478 replies to this topic

[Iceberg]

Well done to everybody on this last page you have just proven without doubt what a joke NetWeather is as a place to discuss climate sensibly.

It's a real shame and goes to show how ignorant and infantile the skeptic brigade on here really is.

[laserguy]

Iceberg, on 06 August 2009 - 12:44 , said:

I really wish I could do some headbanging here.

I'm sure I've got an old 'quo album kicking around somewhere,could dig that out for you?

[Solar Sausage]

Right peeps,

Cut-out the Daily Mail type rants now. Or your posts will be vanishing into the ether...

Okay???

[Paul]

OK, so Pete posts a polite request to ask everyone to stop with the name calling etc, and what happens, straight away it continues!!

Please read this and take it in:

http://www.netweathe...ction=rules&f=8

As per the code of conduct, please also accept this as a public notice to anyone taking part within any of the discussions in this part of the forum that any further issues will result in an immediate 1 month posting restriction within the climate area.

[Iceberg]

I was a little irritable this morning, to be honest If you don't believe any of the figures produced around the world then fine, but if this is the case then you're not going to be able to contribute to this thread in a constructive manor, indeed if you fail to

This thread isn't or shouldn't be about AGW.
It doesn't have to be circular in nature.

It's about trying to explain what has caused the warming noticed in ALL of the worlds data sets, (This includes ALL of the satelite record sets and ALL of the compiled datasets), with the datasets going back to between 30 to 150 years.

If people think about it they might be able to come up with something. IF it can be evidenced that this warming can be attributable to natural cycles it would be a) a step forward into understand the climate and a step forward for those that don't believe AGW theory.

I would say again though this thread isn't about AGW itself.


Thinking last night I thought what about the Feb stratospheric warming event. It was almost record breaking and caused a very large spike in temperatures.
Maybe a component of this took 6 months to feed down through the atmospheric layers ?. If so there should be some record of it as we move down through the layers.

If so it would be a shortish peak that has just coincided and augemented the start of the more modest natural El Nino global warming....

[Solar Cycles]

Iceberg, on 07 August 2009 - 08:56 , said:

I was a little irritable this morning, to be honest If you don't believe any of the figures produced around the world then fine, but if this is the case then you're not going to be able to contribute to this thread in a constructive manor, indeed if you fail to

This thread isn't or shouldn't be about AGW.
It doesn't have to be circular in nature.

It's about trying to explain what has caused the warming noticed in ALL of the worlds data sets, (This includes ALL of the satelite record sets and ALL of the compiled datasets), with the datasets going back to between 30 to 150 years.

If people think about it they might be able to come up with something. IF it can be evidenced that this warming can be attributable to natural cycles it would be a) a step forward into understand the climate and a step forward for those that don't believe AGW theory.

I would say again though this thread isn't about AGW itself.


Thinking last night I thought what about the Feb stratospheric warming event. It was almost record breaking and caused a very large spike in temperatures.
Maybe a component of this took 6 months to feed down through the atmospheric layers ?. If so there should be some record of it as we move down through the layers.

If so it would be a shortish peak that has just coincided and augemented the start of the more modest natural El Nino global warming....

Point taken Iceberg, we have all gone round in circles on the other threads. Let's all try not too on this one!

[noggin]

Iceberg, on 07 August 2009 - 08:56 , said:

It's about trying to explain what has caused the warming noticed in ALL of the worlds data sets, (This includes ALL of the satelite record sets and ALL of the compiled datasets), with the datasets going back to between 30 to 150 years.

May I add a little to my post on page 2? My view is that right at the very start of it all, the Sun is the driver of all climatic changes....it is like the push that topples the first domino. The knock-on effects are the changes to atmospheric conditions and sea and ocean conditions, which in themselves "cause" the weather and the climate. As well as being the driver in itself, the result of that initial "push" varies due to the effect of Milankovitch cycles, much like the initial domino push can vary according to to the force used, the angle of contact etc. thereby changing the way in which the dominoes fall.

Do I make any sense? I sometimes have trouble explaining what I mean!

Edited by noggin, 07 August 2009 - 09:37 .

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

[quote]Thinking last night I thought what about the Feb stratospheric warming event. It was almost record breaking and caused a very large spike in temperatures.
Maybe a component of this took 6 months to feed down through the atmospheric layers ?. If so there should be some record of it as we move down through the layers.

If so it would be a shortish peak that has just coincided and augemented the start of the more modest natural El Nino global warming....
[/quote][/quote]


Hi Iceberg
Through the melee I saw one sentence from someone, re it relating to July and how relevant is this in the grand scheme of things? The reason i say this is because I mentioned the very same earlier. Take Jan 08 for instance...30 years of warming totally wiped out...but it lead on to mean not that asit was one month. Will this July do the same?
Re above an interesting point and worth looking at. I think ENSO affecs the temps but doesn't control them as we see varying anomalies so IMO it doesn't explain the anomaly but only part of it...so there must be other reason/s.
I am interested too [I go along with the figures because it involves UAH and I have stated that I follow those measurements] of how this is shown. For example there are large ares on the globe showing record cool or very cold conditions. There must be larger areas of warmth'record warmth...do we know where these areas are because normally they would be plastered over every media outlet?

And let's go through current cold natural cycles
Solar minimum....it is lower than expected but isn't into a true minima yet...so I anticipate a gradual kicking in of its effects over time if it remains as a true minima. Lag effect as with the High maxes.
-ve PDO, still in its infancy but has had a affect but a fair bit of warming to counteract against.
Perturbation Cycle, La Nina phase since Feb 07...this is a 36 year cycle and so cannot expect instant results oterwise we'd be in deep iceage by the end of 36years, same for the -ve PDO.
So the cold drivers one cannotexpect instant 'big' results but what we hve seen is static global temps thus far so i think they are visibly showing their hand.
regards

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST, 07 August 2009 - 09:43 .

[noggin]

noggin, on 07 August 2009 - 09:32 , said:

May I add a little to my post on page 2? My view is that right at the very start of it all, the Sun is the driver of all climatic changes....it is like the push that topples the first domino. The knock-on effects are the changes to atmospheric conditions and sea and ocean conditions, which in themselves "cause" the weather and the climate. As well as being the driver in itself, the result of that initial "push" varies due to the effect of Milankovitch cycles, much like the initial domino push can vary according to to the force used, the angle of contact etc. thereby changing the way in which the dominoes fall.

Do I make any sense? I sometimes have trouble explaining what I mean!

I see I have support from scientific circles!

http://oregonstate.e...redict-future

[Devonian]

noggin, on 07 August 2009 - 09:46 , said:

I see I have support from scientific circles!

http://oregonstate.e...redict-future

It's a interesting article, worth reading in full, not just as spun by certain blogs....Indeed, I'm not sure there is much new in it.

[The Penguin]

Iceberg, on 07 August 2009 - 05:51 , said:

Well done to everybody on this last page you have just proven without doubt what a joke NetWeather is as a place to discuss climate sensibly.

It's a real shame and goes to show how ignorant and infantile the skeptic brigade on here really is.

Put simply, there was GW before there was A; therefore the sceptic brigade have a valid locus in any debate on the subject.

Seems to me, after contributing to, getting fed up with, and now observing the climate change debate in all its guises here for four and a half years that the discussion has always and will continue to go round in circles. We don’t have all the answers and so it’s bound to. However, I find it encouraging that these are ever-increasing rather than ever-decreasing circles, due to the steady flow of ideas and evidence that comes in from all persuasions. Or they could be if people weren't constantly being chopped off at the ankles. There haven’t been many who have publicly reversed their position, but whether that’s due to the quality of evidence or the quality of presentation is open to question. More likely, perhaps, it’s the tone of the debate that entrenches people in their beliefs and closes their minds to possible alternatives. Unfortunately, while the topics for discussion grow by the week, the opportunities to debate these rationally diminish. Back in my early days in this forum there were people who went to a great deal of trouble to investigate, evaluate and present evidence, and others (with specific qualification or experience,) who invested a similar amount of effort to explain the merits and demerits of the technicalities involved to the less well equipped in that regard, like me. Of course there were a few less gifted contributors who could only shout and scream about their own beliefs and accuse others of stupidity when their ‘unquestionable’ logic was queried, but the general gist of the thing was to be helpful. It is sad that the terrorists have overtaken the teachers on both sides.

Doubt is not a crime, and persuasion is not a martial art.

[badboy657]

first of all id like to say to iceberg im sorry if you felt some of my post may have irritated you but i can promise you i only go against the grain because evidence is supported on both sides.

so iceberg ofcoarse you have valid points,
and mods im sorry if you may think i might of disrupted this thread it was not intended and was trying to get my view across and with this subject it seems to become hard to really get the real truth because of the growing evidence of both warming and cooling climate.

ofcoarse warmth has happened even this year around the world places have reached record highs and it also around the areas where theres been record cold,
but not for a minute do i think its man made in anyway,

most likely reasons are natural cycles i.e el nino,
id also say record temps where recorded because stubbon areas of high pressure like anywhere on the planet can bottle up heat causing it to get hotter and hotter as each day passes,
as with cold record from the right area and right source cold will linger around so therefore records being broken on both sides although the records in the first place only go back so far.

but the question is and by far im not a scientist,

but read much from many people on here and around the net,
that solar cycles have effect in some way or form,

as you said ice berg we have seen record high solar cycles decline over recent decades maybe there is a lag from solar output or maybe its simple fact that oceans are much slower to cool add in strong el ninos this to shifts warmer waters around the planet greatly adding to the warming but still thease are all cycles.

most warm records have been broken during high solar and or el nino events and like wise la nina and minimums.

ok all i can really say is there is so much more to our climate on earth than co2 even if we had continued warm run of winters and hot dry summers i would still feel that something will change in the end.

i think things are starting to show differences in our climate so many of them to,
which makes the whole topic so confusing sometimes and we cant also forget the mighty jet stream and the mighty gulf stream all thease have changed over time although some have only been since the solar minimum.

but the answer to why we warmed could simply be because we are in a interglacial period where also the suns activty started out very high after its big sleep.

what will happen next is anyones guess but we all have different idears from different sources wether it be satellite data or plain old area data, but i know one thing its certain that recent years overall have gone against the grain maybe thats why people are started to listen to the skeptical side of gw.

[Solar Sausage]

I must admit, I am not interested in rhetorical garbage, okay? If you want to put-forward scienific arguments then, by all means, do so??

But, if it's wholly rhetorical then I'll delete it. Is that okay?

[Thundery wintry showers]

noggin, on 07 August 2009 - 09:46 , said:

I see I have support from scientific circles!

http://oregonstate.e...redict-future

Regarding solar activity this is true, but the article doesn't support the view that it undermines the case for AGW:

Quote

Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age – unless some other forces stop or slow it. But these are processes that literally move with glacial slowness, and due to greenhouse gas emissions the Earth has already warmed as much in about the past 200 years as it ordinarily might in several thousand years, Clark said.

“One of the biggest concerns right now is how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will respond to global warming and contribute to sea level rise,” Clark said. “This study will help us better understand that process, and improve the validity of our models.”

That last paragraph makes a particularly important point. What effect will melting of the Greenland ice sheet have? At the moment we don't really know. I doubt that the Antarctic ice sheet will melt significantly in the near future, though, unless we get a colossal amount of global warming (say upwards of 5C).

I'll be very surprised if that study does turn out to be conclusive- these things are often challenged subsequently in later studies that further enhance our understanding. At the same time, though, it makes a lot of sense that the sun should be the main driver (or at least one of the main drivers) of climate change over geological timescales.

[chionomaniac]

Iceberg, on 07 August 2009 - 08:56 , said:

Thinking last night I thought what about the Feb stratospheric warming event. It was almost record breaking and caused a very large spike in temperatures.
Maybe a component of this took 6 months to feed down through the atmospheric layers ?. If so there should be some record of it as we move down through the layers.

If so it would be a shortish peak that has just coincided and augemented the start of the more modest natural El Nino global warming....

I don't think that will be a likely reason, Iceberg. Firstly,during the SSW there is a corresponding displacement of the polar cold temperatures into the equatorial regions which then slowly recover as the polar vortex reforms as can be seen from the following chart.

http://www.cpc.ncep....ALL_EQ_2009.gif

Secondly, even with this record breaking SSW the stratospheric propagation temperatures have practically recovered at the tropopause level by the end of March with no sign that any further propagation has occurred. I would reckon this effect would be nullified by July.

http://www.cpc.ncep....ALL_NH_2009.gif

c

[weather eater]

Thundery wintry showers, on 07 August 2009 - 15:40 , said:

Regarding solar activity this is true, but the article doesn't support the view that it undermines the case for AGW:


That last paragraph makes a particularly important point. What effect will melting of the Greenland ice sheet have? At the moment we don't really know. I doubt that the Antarctic ice sheet will melt significantly in the near future, though, unless we get a colossal amount of global warming (say upwards of 5C).

I'll be very surprised if that study does turn out to be conclusive- these things are often challenged subsequently in later studies that further enhance our understanding. At the same time, though, it makes a lot of sense that the sun should be the main driver (or at least one of the main drivers) of climate change over geological timescales.

Yes another article that explores natural cycles of cooling and warming and one that supports the idea that those natural cycles have a major impact on climate change, however as you have made clear in your post the article still ends up endorsing the view that AGW is a scientific fact.

As for the circular nature of the climate change threads I cant see that changing short of a really rapid and dramatic shift up or down in world temperatures.

[Iceberg]

chionomaniac, on 07 August 2009 - 15:53 , said:

I don't think that will be a likely reason, Iceberg. Firstly,during the SSW there is a corresponding displacement of the polar cold temperatures into the equatorial regions which then slowly recover as the polar vortex reforms as can be seen from the following chart.

http://www.cpc.ncep....ALL_EQ_2009.gif

Secondly, even with this record breaking SSW the stratospheric propagation temperatures have practically recovered at the tropopause level by the end of March with no sign that any further propagation has occurred. I would reckon this effect would be nullified by July.

http://www.cpc.ncep....ALL_NH_2009.gif

c

Thanks Chionomanic, you were indeed the right person to say whether it was a sensible or not.!

A very recent paper discussing removing the known natural climate drivers from the temperature record include the short term variance caused by ENSO.

http://www.atmos.col...009_revised.pdf

It is thankfully the full paper and I am thankful they have not hidden it behind paying journals.

[Iceberg]

The Penguin, on 07 August 2009 - 11:25 , said:

Put simply, there was GW before there was A; therefore the sceptic brigade have a valid locus in any debate on the subject.

Seems to me, after contributing to, getting fed up with, and now observing the climate change debate in all its guises here for four and a half years that the discussion has always and will continue to go round in circles. We don’t have all the answers and so it’s bound to. However, I find it encouraging that these are ever-increasing rather than ever-decreasing circles, due to the steady flow of ideas and evidence that comes in from all persuasions. Or they could be if people weren't constantly being chopped off at the ankles. There haven’t been many who have publicly reversed their position, but whether that’s due to the quality of evidence or the quality of presentation is open to question. More likely, perhaps, it’s the tone of the debate that entrenches people in their beliefs and closes their minds to possible alternatives. Unfortunately, while the topics for discussion grow by the week, the opportunities to debate these rationally diminish. Back in my early days in this forum there were people who went to a great deal of trouble to investigate, evaluate and present evidence, and others (with specific qualification or experience,) who invested a similar amount of effort to explain the merits and demerits of the technicalities involved to the less well equipped in that regard, like me. Of course there were a few less gifted contributors who could only shout and scream about their own beliefs and accuse others of stupidity when their ‘unquestionable’ logic was queried, but the general gist of the thing was to be helpful. It is sad that the terrorists have overtaken the teachers on both sides.

Doubt is not a crime, and persuasion is not a martial art.

Some valid points in this, but people quite simply are not going to spend time explaining, if the people they are explaining to in the first instance refuse point blank to believe in the figures being produced, global temps are a case in point.
There does seem to be more polarisation on both sides. With the scientists who support the theory essentially getting fed up with the debate and moving on, whilst the anti's are disbeliving more and more, it's an ever widening chasm, which I don't think will ever close tbh.

One of the branches will simply die away slowly over the next 20 years, both sides think it will be the other group.
On forums such as this we are simply sat at the edge of the chasm throwing stones at each other, sometimes a stone hits and scores a point, the problem is that the wider the chasm gets the bigger the stones have to be which are thrown.

This is a pretty bleak assessement, but in the chasm between the branches is a strong flowing river, are few very strong determined inderviduals can swim down this river between the camps, particularly for short periods but most drown or end up going to one side or t'other.

Occasionally concentration can be found to temporarily bridge this gap and talk sensibly to the other side about the science, but it does require a level of trust from both parties.

This level of trust was easier 4 or 5 years ago, and even easier 10 years when I started on climate forums, in 5 years time it will be even worse.

However at times we do need to try, even though we can slip up.

This is an open try from me, I am trying hard to find something that makes sense in GWO's or Rogers work. I would also really like to see some evidence/theory which support the view that solar has a big effect on global temperatures more than a couple of years after the maximum.
I fully accept and support the view that solar controls Ice age entry etc. I have always held this view. However the magnitude of solar varience in this geological time frames is many many times greater than the magnetude caused by our little 11 year solar cycles.
This is what makes the 2-4C of warming predicted so concerning, in the past it has always required a very big change in solar variance to cause this.

However most of this post is OT and should belong in the climate thread.

Going back to this thread. I discounted Solar as I know of NO supportable theory which says that Solar has it's biggest effect during a prolonger solar minimum. I am happy to be shown other wise.

Edited by Iceberg, 08 August 2009 - 06:50 .

[Solar Sausage]

Very interesting paper, Ice. It does show that real work is being done on the subject of natural climate-forcings...