Would Better PR Be Beneficial In Getting The Message Across To The General Public

[BornFromTheVoid]

There's plenty of stuff out there correlating the PDO and global temps. We also have to look at the poleward movement of the jet stream during this time, the reverse now seems to be happening.

 

Correlations are all well and good, but you need a physical basis to say one caused the other. Try applying your scepticism to the PDO/temperature link SI!

 

As for the jet, it's more wavy currently, but overall, is it actually heading south?

[UV-RAY]

Correlations are all well and good, but you need a physical basis to say one caused the other. Try applying your scepticism to the PDO/temperature link SI!

 

As for the jet, it's more wavy currently, but overall, is it actually heading south?

There was a paper that Dr Roy Spencer tried to get peer reviewed on this back in 2010, when I've time I'll post the link to his work regarding the correlation between both.

[BornFromTheVoid]

There was a paper that Dr Roy Spencer tried to get peer reviewed on this back in 2010, when I've time I'll post the link to his work regarding the correlation between both.

 

I don't think he got it published though. I remember seeing it back in my sceptic days!

[knocker]

There was a paper that Dr Roy Spencer tried to get peer reviewed on this back in 2010, when I've time I'll post the link to his work regarding the correlation between both.

 

 

There is a link to a paper by Roy Spencer here and of course some other observations.

 

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has gained some traction as an alternative hypothesis as the cause of the last century warming or at least a good part of it. More often, this hypothesis is based on the apparent visual correlation between warming periods and the positive phase of the PDO, but others ventured in semi-quantitative analysis (e.g. Dr. Roy Spencer).

 

Although none of them can be called strong evidence, it's worth looking at this climate feature in more details, obviously starting from describing it. The first thing to note is that the PDO, like any other oscillation, can not be the cause any long term trend. Whatever the impact of one phase might be, the opposite phase would have the opposite effect and after a full cycle the system would be brought back to where it was at the beginning. The heat can just be moved around through different parts of the system and it may even be "hidden" for some time, but after a full cycle it will be back. In other words, an oscillation does not create nor retain heat and we cannot have both an air and ocean long term warming trend.

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/blaming-the-pdo.html

Edited May 2, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

As far as I can work out, all climate oscillations are the result of energy transfer, as the system attempts find some sort of equilibrium, and temporarily overrides the mechanical inertia that always opposes heat-transfer...In the same way that water cannot cannot conduct heat fast enough to prevent convection?

 

An oscillation system cannot, of itself, add energy to itself...

Edited May 2, 2013 by Rybris Ponce

[UV-RAY]

As far as I can work out, all climate oscillations are the result of energy transfer, as the systems attempts find some sort of equilibrium, and temporarily overrides the mechanical inertia that always opposes heat-transfer...In the same way that water cannot cannot conduct heat fast enough to prevent convection?

An oscillation system cannot, of itself, add energy to itself...

To a point yes, but cold and warm cycles must have some net effect in itself? Edited May 2, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Tamara]

Warming from solar activity wouldn't cause the stratosphere to cool though (which is and has happened). Also, solar activity was at it's peak for the 20th century while the planet cooled a little from the 40s to the 70s, so it's effects don't seem all that strong.

 

It's hard to say what effect the sun had on temperatures during the 20th century. We saw rapid warming between 1900 and 1940, when activity was quite low. The cooling the following 30 years when activity climbed to record highs, then warming again as activity dropped.

 

While I don't think that indicates that high solar activity causes cooling, I think it just shows that it's effect is easily swamped by others climate/weather drivers.

That isn't correct. There is a direct correlation between high/higher solar activity and a cooler stratosphere - and the converse holds true as well. It all links in with the BDC and ozone distribution which I linked the other day. GP also referred to the effects of solar activity on the stratosphere in his seasonal forecasts

 

Most of the warming that occured in the 20th Century is factually attributed to the postive periods of the PDO. As well as pre-dominant pre-disposition to notably more active positive solar cyclical activity

Edited May 2, 2013 by Tamara Road

[BornFromTheVoid]

That isn't correct. There is a direct correlation between high/higher solar activity and a cooler stratosphere - and the converse holds true as well. It all links in with the BDC and ozone distribution which I linked the other day. GP also referred to the effects of solar activity on the stratosphere in his seasonal forecasts

 

Most of the warming that occured in the 20th Century is factually attributed to the postive periods of the PDO. As well as pre-dominant pre-disposition to notably more active positive solar cyclical activity

 

Global stratospheric temperatures have been very low since the mid-90s, with last year being the coolest or 3rd coolest depending on the source. Where is the effect of the longest solar minimum in a century here? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/2012/13#strato

Glacier Points forecasts focused on the polar stratosphere and its links with tropospheric circulation, not the global stratosphere.

 

So the PDO and solar activity caused the 20th century warming. Can you demonstrate this factual attribution? Because I have my doubts! 

Edited May 2, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[Polar Maritime]

Am I correct in thinking that high solar activity cool's the stratosphere from beneath due to rise in Co2 levels on the surface which works it's way through the strat cooling it on the way ? depending on the extent of solar activity, leaving only the outer edge warmed by UV..?

 

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/18/stratospheric-cooling/

 

Given other forces are at hand, but just taking solar activity in isolation..

Edited May 2, 2013 by Polar Maritime

[Methuselah]

That isn't correct. There is a direct correlation between high/higher solar activity and a cooler stratosphere - and the converse holds true as well. It all links in with the BDC and ozone distribution which I linked the other day. GP also referred to the effects of solar activity on the stratosphere in his seasonal forecasts

 

Most of the warming that occured in the 20th Century is factually attributed to the postive periods of the PDO. As well as pre-dominant pre-disposition to notably more active positive solar cyclical activity

That's an awful lot of correlations, between entities that humans have only recently been able to measure?

 

There's also a 'direct' correlation between one eating ice cream and then drowning...

[BornFromTheVoid]

Participate in a survey measuring consensus in climate research

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Participate-survey-measuring-consensus-climate-research.html

 

The Skeptical Science team has a paper coming out within a few weeks in the high-impact journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) (many thanks to all who donated money to help make the paper freely available to the public). In our paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, we analysed over 12,000 papers listed in the 'Web Of Science' between 1991 to 2011 matching the topic 'global warming' or 'global climate change'.

 

Reading so many papers was an eye-opening experience as it hit home just how diverse and rich the research into climate change is. So before the paper comes out, we're inviting readers to in a small way repeat the experience we went through. Not just Skeptical Science readers - I'm emailing an invitation to 58 of the most highly trafficked climate blogs (half of them skeptic), asking them to post a link to the survey. In this way we hope to obtain ratings from a diverse range of participants.

 

You're invited to rate the abstracts of the climate papers with the purpose of estimating the level of consensus regarding the proposition that humans are causing global warming. The survey involves reading and rating 10 random  abstracts and is expected to take around 15 minutes. You have the option of signing up to receive the final results of the survey and be notified when our ERL paper on consensus is published.

 

 

[mikeworst]

That's an awful lot of correlations, between entities that humans have only recently been able to measure?

 

There's also a 'direct' correlation between one eating ice cream and then drowning...

Rybris that is not called for. Tamara is essentially correct in her post that solar activity is directly attributable to changes in the global climate. This has been known for a long time and there are many peer reviewed papers showing exactly that.

 What is really frustrating for me is that so many believers in the CO2 theory of AGW do not want or will not even consider looking at alternative views even if these views are increasingly compelling, and they are.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Rybris that is not called for. Tamara is essentially correct in her post that solar activity is directly attributable to changes in the global climate. This has been known for a long time and there are many peer reviewed papers showing exactly that.

 What is really frustrating for me is that so many believers in the CO2 theory of AGW do not want or will not even consider looking at alternative views even if these views are increasingly compelling, and they are.

 

Nobody (that I'm aware of) denies that solar activity influences temperature. What's being debated is what has had the largest effect on the Earth's temperature in recent decades, and what is likely to have the largest effect moving forward.

The correlation issue is mainly with the PDO. Correlation does not equal causation. You need a physical basis to justify the claim of causation.

[Polar Maritime]

Rybris that is not called for. Tamara is essentially correct in her post that solar activity is directly attributable to changes in the global climate. This has been known for a long time and there are many peer reviewed papers showing exactly that.

 What is really frustrating for me is that so many believers in the CO2 theory of AGW do not want or will not even consider looking at alternative views even if these views are increasingly compelling, and they are.

Pete has a great sense of humour.. Im sure Tamara is used to it by now 

 

Some great post's on this thread for newbies to this subject like myself, especially BFTV ! So much to learn from both sides of the coin..

Edited May 2, 2013 by Polar Maritime

[Tamara]

Rybris that is not called for. Tamara is essentially correct in her post that solar activity is directly attributable to changes in the global climate. This has been known for a long time and there are many peer reviewed papers showing exactly that.

 What is really frustrating for me is that so many believers in the CO2 theory of AGW do not want or will not even consider looking at alternative views even if these views are increasingly compelling, and they are.

Thanks for that Mike

 

I'll try and respond to the comments/discussion about the stratosphere and solar activity when I have more time. I think it is good that these elements are being introduced as talking points, whether one believes they are valid or otherwise

Edited May 2, 2013 by Tamara Road

[UV-RAY]

Thanks for that Mike:)

 

I'll try and respond to the comments/discussion about the stratosphere and solar activity when I have more time. I think it is good that these elements are being introduced as talking points, whether one believes they are valid or otherwise:)

Indeed Tamara and it certainly beats the usual Punch and Judy antics we often see in climate forums, good to see both sides presenting a good case.

[Methuselah]

Sorry for any offence caused; it was never my intention. And, I do have no doubts, whatsoever, that solar activity impacts upon Earth's climate. How could it not do so!

 

But, there was a reason why I cited the ice cream/drowning correlation, apart from my wish to seem facetious: it's there, it's real and there's a link between the two; but the one does not cause the other...

 

And, IMO, Joe Public's aptitude for being confounded by correlations presented, in the Media, as links, is another of the AGW protagonists' (and of the AGW sceptics') PR problems...

 

For the record, I'm both a protagonist and a sceptic... 

Rybris that is not called for. Tamara is essentially correct in her post that solar activity is directly attributable to changes in the global climate. This has been known for a long time and there are many peer reviewed papers showing exactly that.

 What is really frustrating for me is that so many believers in the CO2 theory of AGW do not want or will not even consider looking at alternative views even if these views are increasingly compelling, and they are.

See post above, Mike...

[knocker]

The curious case of the White House and the Arctic death spiral

Senior US government officials are to be briefed at the White House this week on the danger of an ice-free Arctic in the summer within two years.

 

The meeting is bringing together Nasa’s acting chief scientist, Gale Allen, the director of the US National Science Foundation, Cora Marett, as well as representatives from the US Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon.

 

This is the latest indication that US officials are increasingly concerned about the international and domestic security implications of climate change.

Senior scientists advising the US government at the meeting include 10 Arctic specialists, including marine scientist Prof Carlos Duarte, director of the Oceans Institute at the University of Western Australia.

 

In early April, Duarte warned that the Arctic summer sea ice was melting at a rate faster than predicted by conventional climate models, and could be ice free as early as 2015 – rather than toward the end of the century, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected in 2007. He said:

 

“The Arctic situation is snowballing: dangerous changes in the Arctic derived from accumulated anthropogenic green house gases lead to more activities conducive to further greenhouse gas emissions. This situation has the momentum of a runaway train.â€

 

 

http://www.grinzo.com/energy/2013/05/02/the-curious-case-of-the-white-house-and-the-arctic-death-spiral/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Edited May 2, 2013 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Not very constructive GW by constantly referring sceptics as deniers, also least we forget that the arctic was ice free 7000 years ago, this was confirmed by TomC over on two climate forum.

 

The possible/likely temporary ice ice free conditions then, were driven by different factors to today. It was likely close to modern global temperature, but with Arctic insolation higher then due to orbital forcing.

[Gray-Wolf]

I have never found 'conclusive evidence' of ice free conditions? I've seen papers that give evidence of local ice free periods but then we know that warming/cooling on a regional basis is far commoner than 'global warming/cooling?

 

Were we to have seen an 'ice free Ocean' 7,000yrs ago then why do we have land based snow patches , now disappearing, over 12,000yrs old? Surely we would have as bigger impact on land based snow as we see today with ice free conditions impacting temps 1,500km inland?

[BornFromTheVoid]

I have never found 'conclusive evidence' of ice free conditions? I've seen papers that give evidence of local ice free periods but then we know that warming/cooling on a regional basis is far commoner than 'global warming/cooling?

 

Were we to have seen an 'ice free Ocean' 7,000yrs ago then why do we have land based snow patches , now disappearing, over 12,000yrs old? Surely we would have as bigger impact on land based snow as we see today with ice free conditions impacting temps 1,500km inland?

 

It's the presence of beach ridges on the Greenland north coast, that require wave action from a long fetch (possibly back to the N Pole) that's the strongest evidence for ice free conditions. It certainly isn't confirmed, but it does seem likely.

With regard to the snow patches, having just turned the corner from the last ice age, perhaps they were much larger before the ice free conditions and managed to survive the warm period?

Have you any links with info on them?

[knocker]

Proposed new science teaching guidelines make case for complex concepts in science education, including, for the first time, climate change.

A new set of voluntary teaching standards, subject to adoption by individual states, for the first time addresses climate change science, but some stronger language in earlier drafts appears to have been left on the cutting-room floor.

 

Experts from the National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science provided input on the “Next Generation Science Standards,†developed with broad support from a number of states and teacher groups. Ultimately, the proposed new standards weakened

 

The new science education guidelines aim to redirect the emphasis and methods of science instruction in U.S. schools, and now include guidance on climate change in public schools. The Next Generation Science Standards open the way for widespread adoption by states, many of which assisted in their development. States will decide individually whether or not to adopt the new standards.

 

 

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/04/climate-change-included-in-science-teaching-guidelines/

[4wd]

The very title of this thread is revealing.
Why is great importance attached to making sure everyone knows what [the consensus] currently claim to be happening.?

This is part of the PR problem - in that it starts to seem like a desire to indoctrinate or religious zeal.
The ordinary person can't do anything much to reduce CO2 apart from use energy thoughtfully, which given the cost most of us do anyway.
We are seeing continual changes in emphasis in what 'we know' or think we know to be true about the climate system and recently what was thought to be likely ten years ago is looking way off target. 

Why is this subject which in the real world won't make the slightest difference to most people given such bizarre prominence when we don't even have sound evidence that warming is happening at predicted rates or that it would be much of a problem if it were.

It is not difficult to suspect some other motives are at work in this, and they are not all about the greater good but often related to securing funding for alternative energy projects which are now a huge industry grabbing billions from the public purse.

[knocker]

Why is this subject which in the real world won't make the slightest difference to most people given such bizarre prominence when we don't even have sound evidence that warming is happening at predicted rates or that it would be much of a problem if it were.

 

.

 

No sound evidence? I assume someone is holding a blow lamp to glaciers around the world and the Arctic, not to mention SST rises. And the latest paper on temp rises in Europe. I could go on but Watts whats the point? And it's not even about AGW. Sand and ostriches come to mind,

 

But i agree the title is revealing but who conjured it up? So why not ask him?

 

And you think the fossil industry hasn't been grabbing millions from the public purse for years and are likely to do even more in the future whilst at the same time destroying the environment and habitats of thousands of species on land and sea. So it's not difficult to suspect the motives of the fossil fuel industry. Greed.

 

.

[Methuselah]

I'm glad that I'm impervious to 'religious zeal' then, 4...