478 replies to this topic

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Gray-Wolf, on 23 April 2010 - 08:19 , said:

Without wishing to be the pedant what of failing sinks and Arctic methane increases?

We may well have a handle on our outputs but the knock-on effects of our increases also put more CO2/GHG's into the mix.

As such we may find our 'CO2 line' needs to be far steeper than it is at present?

Once the Arctic permafrost starts to properly release it's GHG's then they will easily dwarf our outputs over a year (even if we only utilise 5% or so of them).

Quite possibly - and here you are desrcibing something (not widely) known as a Heaviside function.

We see such phenomena all over nature - not least in natural selection; a good example is sexual selection. Fischer (1930) elaborated on Darwin's initial, but on the face of it largely correct, analysis that typical females of a species will select for reproduction based on size or elaboration of certain trait. Such a continuing event, of course, means that there is a progessive dominance in the male side of species towards typical female taste prevalence.

In such a system, then, of course, those that are routinely not selected, but nevertheless selected occasionally will eventually reach a critical loss in mass of population and will accelerate to extinction - extinction being a harsh, but, excellent example of the step function as it appears naturally.

However, what you intimate, it appears to me, is the study of how much stuff is in something, and it's rate of release in a real climate system - as oppose to a computer model - which is yet to be fully quantified. Certainly something to bear in mind - but nothing to get too over-excited about, since there is no evidence of runaway climate change on Earth.

The Earth has limits (Petite 1999) I think we (humankind) should find out what those limits are, and then find out whether or not we've fiddled with them before we concern ourselves with fairytales of solar flares burning every planet in the solar system, or locked up carbon releasing so fast that it essentially forms a Heaviside function.

Edited by VillagePlank, 25 April 2010 - 13:43 .

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that V.P. (like my head needed it on a Sunday P.M. whilst fighting with my boiler!!!!.....)

It all sounds a little 'extreme' to me though.

The way I visualise it (the climate system in general) are numerous 'little' climate systems and we step change between them either up or down.

Each one of these climate systems is 'bounded' and takes a lot of pushing to make it either step up or down.

I find it hard to find a scenario, baring the end of the solar system, that makes any change a 'one way' event (the switch is kept on) but I feel there are plenty of examples of climate settling to new parameters (be it ice age or semi-tropical) for extended periods until change becomes, once again, irresistible.

My concern is the changes that 2c+ may bring into play esp, allowing nature to alter the carbon cycle balance to one of higher levels of GHG's and hence higher temps (and please don't shout at me C-Bob, it's just the way I view our recent geological past).

I worry that we have already driven the Arctic to the point where change will continue without man's interventions (but do not see that man will halt his interventions in the carbon cycle in the near future anyhows) due to the extent of change that we already observe (and I'm not claiming that it is all man's fault....not even 50% man's fault....just enough to 'make a difference') above and beyond 'natural variation' .

I worry that we risk a 'step change' to a seasonal pack and all that this brings with it for the rest of the global climate system.

I worry that our little bit of meddling is all that is needed to bring about one of these little 'step changes' to another balance point without us needing the 'pushes' that we recognise driving such in the past.

I worry that 'our little impact' is of a similar scale to those 'natural impacts' that have caused change in the past and that Nature, via the Carbon cycle, will do the rest.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Natural cycles predicted the warming.

http://www.drroyspen...fc-model-based-


BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST, 08 June 2010 - 21:41 .

[Devonian]

BLAST FROM THE PAST, on 08 June 2010 - 21:41 , said:

Natural cycles predicted the warming.

http://www.drroyspen...fc-model-based-


BFTP

Why not warming predicts natural cycles?

[Gray-Wolf]

I somehow think that falls short of the mark BFTP? If we've been losing ice since the turn of the last century then there has to be some other 'long cycle' at play or it is the slow .drip ,drip, of human forcing.

This is not going to matter a bean once we settle into a world without northern ice over summer. If Mr Spence can make 0.2watts of energy add up to our current warming then what of the extra wattage from dark water absorption? If this massively outstrips the variance in solar forcing then the only way (for temps) is up!

We'd better hope that the likes of me are dead wrong as we are entering our fourth year with high latitude melt and open water. Like the other 'lost warming' this energy is in the system and will find it's way into climate forcings surely?

I feel that we are now properly entering the world of our future and any reliance on the way the system 'used to work' will be proven redundant. Spencer's reliance on how things used to work is his 'Achilles heel' and will make him appear as daft as the others who refuse, on principle?, to accept our small impact on a finely balanced system.

[Solar Sausage]

BLAST FROM THE PAST, on 08 June 2010 - 21:41 , said:

Natural cycles predicted the warming.

http://www.drroyspen...fc-model-based-


BFTP

Perhaps, Fred - if anyone really understands natural cycles that well???

Anyhoo, judging from the fact that we are living in a geological/climatological instant, aren't models rubbish anyway?

[Yorkshiresnows]

BLAST FROM THE PAST, on 08 June 2010 - 21:41 , said:

Natural cycles predicted the warming.

http://www.drroyspen...fc-model-based-


BFTP

Hi Fred,

Agree entirely, ...... but folks don't really seem keen on exploring this possibility.

The 20th century warming can be predicted from PDO changes / and modifications to cloud cover that have actually been measured via satellite data.

The Co2 forcing and aerosol's theory requires theoretical computation relying on feedback mechanisms that are not fully supported (or at least very controversial). Satellite measurements cannot pick these up.

I have just gone through a whole load of data and arguments regarding the infamous 'Mann Hockey' stick and was going to post a review of the paper on the other thread. There is so much that was wrong with the initial two papers on this it is incredible it was allowed for publishing ........ but, if I do, its only going to start World War 3 with certain posters on here ..... so I'm thinking about it !!!

What are your current thoughts on solar activity and possible weather patterns for later this year?

Y.S

[Devonian]

Yorkshiresnows, on 09 June 2010 - 12:33 , said:

Hi Fred,

Agree entirely, ...... but folks don't really seem keen on exploring this possibility.

The 20th century warming can be predicted from PDO changes / and modifications to cloud cover that have actually been measured via satellite data.

Might they not be effects rather than the cause? Please explain how you can prove they are not.

Quote

The Co2 forcing and aerosol's theory requires theoretical computation relying on feedback mechanisms that are not fully supported (or at least very controversial). Satellite measurements cannot pick these up.

I have just gone through a whole load of data and arguments regarding the infamous 'Mann Hockey' stick and was going to post a review of the paper on the other thread. There is so much that was wrong with the initial two papers on this it is incredible it was allowed for publishing ........ but, if I do, its only going to start World War 3 with certain posters on here ..... so I'm thinking about it !!!

No problem... if it's about the science and not Michael Mann....

Quote

What are your current thoughts on solar activity and possible weather patterns for later this year?

Y.S

A more active sun, temperatures well above average, is my current guess.

[Yorkshiresnows]

Devonian, on 09 June 2010 - 13:32 , said:

Might they not be effects rather than the cause? Please explain how you can prove they are not.



No problem... if it's about the science and not Michael Mann....



A more active sun, temperatures well above average, is my current guess.

Sorry Devonian,

But I really cannot be bothered to trade posts all over again over the same old arguments.

If you want to believe that none of the increased water vapour from a warming climate will not produce clouds then I'm fine with your view (various scientists would concur). You can believe that the 300% or so feedback amplification that is needed in order to get CO2 to affect the temps the way the IPCC see's it is based on sound science, again happy with your personnal standpoint.

If you want to believe that past oceanic / solar cycles can have no impact on the climate .... fine.

As for the Hockey stick paper, I'm sure if I posted what I have read and reviewed (I've even understood the maths on the Principal component analysis that was used to bring out the patterns in the data - V.P would be pleased (as long as I have got it right !!)), then it would probably lead to lot of unnecessary grief. I am undecided at the moment on this one.

You know I am a skeptic and hence what I have so far brought out are the exposed flaws in the data .... quite a few. But I'd also like to check the 'other-side' so that its not a completely biased post, I've also not actually 100% completed the review process, but a few little pieces I will share:

The main inference of the papers content was to cast a lot of doubt to the global nature of both the LIA and Medieval Warm period, both a probolem for the AGW theory.

The Hockey stick was based on 112 proxy series, the majority of which were tree ring proxies (relying on the principal that for a given temperture rise you generally get greater growth (affecting the tree ring widths) and by verifying the principal from the instrumental record period, you can then go armed with some mathematical formulae and start digging and looking at older tree boles. However, there were other proxy series also included, one being actual temp measurements from the CETR.

Lots of problems with the use of tree-ring proxies e.g. insect infestation .. which can impact tree growth even where temps increase, ..... but thats another story.

What was apparent was an aweful lot of infilling of the proxy records in the updated paper (1999). For example, proxy number 45 had the same value in every year from 1978 to 1982. Series 46 had the same value from 1974 to 1980. Series 51, 52, 54 and 58 all had similar problems. For Series 50 the values for the entire period from 1962 to 1982 were copied from Series 49. The authors had attributed both 49 and 50 to a study by Fritts and Shao, when in fact series 49 was derived from a different study by Keith Briffa. Although not in itself mindblowing, this sort of infilling is not discussed anywhere in either paper and of course has an impact on the overall graph.

Series 10 and 11 were two instrumental records (CETR - Central England Database) however, when investigator Steve McIntyre checked the figures back to the publically available archived data he found the figures did not match. The figures used were based on the average June / July and August temps for each year rather than the full year average (a little odd given they were attempting to recreate past average annual temps and not a summer average).

The CETR started in 1659 allowing around 350 years of measurements. However, the data used truncated the data record to only 1730 .... reducing the length to 250 years (Cynics may note the late 17th century CETR numbers were very cold !!). When looking at the Central Europe series, similar problems with the data were seen. The data here had been truncated at 1550, when the full series went back to 1525 (the warmest part of the series being omitted !!!). Reasons for omitting either of these sets of data are not given (though I have yet to thoroughly check the various e-mail exchanges between Mann and McIntyre .... and there's alot of these !!). Again cynically, these omissions would flatten both the medieval warm period and little Ice age (to an extent) ...... but there may be a good reason for both omissions that I have yet to see

One more on tree ring records... is that ring widths in certain areas have been shown to actually stay the same even in the industrial record ...... hence my own view of recent papers stating that these can be very misleading.

There's an awful lot more ... particularly on the maths (V.P, you were right .... nightmare for me to get to grips with !!).

I know Devonian that you want references to back all of the above up, but I will be fair and see 'the other side' before posting (if I do), my summary of all the data and various pro's and con's. The above is very troubling though, why these data series were not audited and checked prior to publication seems very odd !

Y.S

[Yorkshiresnows]

Gray-Wolf, on 25 April 2010 - 18:06 , said:

Thanks for that V.P. (like my head needed it on a Sunday P.M. whilst fighting with my boiler!!!!.....)

It all sounds a little 'extreme' to me though.

The way I visualise it (the climate system in general) are numerous 'little' climate systems and we step change between them either up or down.

Each one of these climate systems is 'bounded' and takes a lot of pushing to make it either step up or down.

I find it hard to find a scenario, baring the end of the solar system, that makes any change a 'one way' event (the switch is kept on) but I feel there are plenty of examples of climate settling to new parameters (be it ice age or semi-tropical) for extended periods until change becomes, once again, irresistible.

My concern is the changes that 2c+ may bring into play esp, allowing nature to alter the carbon cycle balance to one of higher levels of GHG's and hence higher temps (and please don't shout at me C-Bob, it's just the way I view our recent geological past).

I worry that we have already driven the Arctic to the point where change will continue without man's interventions (but do not see that man will halt his interventions in the carbon cycle in the near future anyhows) due to the extent of change that we already observe (and I'm not claiming that it is all man's fault....not even 50% man's fault....just enough to 'make a difference') above and beyond 'natural variation' .

I worry that we risk a 'step change' to a seasonal pack and all that this brings with it for the rest of the global climate system.

I worry that our little bit of meddling is all that is needed to bring about one of these little 'step changes' to another balance point without us needing the 'pushes' that we recognise driving such in the past.

I worry that 'our little impact' is of a similar scale to those 'natural impacts' that have caused change in the past and that Nature, via the Carbon cycle, will do the rest.

Hi GW,

You may, or may not like to read through the appended link:

http://www.spiked-on...en_article/8979

Y.S

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Yorkshiresnows, on 09 June 2010 - 12:33 , said:

Hi Fred,

What are your current thoughts on solar activity and possible weather patterns for later this year?

Y.S

Hi YS
My thoughts for last 3 years have been that we are heading [not in yet] towards a true solar minima and that will occur/peak in change over from cycle 25 to cycle 26. This will lead to a southerly shift of the jetstream [which has been observed now for 3 years and is no blip]. The temps will start to drop from now on [not uniformerly] but in stages and next decade will see temps more like 40s to 70s and 20 years time we'll be back to Dickensian set up. This year will see a cold autumn and another cold NW EUROPEAN winter.

Quote

Posted 08 June 2010 - 22:58

I somehow think that falls short of the mark BFTP? If we've been losing ice since the turn of the last century then there has to be some other 'long cycle' at play or it is the slow .drip ,drip, of human forcing

GW
Yes there has been a longer cycle at play. For 150 years it has been observed that the ITCZ has spread out north and south from tropics thus forcing the jetstreams ever further poleward. That has stopped since 2002 and we are now saeeing a reverse with the jetstreams.

BFTP

[kold weather]

Timings will be interesting Fred, if we do get some sort of deeper solar min like your suggesting will be timed probably when we get the 10 years or so when we get a dual -PDO/AMO combo. If we can't get cooling to below average, possibly well below average during that time then I think I'd be forced to totally acknoledge AGW as the sole cause...

But thats still a good decade or two away yet, this +ve AMO cycle probably has a good 8-12 years left to run but should start to run out of steadm eventually and when it does and you've already got a steadily cooling Pacific in the next 10 years that must lead to cooling, as it did in the start of 2009, though that soon ended when the AMO spiked back warm again in April onwards.

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

kold weather, on 10 June 2010 - 23:08 , said:

Timings will be interesting Fred, if we do get some sort of deeper solar min like your suggesting will be timed probably when we get the 10 years or so when we get a dual -PDO/AMO combo. If we can't get cooling to below average, possibly well below average during that time then I think I'd be forced to totally acknoledge AGW as the sole cause...

Possibly. But the LI does tend towards making it very difficult to 'lose' energy. So much so that a cursory analysis implies that warming is predicted by this theory for the next 25 years - here

Edited by VillagePlank, 10 June 2010 - 23:35 .

[Gray-Wolf]

We've agencies talking of emissions cuts (hard) necessary to offset the worse we could expect. We have others saying how poor things will be by 2050 if we continue B.A.U and we have folk here saying "give it another 20 or 30 years and we may feel better convinced.........

What are the costs of delaying longer when we seem to be running scenarios that we find ( through events) may well badly 'underestimating' areas of our climate's responses to the pollutants we have introduced ,all over the world , already (like the Arctic example?)?

I must just be a wimpy gambler? Maybe that's it guys?

If it were me own money I was offering I might be braver but, it's me kids 'money' I'm playing with and I'm not that 'Homer' quite yet.

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Gray-Wolf, on 10 June 2010 - 23:43 , said:

We've agencies talking of emissions cuts (hard) necessary to offset the worse we could expect. We have others saying how poor things will be by 2050 if we continue B.A.U and we have folk here saying "give it another 20 or 30 years and we may feel better convinced.........

What are the costs of delaying longer when we seem to be running scenarios that we find ( through events) may well badly 'underestimating' areas of our climate's responses to the pollutants we have introduced ,all over the world , already (like the Arctic example?)?

I must just be a wimpy gambler? Maybe that's it guys?

If it were me own money I was offering I might be braver but, it's me kids 'money' I'm playing with and I'm not that 'Homer' quite yet.

Curiously, the LI posits a stronger Co2 cut agenda since, by it's very nature, it doesn't dismiss AGW, it singles it out as the only possible thing we can do to limit warming. If the LI verifies, then the result should be massive CO2 cuts.

[kold weather]

VillagePlank, on 10 June 2010 - 23:34 , said:

Possibly. But the LI does tend towards making it very difficult to 'lose' energy. So much so that a cursory analysis implies that warming is predicted by this theory for the next 25 years - here

VEry interesting discussion that is, I'd agree with that idea IF it weren't for the fact we've already seen exactly what will happen once we do get a duo -ve AMO/PDO in early 2009, its no surprise that the only time in many years that we've finally had both of those signals semi-cold at the same time we saw a drop in global temperatures.

I do think the ENSO factor does have to be taken into consideration as well and it may well be the prime driver in 'losing' heat from the system as you suggest, the fact that both the AMO/PDO went negative tend to promote lengthy La Nina events anyway. A classic example of that would be the mid 70s, where both the Atlantic/Pacific were in tandem, and we had nearly a 4 year La Nina phase.

I suspect what background warming may have done is just mean that you need both the oceans in the cool phase to cool the earth down on a prolonged basis.

I do honestly think though alot of the warming we've seen in the last 20 years globally can be put down to the Pacific in a +ve PDO and the Atlantic joining it with a big +ve AMO in 1995. Its no shock that 1998 and this year have both been so warm, the combo of a +ve PDO, the Atlantic being VERY warm and strong winter time El Nino's all make a big difference.

BTW, watch the UK's annual CET drop down somewhat once we get a prolonged -ve AMO phase...as I've said before its no surprise that the UK's CET took a big leap after 1996 as the +ve AMO really kicked in.

[Yorkshiresnows]

kold weather, on 11 June 2010 - 09:58 , said:

VEry interesting discussion that is, I'd agree with that idea IF it weren't for the fact we've already seen exactly what will happen once we do get a duo -ve AMO/PDO in early 2009, its no surprise that the only time in many years that we've finally had both of those signals semi-cold at the same time we saw a drop in global temperatures.

I do think the ENSO factor does have to be taken into consideration as well and it may well be the prime driver in 'losing' heat from the system as you suggest, the fact that both the AMO/PDO went negative tend to promote lengthy La Nina events anyway. A classic example of that would be the mid 70s, where both the Atlantic/Pacific were in tandem, and we had nearly a 4 year La Nina phase.

I suspect what background warming may have done is just mean that you need both the oceans in the cool phase to cool the earth down on a prolonged basis.

I do honestly think though alot of the warming we've seen in the last 20 years globally can be put down to the Pacific in a +ve PDO and the Atlantic joining it with a big +ve AMO in 1995. Its no shock that 1998 and this year have both been so warm, the combo of a +ve PDO, the Atlantic being VERY warm and strong winter time El Nino's all make a big difference.

BTW, watch the UK's annual CET drop down somewhat once we get a prolonged -ve AMO phase...as I've said before its no surprise that the UK's CET took a big leap after 1996 as the +ve AMO really kicked in.

Great Post Kold,

I also think we are at the 'crux' or 'Juncture' stage now.

Thing is ... for me... I'm more than ever convinced that we are about to enter a period of global cooling.

If the PDO really does tank ... you can bet your bottom dollar that global temps will drop (it covers over third of the globe on its own !!!). It would be not only the predominance of cooler waters but also (for me) a change in associated low cloud cover that would drive the temps.

Whatever the arguments hold I would still advocate CO2 cuts (its not a completely polarised debate GW, and I'm all for being safe rather than sorry). A cleaner and more environmentally friendly means of living should be strived for.

Y.S

[kold weather]

Without a doubt, the fact we cool doesn't disprove AGW at all, my worry would be if we do get a cooling the pressure from the Govs will ease off, then come 40-50 years time when we see a flip again from cool to warmer with the PDO/AMO both go positive again, we'll see huge warmings again and by that tim it'll probably be too late. I suspect that is when we will enter seasonal polar ice (and probably break the 1C+ global temp as well)

Till then I'd expect us to fall away, maybe not as low as the past but we will probably be able to get below average for prolonged spells once we do get a duo cool phase, esp if it concurs with a prolonged La Nina.

Interestingly quite a few of these oceanic flips come either just before or just after large/long ENSO events...here are some examples....

In the early 1900s the AMO trended cold and flipped. Before that we saw a fairly long La Nina session occur.

When the PDO flipped negative in the 1940s we had a prolonged mod/strong La Nina event in 43, 44 and into 1945

For example the PDO flipped into its positive phase just after a very long La Nina, indeed when we had a -ve AMO/PDO combo 5 out of 6 years were La Nina, only 72-73 winter went strongly El nino, and that was simply a snapback event...

Then we have the El nino combo that marked the flip towards the a +ve AMO phase, with a long El nino phase occuring from 1991-1995.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

PDO,AMO, Perturbation cycle are solar dominated and although the deep minima will prob be 2030/cycle 26 it won't end there as further spikes will occur . The overall 100 yr period will be of deep minina a la Dalton, Maunder etc. Man has effect but not causation IMO

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST, 12 June 2010 - 00:21 .