In The News

[BornFromTheVoid]

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.

Lets look at what the video is trying to debunk, which is the myth that global warming CO2 induced global warming ended 16 years ago. This requires 2 basic assumptions

• that is CO2 is acting as a greenhouse gas
  
• that much of the trend up to 16 years ago was driven by CO2
  

That's the premise of the video. If you don't accept that basic premise, then you're arguing against a straw man.

So the video shows the previous trend (CO2 culpability assumed for the sake of debunking the myth). Then removing the known natural factors, they check to see if the trend remains the same. Essentially it does.

It's not claiming perfect knowledge of climate drivers, or proof of CO2 dominating climate through the greenhouse effect. It's about debunking a silly myth.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://planetsave.com/2012/01/30/ocean-hotspots-and-strengthening-winds-driving-ocean-currents-poleward/

So we know that a lot ofthe warmed bottom waters are heading to the south but it also appears that we have a surface visitor on it's way there as well (oh! and lets not forget the general warming due to reduced cold down-welling??). As I assumed it appears that all eyes will be heading down south to witness the 'unthinkable' spectacle of a rapid period of 'catchup' going on across both East and west Antarctica? Once again freeing up energy that used to be spent on ice melt, once that job is finished off by the extra energy perculating it's way there......

Hi B.W.! But the debate is around the human induced part of the warming ? As such we would need to accept that we have had a hand in the past 150 yrs of warming? Armed with that we would have an idea of how human forced warming was trending (we even already have a decadal average don't we?) and so should be able to subtract the other 'known forcings from that?

I must be easily pleased if I saw this as a useful way of folk seeing that human induced warming is not at an end and so should not be forgotten about as as soon as natural forcings change back to positive the trend line will sky rocket.

As for my view on things? I worry that both the albedo flip and the re-deployed energies are now also piling on top of the AGW signal adding to our woes?

[Gray-Wolf]

So , if the crops don't rot in the ground or burn to a frazzle conditions will be ripe for carcinogenic molds to form on them.......

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=deadly-fungus-poisons-corn-crops

(I think I'd prefer falling foul to the hallucingenic type of rye.......)

[VillagePlank]

Lets look at what the video is trying to debunk, which is the myth that global warming CO2 induced global warming ended 16 years ago. This requires 2 basic assumptions

• that is CO2 is acting as a greenhouse gas
  
• that much of the trend up to 16 years ago was driven by CO2
  

Nope. The first sentence "Mankind has continued to warm the planet through greenhouse gas emissions over the past sixteen years" ie the conclusion has been put before the premise. Which is an assertion of a fact. It then goes on to assert a fact about a persistent myth in mainstream media. Again a predilection to a statement of truth.

This is not stuff about conjecture, or argument, of working a hypothesis against predefined assmptions as you would have us all believe. It's utter propoganda, and it's crap. This stuff should be banned along with all the sceptic denier rubbish on the other side of the debate Maybe we can organise a bonfire for Nov 5th to burn the lot of it ?

Incidentally, whether it's true or false, is irrelevant

Edited January 15, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[VillagePlank]

Hi B.W.! But the debate is around the human induced part of the warming ? As such we would need to accept that we have had a hand in the past 150 yrs of warming? Armed with that we would have an idea of how human forced warming was trending (we even already have a decadal average don't we?) and so should be able to subtract the other 'known forcings from that?

Really? If it's simply an additive and subtractive mathematical model why do we need to spend billion$ on research?

Incidentally, we do not know how to do this. Climate models are hypothesised, then constructed, then fitted to a small proportion of the time series, then run forward and back to validate the model (and then susbequently tweaked until it does fit since God forbid something might be wrong somewhere) The CO₂ 'subtraction' is a result of this process. ie the statement 'we can't account for the warming of the climate in our models, and subsequently, in the time series, unless we include anthropogenic forcing.' Did you think it was any different? Do you think there is some magic algrebraic equation derived from first principles in existence that is hitherto been hidden from view, and that this video has stumbled upon this certain Nobel Prize winning formula?

Edited January 15, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Gray-Wolf]

Oh I agree with you there BW! Like with the L.I. it appears to be the retro fit that is all important? If our current models are still not assigning correct values to things because they are poorly understood then we are in for a whole world of pain later when the true weightings take trends way ahead of the models over an instant in time (as we saw with Sea ice in both 07' and 2012 or with greenland mass loss/melt in 2010/12).

The fact we have been so wrong in those instances has me ever more convinced that we are not assigning forcings correctly. I'm starting to wonder if 'hidden energy' (that employed in tasks other than atmospheric/sea surface heating) have been underestimated by a couple of degrees of scale and now some of the 'tasks of Hercules' that this energy was employed on have actually ended (or are ending?) that we suddenly have enough 'new energy' to wrought sudden and dramatic changes in the climate system?

As was noted over on the L.I. thread it is one thing apeing the past but another completely to do that and to accurately predict the future with the same model?

[Polar Maritime]

UN group links heatwave to climate change

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-15/un-group-links-heatwave-to-climate-change/4464838

[VillagePlank]

As was noted over on the L.I. thread it is one thing apeing the past but another completely to do that and to accurately predict the future with the same model?

I agree - God help us both if we both agree on something!

Since Newton and Leibniz, we have been taught that mathematical models such as the trajectory of a cannon ball can be run both forward and back. We have taken this essentially universally accepted idea and applied it to dynamical systems. A dynamical system is one that requires the input of it's previous time period to derive the value of the next. It can be done, it is being done, but is it right to do it? I think Songster, and BFTV both raised interesting questions with reference to the LI hypothesis invoking these ideas that I am still grappling with, and are likely to be grappling with for some time to come.

If you consider current climate models what if they only fitted the front half of the time series? There would be a huge uproar since the basic claim would be that there would no/not enough evidence to support an anthropogenic source from the source fit since CO₂ is barely present in the late 1800s. I have great sympathy with this; in many respects current climatologists are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

And as you note, the true pace of melt in the Arctic wasn't envisaged by anyone nor any model. The real world has a habit of that.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[BornFromTheVoid]

Nope. The first sentence "Mankind has continued to warm the planet through greenhouse gas emissions over the past sixteen years" ie the conclusion has been put before the premise. Which is an assertion of a fact. It then goes on to assert a fact about a persistent myth in mainstream media. Again a predilection to a statement of truth.

This is not stuff about conjecture, or argument, of working a hypothesis against predefined assmptions as you would have us all believe. It's utter propoganda, and it's crap. This stuff should be banned along with all the sceptic denier rubbish on the other side of the debate Maybe we can organise a bonfire for Nov 5th to burn the lot of it ?

Incidentally, whether it's true or false, is irrelevant

The myth tries to claim that the reduced trend in in warming from 1998 to present, is proof that CO2 does not cause warming, because CO2 has continued to increase during that time.

The video is not trying to prove AGW in and of itself, but trying to show that the prevailing myth is illogical and cannot disprove the effects of CO2.

The evidence and scientific consensus agree that CO2 has continued to cause warming. So even if we are to complain that they're starting off with a statement of fact (which I think doesn't matter on the whole for the purpose of the video), it's a fully backed up statement.

Your claims of it being crap or whatever else makes no difference whatsoever.

[VillagePlank]

*sigh*

Edited January 15, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[knocker]

This is a rather hefty report.

Climate change to profoundly affect the Midwest in coming decades

ANN ARBOR—In the coming decades, climate change will lead to more frequent and more intense Midwest heat waves while degrading air and water quality and threatening public health. Intense rainstorms and floods will become more common, and existing risks to the Great Lakes will be exacerbated.

Those are some of the conclusions contained in the Midwest chapter of a draft report released last week by the federal government that assesses the key impacts of climate change on every region in the country and analyzes its likely effects on human health, water, energy, transportation, agriculture, forests, ecosystems and biodiversity.

Three University of Michigan researchers were lead convening authors of chapters in the 1,100-plus-page National Climate Assessment, which was written by a team of more than 240 scientists.

University of Michigan aquatic ecologist Donald Scavia was a lead convening author of the Midwest chapter. Dan Brown of the School of Natural Resources and Environment was a lead convening author of the chapter on changes in land use and land cover. Rosina Bierbaum of SNRE and the School of Public Health was a lead convening author of the chapter on climate change adaptation. Missy Stults, a research assistant with Bierbaum and a doctoral student at the A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, was a contributing author on the adaptation chapter.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/uom-cct011813.php

[knocker]

The storm that never was: Why the weatherman is often wrong

Have you ever woken up to a sunny forecast only to get soaked on your way to the office? On days like that it's easy to blame the weatherman.

But BYU mechanical engineering professor Julie Crockett doesn’t get mad at meteorologists. She understands something that very few people know: it’s not the weatherman’s fault he’s wrong so often.

According to Crockett, forecasters make mistakes because the models they use for predicting weather can’t accurately track highly influential elements called internal waves.

http://news.byu.edu/...an-weather.aspx

Edited January 24, 2013 by knocker

[pottyprof]

The storm that never was: Why the weatherman is often wrong

Interesting article knocker.

[weather eater]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/top-climate-scientist-denounces-billionaires-over-funding-for-climatesceptic-organisations-8467665.html

[knocker]

Cities warm or cool temperatures for thousands of miles

January 27, 2013

BOULDER—Even if you live more than 1,000 miles from the nearest large city, it could be affecting your weather.

In a new study that shows the extent to which human activities are influencing the atmosphere, scientists have concluded that the heat generated by everyday activities in metropolitan areas alters the character of the jet stream and other major atmospheric systems. This affects temperatures across thousands of miles, significantly warming some areas and cooling others, according to the study this week in Nature Climate Change.

http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/8773/cities-affect-temperatures-thousands-miles

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.guardian....te-change-davos

A 'Stern' warning???

He appears to focus on our failing CO2 sinks but we all know that we have a suite of forcings now believed to be stronger/more immediate than past thought.

Plus;

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-greenhouse-gases-solar-complexity-global.html

It appears we can tell that this is 'GHG' heating and not 'solar' heating, clever eh?

Edited January 30, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm surprised to see no comments on the news that we can see differences between past 'solar' driven warmings (like the MWP) and our current round of warming?

Surely it helps us all see that GHG warming is occurring today (as opposed to natural variations or solar?) and that it's impacts will not take a similar path to past 'natural' warming events?

If ever confirmation of our role in the current global warming was needed does this not satisfy that need? With the whole of the atmosphere warming (and not just the lower sections) does this not have implications on the amount of energy consumed enabling this warming to occur when compared to a 'natural' model with only the 'contact zones' above the surface warming?

it also seems to have implications for 'cloud' feedbacks with less convection due to the general warmth throughout the air column?

[VillagePlank]

I'm surprised to see no comments on the news that we can see differences between past 'solar' driven warmings (like the MWP) and our current round of warming?

I thought that the MWP was a local NH, particularly, North Atlantic, phenomenen, http://www.meteo.psu.../medclimopt.pdf, Indeed, 'current evidence does not support the notion of a Medieval Climatic Optimum as an interval of hemispheric or global warmth comparable to the latter 20th century'

Edited January 31, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Gray-Wolf]

Agreed BW! But the 'way' the atmosphere warmed over that period, and the climate impacts that followed, appear to be the 'fingerprint' of the warming type?

I've heard folk proclaim some kind of 'climate feedback' mechanism, offsetting warming, including extra clouds from the enhanced convection and increased moisture load of the air? but what if there was a 'damping mechanism perculier to GHG atmospheric warming that kept the same relative gradients as the 'old ' atmosphere? We would see no uptick in convective activity and the enhanced moisture capacity would enable skies to stay clear as long, if not longer,han under the old temp/humidity amounts? (throughout the whole atmosphere)?

[VillagePlank]

The myth tries to claim that the reduced trend in in warming from 1998 to present, is proof that CO2 does not cause warming, because CO2 has continued to increase during that time.

The video is not trying to prove AGW in and of itself, but trying to show that the prevailing myth is illogical and cannot disprove the effects of CO2.

The evidence and scientific consensus agree that CO2 has continued to cause warming. So even if we are to complain that they're starting off with a statement of fact (which I think doesn't matter on the whole for the purpose of the video), it's a fully backed up statement.

Your claims of it being crap or whatever else makes no difference whatsoever.

I am going to go with this and test your (and the videos) theory that we can treat this is a linear model. Any ideas, please help!

[knocker]

Increases in extreme rainfall linked to global warming

A worldwide review of global rainfall data led by the University of Adelaide has found that the intensity of the most extreme rainfall events is increasing across the globe as temperatures rise.

In the most comprehensive review of changes to extreme rainfall ever undertaken, researchers evaluated the association between extreme rainfall and atmospheric temperatures at more than 8000 weather gauging stations around the world.

Lead author Dr Seth Westra said, "The results are that rainfall extremes are increasing on average globally. They show that there is a 7% increase in extreme rainfall intensity for every degree increase in global atmospheric temperature.

"Assuming an increase in global average temperature by 3 to 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century, this could mean very substantial increases in rainfall intensity as a result of climate change."

Dr Westra, a Senior Lecturer with the University of Adelaide's School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering and member of the Environment Institute, said trends in rainfall extremes were examined over the period from 1900 to 2009 to determine whether they were becoming more intense or occurring more frequently.

"The results show that rainfall extremes were increasing over this period, and appear to be linked to the increase in global temperature of nearly a degree which also took place over this time.

"If extreme rainfall events continue to intensify, we can expect to see floods occurring more frequently around the world." Dr Westra said.

The strongest increases occurred in the tropical countries, although some level of increase seems to be taking place at the majority of weather gauging stations.

Dr Westra said, "Most of these tropical countries are very poor and thus not well placed to adapt to the increased risk of flooding, which puts them in a larger threat of devastation."

###

This work is being published in the Journal of Climate and can be seen online.

The research also involved researchers from the University of New South Wales, Australia and the University of Victoria, Canada.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/uoa-iie020113.php

[4wd]

They show that there is a 7% increase in extreme rainfall intensity for every degree increase in global atmospheric temperature.

"Assuming an increase in global average temperature by 3 to 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century, this could mean very substantial increases in rainfall intensity as a result of climate change."

So they have observed a 7% increase since when?

That seems rather a small change over about 100 years and must be fraught with measuring issues.

Also the predicted warming seems as usual rather on the enormously exaggerated side!

[keithlucky]

http://notrickszone....ngly-untenable/

[Methuselah]

Have been away in your Tardis again, 4?

http://notrickszone....ngly-untenable/

A truly staggering mis-application of the word 'staggering'?

[knocker]

Noaa's Arctic report card for 2012.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/