Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

This the latest I've seen on cloud feedback although I haven't read the paper.

 

http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/news/press_releases/2010/lauer_global_warming.pdf

[Methuselah]

This the latest I've seen on cloud feedback although I haven't read the paper.

 

http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/news/press_releases/2010/lauer_global_warming.pdf

Thanks Malcolm.

[knocker]

Graph of global temperatures in September - warmest since records started in 1880, according to NASA

 

 

[knocker]

Australia is hot, dry and risky, so why cut climate action?

http://theconversation.com/australia-is-hot-dry-and-risky-so-why-cut-climate-action-19535

[Methuselah]

A good article from the other thread: http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/01/pacific-ocean-heat-content-for-the-past-10000-years/

[knocker]

Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling

Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century^{1, 2}, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming^{3, 4, 5, 6}, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations. We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model. Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming). Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA. Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

 

A summary

 

http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/solving-the-mysteries-of-hiatus-in-global-warming/

[Gray-Wolf]

So another part of the planet that had been significantly warmer over the solar forced period and had 'cooled' but has suddenly sprung back into a warming spurt? Have we thrown the 'natural' ,wider cycle out of kilter and how will that impact the longer term? If we 'skip' a minor glaciation will that not mean the next thermal max will eat into ice that should have survived ( as the heat took out the more 'recent ice' instead)?

 

I have concerns over the 'buried' carbon cycle that we look in danger of re-animating ? The earth has settled to a 'new regime' of lower CO2 levels over the past 7-8 million years with our eco-system radically altering to accommodate these lower levels of atmospheric CO2 ( forest to grassland and a 'swap' of herbivores to grass eaters from tree nibblers) so a rapid swap back to higher CO2 levels will prove difficult for nature to keep up with.

 

As an aside Spark's last offering over in the other place is a bit naughty don't you find? Some of the poor blighter's are bound to take him seriously! How long before we see his punt repeated around the misleaders realm? ( maybe that was his ploy.... if so " Good on ya!").

[knocker]

In my declining years I can't remember whether I posted this or not. No matter.

 

A new European report on climate extremes is out

A new report on extreme climate events in Europe is just published: ‘Extreme Weather Events in Europe: preparing for climate change adaptation‘. It was launched in Oslo on October 24th by the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and the report is now available online.

What’s new? The new report provides information that is more specific to Europe than the SREX report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and incorporate phenomena that have not been widely covered.

It provides some compelling information drawn from the insurance industry, and indeed, a representative from Munich Re participated in writing this report. There is also material on convective storms, hail, lightening, and cold snaps, and the report provides a background on extreme value statistics, risk analysis, impacts, and adaptation.

 

The main difference with the recent IPCC reports (e.g. the SREX) is the European focus and that it includes more recent results. The report writing process did not have to follow as rigid procedures as the IPCC, and hence the report is less constrained. For instance, it provides set of recommendations for policymakers, based entirely on scientific considerations.

The report, in which I have been involved, was initiated by the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and was written by a committee of experts across Europe. Hence, the final report was published as a joint report by the Norwegian meteorological institute, the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC)

 

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/a-new-european-report-on-climate-extremes-is-out/

[Gray-Wolf]

http://theenergycollective.com/stephenlacey/294991/germany-hits-59-renewable-peak-grid-does-not-explode

 

Who says we are not ready for 'renewables'? As more and more come on line and output from devices increases the impacts on overpriced fossil fuel will reduce demand and so force it's price up........ maybe market forces kinda work?

[Methuselah]

When you consider that an area of photovoltaics, the size of the Aswan Dam, would produce an amount of energy an order of magnitude greater than the dam itself does it's a small wonder green energy is so little-used?

 

The corporate world carries a lot of inertia!

Edited November 3, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[Crepuscular Ray]

Interestingly, in East Sussex, the council have approved a solar farm at Berwick, on the outskirts of the South Downs National Park, because the developers have involved the locals and are offering them part-ownership of the company. This is in an area not far from where they recently turned down a wind farm.

 

It's also interesting to see what's happening elsewhere. In Turkey, most homes in rural areas have had solar heating for their hot-water supplies for about a decade, while in Australia successive governments have gone for rhetoric rather than make use of anything except fossil fuels, which seems ridiculous to me given how much energy they could get from solar power.

[knocker]

There are quite a number of solar farms in Cornwall, some of them quite large.

 

In 2009 Cornwall Council portrayed the county as a "sweetie shop" for renewable energy.

 

The authority said it was "preparing for a solar power gold rush" and forecast that developments in this technology could lead to up to £1bn of investment.

 

The council has now approved nearly 50 solar farms covering more than 1,600 acres.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-20444648

 

But the usual problems still arise.

 

A PLANNED solar farm that would cover the equivalent of 20 football pitches in South East Cornwall has been unanimously rejected by councillors today.

 

The application, on land at St Mellion – close to the village’s renowned golf club and resort – was rejected by Cornwall Council’s strategic planning committee.

 

It had sparked fierce opposition from the golf club resort, St Mellion Parish Council and dozens of villagers living close to the site.

 

Ken Henley, St Mellion Parish Council chairman, told the committee: “The parish council has been overwhelmed with information, with representations both for and against the application.â€

Read more: http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Planned-solar-farm-St-Mellion-rejected-Cornwall/story-19724267-detail/story.html#ixzz2jchgeCnK

 

[knocker]

More on the graph I posted above by Stefan Ramhsdorf

 

What is special about the calendar month of September? He is one of the three months with the least "noise" (ie, the smallest short-term fluctuations) in the global temperature (next June and July). Therefore, it shows the long-term climate signal especially clear and unadulterated. In particular, the September value seems to be little affected by El Niño - you can see for example the value in 1998 with the record El Niño does not stand out, and also the most recent El Niño year 2010 (globally the warmest year in the annual values ​​of the NASA ) was not particularly warm in September.

 

 

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.scilogs.de/klimalounge/waermster-september/&prev=/search%3Fq%3DW%25C3%25A4rmster%2BSeptember%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3D3b7%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official

Edited November 3, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Is it too soon to ponder how we will witness the end of the 'hiatus'?

 

Under normal 'natural variation' it would be a slow process but what should we expect from a system slightly out of kilter and so stacked toward warming?

 

Will we see a more rapid move toward positive temps or will it still take a while to unfold?

 

Are we due a large Nino on the back of the run of heat absorbing Nina's? are we to expect a run of Nino's similar to the predominance of Nina events we have just had?

 

Does a sudden resumption in higher warming rates bring issues with 'natural' CO2 emmisions from the permafrost?

 

How will the misleaders deal with the data showing an end to their most used device?

[Methuselah]

I'm not sure abut that, Ian...But, wasn't the Younger Dryas caused entirely by the melting-out of the Great North American Ice-Sheet?

 

Unless the Solar flux has reduced by an amount greater than CO₂'s radiative forcing has increased, any expectation that the current 15-year (3-year?) pause might be permanent, looks to be a little premature? Whatever will be, will be...

[BornFromTheVoid]

Mike Lockwood has responded to being incorrectly cited as predicting a new little ice age by Paul Hudson in a recent BBC article.

http://www.carbonbri...e-ice-ageâ€/

 

 

Another Maunder minimum would have a very small effect globally

What is most interesting for me is the current decline in solar activity. The "exceptional" low minimum in the 11-year solar cycle seen in 2008/9, and the subsequent weakness of the current solar cycle, are both part of a steady decline that has been going on since about 1985. This has returned the sun to conditions last seen around 1910.

If we compare this to records of solar activity derived from isotopes stored in tree trunks and ice sheets we find this decline is faster than any in the last 9,000 years, increasing the probability that the sun will return to Maunder minimum conditions within about 50 years.

So what do we think the effect of a return to Maunder minimum conditions on global mean temperatures would be? The answer is very little.

In a paper with scientists from the Met Office's Hadley Centre, we used an energy balance model to show the slowing in anthropogenic global warming associated with decline in solar irradiance to Maunder minimum levels.

We found the likely reduction in warming by 2100 would be between 0.06 and 0.1 degrees Celsius, a very small fraction of the warming we're due to experience as a result of human activity. Other scientists such as Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf from Potsdam, Germany had reached very similar conclusions.

I've also used observations from the last 50 years to investigate the effect of solar activity on global temperatures - and like several other authors, I find only a very minor effect.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

So will 'Maunder conditions' move in to supplant 'the pause' in misleaders posts over the years that natural negative climate forcing gives way to positive ones?....... well it looks like that will be a short lived affair then?

 

EDIT: maybe it'll impact the SWE technology?

 

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/solar-wind-energy-tower-inc-extends-rights-develop-energy-downdraft-towers-chile-otcqb-swet-1847830.htm?

Edited November 4, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

 

Mike Lockwood has responded to being incorrectly cited as predicting a new little ice age by Paul Hudson in a recent BBC article.

http://www.carbonbri...e-ice-ageâ€/

 

 

That ties in with the paper I posted the other day regarding volcanic activity.

[Gray-Wolf]

For those who seek clarity  over terminology it is the likes of Hudson, who knowingly misrepresent, that are the 'Misleaders' .

 

The poor souls that are mislead ( and perpetuate the nonsense) have to be sympathised with surely as , if they accept without checking, we can safely assume that they cannot be expected to know any better?

 

EDIT: And on that note it is nice to see the real 'sceptics' take issue with the nonsense the folk more aligned with misleader tosh post..... as stew did over the curry paper last night on the 'sceptics' thread........maybe the true sceptics of AGW will be demanding their own thread soon?

Edited November 4, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

For those who seek clarity  over terminology it is the likes of Hudson, who knowingly misrepresent, that are the 'Misleaders' .

 

The poor souls that are mislead ( and perpetuate the nonsense) have to be sympathised with surely as , if they accept without checking, we can safely assume that they cannot be expected to know any better?

 

EDIT: And on that note it is nice to see the real 'sceptics' take issue with the nonsense the folk more aligned with misleader tosh post..... as stew did over the curry paper last night on the 'sceptics' thread........maybe the true sceptics of AGW will be demanding their own thread soon?

Then, perhaps we need enlighten them, Ian? I'm not sure that simply berating them is the answer?

[knocker]

I think you can see where the 17 years came from from here Pete. She's quite funny when when talking about Monkton.

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/

Edited November 4, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

Skeptical enquirer said: "My view on proponents of AGW isn't printable on a family forum, they are all the same hiding behind scientific ideas which are dressed up as facts."

 

Stereotyping never helps.

[Fergus Brown]

Skeptical enquirer said: "My view on proponents of AGW isn't printable on a family forum, they are all the same hiding behind scientific ideas which are dressed up as facts."

 

Stereotyping never helps.

 

It is also a strange notion - that science is no more than 'ideas which are dressed up as facts'. Yes, science requires hypothesis, but this is only a part of what science does. The really important bits include measurement, observation and analysis, which are facts, aren't they?

 

It is healthy to be cautious about placing too much trust in speculative science - this is real skepticism. But generally speaking, most of the speculation comes from the media mis-reporting of science, rather than the work itself. It is risky for a scientist to indulge in unfounded speculation so this tends to be avoided, or parsed in very cautious terms, to avoid misunderstanding.

 

OTOH, what part of physics as represented in climate science is speculation rather than observed, tested and verified fact? (serious question)

[Gray-Wolf]

I cannot believe that we are seeing some members of the debate now resorting to binning science??? Just because the knowledge science is bringing to us doesn't support your stance is no reason to attempt to declare it redundant? 

 

I do not 'enjoy' a lot of what climate science has brought to us over the past decade but do believe the 'forewarned is forearmed' and so take on board the concerns they bring to us. I also agree with Fergus that Scientists do tend to be very conservative in the way they present their findings......it does not serve them to be 'sensationalist' over their finding esp. in a climate where paid dissenters will jump on every little departure from the observed that subsequently occurs?

 

As for sections of the debate 'hiding behind science' What does that mean even? If we wish to be informed in the subject then surely we will keep up with current scientific understanding? If we find answers to questions in scientific discoveries then surely we will use those findings to help explain our position or highlight where the oppositions view is faulty. On that point if a person you debate with brings to your attention scientific findings that do compromise your opinions do you not take on board the new findings and alter your opinion?

 

In the past folk have attacked me as being 'entrenched' or 'inflexible' in my views but nothing could be further from the truth. My ongoing endeavours to form an opinion ,on how  and why climate is changing, has not, to date, come across evidence strong enough to alter the views I have evolved over the past quarter century. This does not mean that if strong enough evidence, questioning my understanding of what is occurring, came up I would reject it to preserve my current stance. Why would I? Surely we would all prefer a rosy future, free from the horrid projections science is giving us, to look forward to? Why would anyone choose to focus on the Grim if there was a real chance of an alternative?

[VillagePlank]

Just because the knowledge science is bringing to us doesn't support your stance is no reason to attempt to declare it redundant?

 

Absolutely!