely lit the blue touch paper (gave enough forcing to overcome climate inertia?). I believe we now see this change over from the forcing being predominantly human to now being predominantly 'natural' with the re-animation of the hibernating carbon cycle, inactive for many glacial epochs, and the reintroduction of energies that have been utilised in 'ice melt/snow melt' for many glacial epochs.

I think we both agree that current climate models have inadequacies in their make up but think we differ in where we see those inadequacies?

[jethro]

You see this is not helpful J'?

As with individual weather events it is, at present, safer to say that AGW was involved in the event than saying it was the sole cause This is of course changing. The latest paper showing extreme temp records are running at least 5 times higher than before AGW impacts were being felt would suggest that we can say 80% of such records are due to AGW alone. Over time, as this figure accelerates, more 'new records' will increasingly supplant old 'AGW assisted' records bringing about a period where AGW is the only driver.

Climate derived loss of life "clutching at straws"??? I find this statement unsavoury at best J'. Are you saying you do not see any loss of life with an AGW fingerprint on it? Are you of the opinion that climate change will not have impacts on our lives across the planet? We have just had a run of years where major Grain producing regions have been blighted by rain/drought/cold/heat so how many more of such events are needed to remove them from your 'happened before' file and into a new 'this is odd' file? Recent crop shortfalls already impacts aid to countries but you seem to consign the deaths this causes to 'just nature and better reporting'? What will it take before this stance changes?

We know global climate warmed over the last century no matter what the 'natural drivers' were doing. Recently we have seen temps continue to rise through another period of 'natural cooling' but more than the temps still climbing we saw frightening changes sweep across the Arctic region. The impacts of those changes include extra energy now being accepted into the climate system and also energy, already in the system, now freed up to be re-deployed elsewhere begging the question "How can our climate not be impacted" by this 'new energy'?

As natural forcings again swing positive, and are increasingly augmented by human forcings, how will this new energy now impact the warming rates? We saw AGW's impacts on the warming through the 80's and 90's when natural forcings swung positive so how much more will we see over the next 30 yrs?

You know that I am a great believer in Mother N. and her potential to wrought change far faster and more extensive than mankind's impacts, we merely lit the blue touch paper (gave enough forcing to overcome climate inertia?). I believe we now see this change over from the forcing being predominantly human to now being predominantly 'natural' with the re-animation of the hibernating carbon cycle, inactive for many glacial epochs, and the reintroduction of energies that have been utilised in 'ice melt/snow melt' for many glacial epochs.

I think we both agree that current climate models have inadequacies in their make up but think we differ in where we see those inadequacies?

It may not be helpful for those looking for confirmation of their own beliefs but for those looking for info on the actual known science, I'd say it's a rough over-view which may help keep things in perspective a bit.

Here's the deal Ian, when you cast aside your crystal ball and stop presenting speculation as fact, I'll stop pedantically pointing out that you're clutching it. When you stop extrapolating the unknown into near certainty, I'll stop pointing out all the things we currently have little or no knowledge of.

And if you really want to go down the road of drought and Aid, you'd better have more hidden up your sleeve than idle fear mongering and guilt tripping. I know you haven't forgotten that I was an Aid worker, I know you think it's a button you can press, but what you seem to over-look every time you trot this out, is that I've been involved with that field of work all my adult life - that's 30 years-ish; you really want to argue the toss on that subject? As I've told you before, people who live in countries where drought and immense loss of life happens with monotonous regularity, are deserving of more than efforts from ill-informed people jumping on the band wagon and waving their plight around as the latest "must have" accessory. Have some respect.

[Gray-Wolf]

Then we'd best leave it for yet another year and see if the events we witness still leave you unsure that we have a moral duty to react to the changes?

Spin back to 07' and you will find us at the same impasse. Now track through the history since that time and tell me we are no further along the path that I projected from my witnessing of the changes up to that time?

Maybe we should even leave it another 5 years and see how your words sound then?

I'm always warning that we do not have the luxury of time to 'suck it and see'. Since the changes to the physical world we saw in 07' this is even more the case with ever more energy now flooding into the climate system.

Climate is not static and with new forcings, in a single direction, how else can climate react other than in the direction we already witness it altering in?

How many years of grain production blight can we endure without seeing greater impacts than we have seen this past 4 years? How much did your shop go up since Sept?

How many years of climate disasters will it take to impact Nations? Be it wildfire, Cyclone, Flood, Drought ,Heatwave,Freezing, before we see those Nations impacted to a point that it harms their economic standing in the world?

Our words are, and will remain in the Netweather Archives.

[jethro]

Then we'd best leave it for yet another year and see if the events we witness still leave you unsure that we have a moral duty to react to the changes?

Spin back to 07' and you will find us at the same impasse. Now track through the history since that time and tell me we are no further along the path that I projected from my witnessing of the changes up to that time?

Maybe we should even leave it another 5 years and see how your words sound then?

I'm always warning that we do not have the luxury of time to 'suck it and see'. Since the changes to the physical world we saw in 07' this is even more the case with ever more energy now flooding into the climate system.

Climate is not static and with new forcings, in a single direction, how else can climate react other than in the direction we already witness it altering in?

How many years of grain production blight can we endure without seeing greater impacts than we have seen this past 4 years? How much did your shop go up since Sept?

How many years of climate disasters will it take to impact Nations? Be it wildfire, Cyclone, Flood, Drought ,Heatwave,Freezing, before we see those Nations impacted to a point that it harms their economic standing in the world?

Our words are, and will remain in the Netweather Archives.

Moral duty? The moral duty is to ensure there is enough food for all, the only connection climate change has to that is the current shortage of feedstuffs due to arable land being diverted away from providing cereal crops for human consumption, and instead devoted to growing bio fuels. That's what panic, exaggeration and cashing in, has created - you still sure of your moral highground?

Your moral highground smacks to me of someone trying to get on the band wagon of saving the world and bemoaning anyone who doesn't agree with your prognosis. What that tack achieves is damaging, both to the AGW debate and those in need. What it also overlooks entirely is how people actually live. It's convenient to say those who don't support the ideas of the future that you purport as fact, must as a consequence live a life of wanton waste. You speak of delaying action, how dangerous that may be, is that based on an assessment of your life and the waste you create? I have no guilt on that score, my life is and always has been sustainable, I don't need the big stick of AGW to make me appreciate the impact I could have.

Now taking the discussion back to that pretty graph which spawned this conversation, the uncertainties and problems with it that I pointed out remain the same - how about addressing those.

[Gray-Wolf]

L.G.! You know full well I'm a Catastrophist!!!

Joking aside, J' you warned me many years ago that you thought my posting style could lead to misinterpretations and so altered my style to emphasise that the posts are how 'I' see things or what 'I' believe?

It is upsetting to find that you still insist I use a crystal ball or try and guilt folk?

You can often come across as antagonistic or hurtful but do I continually bring this up or go running to mangement? Nope! It is just 'your' way of being when posting to me and I am accepting of that.

If you do not see the evolution of the climate system I suggest then show me why and then have a go at seeing where you think things will go? This is a 'disscussion' forum after all?

Edited January 15, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130114152950.htm

Another pretty graph with a familiar turned up end? No great impacts to match it through the record though so it seems a little beyond the 'natural variation' of the past 1,000yrs?

[jethro]

L.G.! You know full well I'm a Catastrophist!!!

Joking aside, J' you warned me many years ago that you thought my posting style could lead to misinterpretations and so altered my style to emphasise that the posts are how 'I' see things or what 'I' believe?

It is upsetting to find that you still insist I use a crystal ball or try and guilt folk?

You can often come across as antagonistic or hurtful but do I continually bring this up or go running to mangement? Nope! It is just 'your' way of being when posting to me and I am accepting of that.

If you do not see the evolution of the climate system I suggest then show me why and then have a go at seeing where you think things will go? This is a 'disscussion' forum after all?

Hang on a second, this has nothing to do with posting style and everything to do with facts. Lets take this back to the graph which spawned this conversation - all the points I raised about why it may not be as accurate, or able to predict the future as you and some others were claiming still stand. You have made no effort to address those basic, scientific facts and instead wandered off down the road of morality. Having picked up the baton of judging folk and whether or not that attitude will endanger people's lives in the future, you then proceed to wave the famine flag again. I repeat, as you are well aware, I was an Aid worker and have 30 odd years of experience/knowledge of this field - your claims are factually wrong. As for providing you with evidence, I've raised those points already - the issues I raised about that graph are fully understood and accepted by scientists, even being highlighted in the last IPCC report.

If you can't or won't answer my questions, then that's fine, but don't try and dismiss them by claiming I'm being hurtful or antagonistic. Despite being a MOD I'm bound by all the rules of the code of conduct too, I'm judged by other team members and am expected to set an example, not flout the rules to my advantage as you are suggesting. If you seriously take such a view of my posts, I urge you to report them, let them be judged by other members of the team.

[VillagePlank]

That video only says that there is an underlying trend which the author cannot attribute to the other factors described; that the author attributes it to CO₂ is a non-sequitor. That someone might believe that is the case is entirely different. This video is like the normal propoganda trash found on the skeptic side of the argument. Utter rubbish.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Gray-Wolf]

So , back to the origional post. Am I mistaken in my belief that we can 'see' the impacts of volcanic activity on climate over it's term of impact? I'd always thought that we had the ability to do this even with paleo eruptions due to proxy measures? and ENSO? we now have a good 1,000yr rexcord of ENSO impacts so we are still unable to see the amount the signal pushes and pulls climate away from the then 'average'? Solar? Again we have paleo records that seem to show a fairly constant record of the impacts of the solar cycle (both active and sluggish) and so can be taken out of the background climate data in a similar fashion to the rest?

I know that with the other 'unknowns' not being attempted to be factored in it may appear a little fudgey but 'all other things being equal' serves more than economics and so should allow us to discern a trend here (if one exists) when the louder 'noise' is removed?

On the other hand you might be saying that there is a climate forcing that we have not isolated in our climate research that can also work on the short timescales being viewed here? If so then give us (and science) a clue as to what this forcing might be?

As an add on there are other twiddles folk can do with graphs, NASA showed us what amount of warming is being lost to human particulate pollution in the form of 'Dimming' but this is not being messed with here just the major , short term forcings that have helped 'mask' the warming over the past few years. As I said we can do the same for the 80's to show how positive natural forcings skewed warming then if you want to see it work both ways . Either way we are still left with this (low?) figure for AGW 'warming' are we not?

[VillagePlank]

Main problem with it, GW, is that it presumes the existence of the AGW effect before it sets out to prove it. I am not arguing against AGW, here, I am just pointing out that this video is complete cr @ p and if I'd dished it out, you would have pointed it out, too. I think they call it confirmation bias ....

Edited January 15, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm