What Is Causing The Warming ?

[Gray-Wolf]

Again (now on this thread) Sorry C-Bob.

It is just my clumbsy way of saying it's a very complex system (when attempted to be viewed as a whole) and so we tend to employ the old Ecconomist "all other thing's being equal" cop out to avoid lumbering,messy explainations.

The one change we do know is 'different' from the general climate system is our pollution so if we see change (Ozone hole?) we can quickly think 'well that must be us for we are the 'difference''.

As V.P. adequately highlighted it was foolish (childish?) of me to do so though I do appreciate his graphs Esp. the PDO and ice loss ones.

[Iceberg]

Ho hum.

Real evidence derived directly from peer reviewed data doesn't count for much then? I only say this as it's really busy on other threads, but, somehow, it's dead quiet on this one.

Surely there's some comeback. There's some retort. There's something?

I despair - I really do.

on my behalf I've said several times that I want to wait for your paper before comments.

Re SSN and temp, can we extend the graph another 20 years. ?

I don't think anybody disputes a solar/temp link up until say 1950's its moe the recent warming where the conventional relationship falls down and GHG increases play the part i.e the last 30 years.

[Admiral_Bobski]

on my behalf I've said several times that I want to wait for your paper before comments.

Re SSN and temp, can we extend the graph another 20 years. ?

I don't think anybody disputes a solar/temp link up until say 1950's its moe the recent warming where the conventional relationship falls down and GHG increases play the part i.e the last 30 years.

Have you no interest in contributing to the LI? Or even in engaging in an interesting hypothetical discussion, on the basis that an interesting correlation has been found?

VP has, at least once before, produced a "predictive" graph (using an assumed solar cycle, obviously) that extends into the future.

And your final line is the bit I find the most disconcerting. When exactly did global warming start? Because we were always told it was at the Industrial Revolution, but over the years it has become a shorter and shorter timeframe - I've even heard tell, in the past, that solar effects can account for virtually all warming up to 1980...where does that leave us? With 30 years of "man-made global warming"? Is that statistically significant?

CB

[VillagePlank]

I could probably give you 100 spurious correlations if I had 5 mins to spare.

You could probably find a very good correlation between global warming and the reduction in home made apple pies in the USA since the 1950s

Its 'proving them' irrefutably that is the crux with a bit of rationalisation.

Which is impossible.

Can temperature affect sunspot numbers? Now, maybe I've not read all the papers there are out there on the subject, but somehow I think not...

Yes, an important point. SSN are the only external driver in these factors. Everything else is 'within' the system (even though we all pretend they're not)

[Iceberg]

Have you no interest in contributing to the LI? Or even in engaging in an interesting hypothetical discussion, on the basis that an interesting correlation has been found?

VP has, at least once before, produced a "predictive" graph (using an assumed solar cycle, obviously) that extends into the future.

And your final line is the bit I find the most disconcerting. When exactly did global warming start? Because we were always told it was at the Industrial Revolution, but over the years it has become a shorter and shorter timeframe - I've even heard tell, in the past, that solar effects can account for virtually all warming up to 1980...where does that leave us? With 30 years of "man-made global warming"? Is that statistically significant?

CB

Re the first part, I have participated in LI discussions over the past 6-9 months, a correlation might have been found (tbh it existed before and many people have noticed a correlation between solar and temperature), although the LI does take this on a different angle.

However I have made my POV abundently clear, I don't want to appear negative about something that yourself and VP feel very strongly about, it will IMO lead to less arguments if we wait for a copy of the paper that takes it from being a possible interesting correlation to something with a bit more weight to it with mechanisms and explanations of the factors included.

I am quite clear that I have neither the time nor the desire to discuss it really prior to this, there are IMO some major problems with it, (using SSN instead of SI which is the a better indication of the actual amount of energy the earth is receiving, a good example of this is the current solar minimum where although SSN is really low, SI is actually higher than it was in previous SSN minima). It would be interesting to see exactly the same formula with the SI rather than SSN data fed into it.

I've tried to point these out in the past, but I think it's fairer on everybody to wait.

I am not sure I or any climate scientist has said that AGW due to GHG's started in the industrial revolution, I've certaintly not seen that mentioned in papers I've read over the last 15 years.

Would there have been some contribute to global temps in 1950 due to GHG, maybe but it would have been very very small at maybe 0.02 a decade.

In the 1980's it probably reached 0.1C a decade and maybe now 0.2C a decade.

The above are very rough estimates but probably reasonably accurate re my point of view.

What is statiscally significant is that deviation from the norm of the current warming, the question of what might be causing the warming, given our current knowledge of natural systems and cememted with a big dollop of research on the effects of GHG and feedbacks.

Given this the current record temperatures recorded over the last 6 months is significant IMO.

Our understanding of natural processes and lags could be very wrong which might account for the warming.

Or our current understanding of natural processes could be broadly right and the background warming of GHG increase is causing the current warming with the help of the ENSO phase, this might have indicated a rough increase from 2000-2010 of 0.2-0.3C.

Anyway long post and I generally want to hear what your LI paper suggests when it's published, but..it still currently is not a theory that should be used to explain current warming atm.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think 0.2-0.3C might be overdoing it slightly. If we assume, for argument's sake, that a very strong El Nino gives about 0.3C of global warming and a very strong La Nina gives about 0.3C of cooling, we have:

1990 0

1991 0.1

1992 0.2

1993 0

1994 0.1

1995 0.2

1996 0

1997 0.2

1998 0.3

1999 -0.2

1990s: +0.09

2000 -0.1

2001 0

2002 0.2

2003 0

2004 0.1

2005 0.1

2006 -0.1

2007 0.1

2008 -0.2

2009 -0.1

2000s: +0.00

So from that ENSO has probably given an anomalous cooling influence of 0.1C in the 2000s relative to the 1990s, and not 0.2-0.3C as given. Similarly the current El Nino would be expected to give global temperature anomalies about 0.1C lower than those of 1998, but in reality they are less than a few hundreths of a degree apart, so again a background warming of about 0.1C is suggested. It is, of course, possible that other natural factors (e.g. the sun, the PDO) could have offset AGW some more on top of the ENSO signal though.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Re the first part, I have participated in LI discussions over the past 6-9 months, a correlation might have been found (tbh it existed before and many people have noticed a correlation between solar and temperature), although the LI does take this on a different angle.

However I have made my POV abundently clear, I don't want to appear negative about something that yourself and VP feel very strongly about, it will IMO lead to less arguments if we wait for a copy of the paper that takes it from being a possible interesting correlation to something with a bit more weight to it with mechanisms and explanations of the factors included.

I am quite clear that I have neither the time nor the desire to discuss it really prior to this, there are IMO some major problems with it, (using SSN instead of SI which is the a better indication of the actual amount of energy the earth is receiving, a good example of this is the current solar minimum where although SSN is really low, SI is actually higher than it was in previous SSN minima). It would be interesting to see exactly the same formula with the SI rather than SSN data fed into it.

I honestly do find it a shame that you have no desire to engage in a discussion with regards a work-in-progress - discussion is the cornerstone of science! With regards SSN/SI, you say that SI is a better indication of the actual amount of energy the earth is receiving - but is it? Quite possibly, I grant you, but maybe not. As VP and I have said recently, the fact that the LI doesn't explicitly state a mechanism is really neither here nor there - it doesn't mean the LI is not "good science" just because a mechanism hasn't been proposed. The fact that SSN tallies with global temps is extremely interesting, and warrants (or may warrant) further investigation.

I am not sure I or any climate scientist has said that AGW due to GHG's started in the industrial revolution, I've certaintly not seen that mentioned in papers I've read over the last 15 years.

Would there have been some contribute to global temps in 1950 due to GHG, maybe but it would have been very very small at maybe 0.02 a decade.

I wasn't intimating that you, necessarily, claim that AGW began at the industrial revolution, but I have been rather scornfully rebuked in the past with comments such as "so you think it's just coincidence that global temps started to rise after the industrial revolution?" Is the insinuation not clear enough? Clearly not all AGW proponents are agreed on when, exactly, the human-induced phenomenon began...

CB

[Iceberg]

I'd broadly agree with that TWS, if you assume that the difference between a solar max and min might be 0.1C then add another 0.05 to 0.1C for the switch to a negative PDO and the underlying warming looks to be around 0.2 to 0.3. this decade.

I could be wrong and solar might be less than 0.1C but I would be surprised, if peak to trough less lag has a smaller effect than this.

[SnowBear]

I came to the conclusion some time ago that no one really has the foggiest what is really going on, and that Mother Nature will do as she wishes no matter how much debate etc we do, so, will bid you all a good day and will check back again in a year or two :-P

[VillagePlank]

It's possible to determine a figure mathematically using regression.

Since the equation of a straight line is y=mx+c where m=slope (gradient), we can see that for each x we must move vertically by m.

So looking at the HadCru series, and draw a linear trend line on it, not forgetting to display the equation of that line:

We can see that the temperature, over the whole series, is +0.0045 ^oC/yr or, since us weather nuts like to talk in decadel terms +0.045 ^oC/decade.

Of course, I am certain that others would like to start the trend line later at the bottom of the steeper part of the curve, so the gradient figure is higher. Just to keep things balanced, here it is:

which gives us +0.074 ^oC/decade

I'd broadly agree with that TWS, if you assume that the difference between a solar max and min might be 0.1C then add another 0.05 to 0.1C for the switch to a negative PDO and the underlying warming looks to be around 0.2 to 0.3. this decade.

I could be wrong and solar might be less than 0.1C but I would be surprised, if peak to trough less lag has a smaller effect than this.

I'm afraid that if you lump all of the warming together, you still only get 0.07C over the last ten years (1999-2009):

Edited April 21, 2010 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

I am not sure I or any climate scientist has said that AGW due to GHG's started in the industrial revolution, I've certaintly not seen that mentioned in papers I've read over the last 15 years.

Would there have been some contribute to global temps in 1950 due to GHG, maybe but it would have been very very small at maybe 0.02 a decade.

In the 1980's it probably reached 0.1C a decade and maybe now 0.2C a decade.

The above are very rough estimates but probably reasonably accurate re my point of view.

Doesn't that then go counter to the known properties of CO2 as a GHG; in as much as it has a logarithmic effect and the first increases at the beginning of the industrial revolution should have had the greatest impact upon temperatures?

[VillagePlank]

Doesn't that then go counter to the known properties of CO2 as a GHG; in as much as it has a logarithmic effect and the first increases at the beginning of the industrial revolution should have had the greatest impact upon temperatures?

Yes, the evidence for this should be in the record; but, unfortunately, decomposing temperature proxies is so difficult that, as far as I am concerned, it might as well be impossible.

The counter argument to this point is that if we are producing exponential amounts of CO2 year in, year out, then the effect should be linear. It isn't. The climate is far too complex for that. Besides, if it were linear there would be no need for a range of values as we try to predict the future.

Therefore for CO2 to produce a noticeable gain we must necessarily be producing a greater than exponential effect OR there is some amplifier at work.(Technically, for those interested the argument is that the function would be at least O³ in complexity in NP time - see here for big 'O' notation)

Of course, this is all ifs and buts; but do we have anything else?

Edited April 21, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Iceberg]

Doesn't that then go counter to the known properties of CO2 as a GHG; in as much as it has a logarithmic effect and the first increases at the beginning of the industrial revolution should have had the greatest impact upon temperatures?

Rough figures are:

1850 100 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

1900 400 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

1950 1800 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

2000 7100 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

2010 9000 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

The extra effect in recent years is incredible.

[VillagePlank]

Rough figures are:

1850 100 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

1900 400 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

1950 1800 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

2000 7100 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

2010 9000 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

The extra effect in recent years is incredible.

Doesn't look the least bit exponential to me (I realise your time series isn't consistent)

Therefore there is an amplifier - so what's that, then?

Edited April 21, 2010 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

Rough figures are:

1850 100 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

1900 400 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

1950 1800 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

2000 7100 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

2010 9000 Million tonnes of Carbon by man.

The extra effect in recent years is incredible.

No.

The extra amount released in recent years is incredible, the effects or rather magnitude of effect, is an unknown quantity.

[Admiral_Bobski]

No.

The extra amount released in recent years is incredible, the effects or rather magnitude of effect, is an unknown quantity.

Furthemore, the extra amount still pales in comparison to the amount of carbon actively involved in the carbon cycle (which I believe is somewhere in the region of 750,000 million tonnes).

CB

[Iceberg]

Sorry Jethro, I was talking about the effect or ability of man to put CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate it's doing and increasing at the rate it's doing is incredible, it was in noway talking about the perceived effect of GHG on warming (It was my fault in the way I typed it).

You might be right CB, but we are not talking about the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle, but the amount of carbon in the atmosphere where the GHG layer is. Records of ppm are generally accepted.

Cheers

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sorry Jethro, I was talking about the effect or ability of man to put CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate it's doing and increasing at the rate it's doing is incredible, it was in noway talking about the perceived effect of GHG on warming (It was my fault in the way I typed it).

You might be right CB, but we are not talking about the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle, but the amount of carbon in the atmosphere where the GHG layer is. Records of ppm are generally accepted.

Cheers

I beg your pardon, Iceberg - I meant to say that there is something like 750,000 million tonnes in the atmosphere, not just the carbon cycle.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I've never (and probably a few others currently working on the problem) CO2 to provide 'instant' responses. Even if it does it's full potential job and traps heat do folk think that this energy just sits there awaiting measurement/documentation?????

We spend so much time discussing 'Natural cycles' but where do these derive their energy from and over what time period do they gain their 'full charge'?

In the past most CO2 spikes have been a response to warming due to our position in space allowing 'more' energy to be present at the surface (and throughout the atmosphere) of the planet (and for that to then impact the carbon cycle and provide the 'extra CO2' which then 'helps' the warming by holding onto even more of the 'extra energy').

This time (and a couple of other instances in geological time) CO2 is leading the 'dance', we are not even favourably positioned being that we are drawing away from our last planetary 'optimum' for energy input (on the slope down towards the next 'minimum'), so by rights should be cooling and seeing the carbon cycle draw out CO2 from the system.

All we know is that CO2 is one of the GHG's we have been pumping out and that GHG's have certain properties.

Any recent warming aside should we not be thinking that we have increased our planets potential to hold onto heat and be struggling to find ways that our planet might mitigate our activities by processes already at play across the planet?

We fall back to (or so it seems to me) either accepting what GHG's do or denying their impacts. End of?

[VillagePlank]

Sorry Jethro, I was talking about the effect or ability of man to put CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate it's doing and increasing at the rate it's doing is incredible, it was in noway talking about the perceived effect of GHG on warming (It was my fault in the way I typed it).

You might be right CB, but we are not talking about the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle, but the amount of carbon in the atmosphere where the GHG layer is. Records of ppm are generally accepted.

Cheers

Do you have any response to your over-egged warming figures?

Do you have any response to your PPM figures that clearly show they should no effect according to Arrhenius?

Just wondering?

(Even GW has conceded that the LI theory must be true - see other thread)

Edited April 21, 2010 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

This time (and a couple of other instances in geological time) CO2 is leading the 'dance',

Sorry Ian but that's speculation.

Sorry Jethro, I was talking about the effect or ability of man to put CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate it's doing and increasing at the rate it's doing is incredible, it was in noway talking about the perceived effect of GHG on warming (It was my fault in the way I typed it).

You might be right CB, but we are not talking about the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle, but the amount of carbon in the atmosphere where the GHG layer is. Records of ppm are generally accepted.

Cheers

No probs Iceberg, I'm as guilty as anyone of typing quickly and not fully explaining myself - side effect of not enough time in the day sometimes.

[Admiral_Bobski]

...we are not even favourably positioned being that we are drawing away from our last planetary 'optimum' for energy input (on the slope down towards the next 'minimum'), so by rights should be cooling and seeing the carbon cycle draw out CO2 from the system....

Actually, we are on an upswing of both the precession index (esin(ϖ)) and the upper-atmosphere insolation factor (Q^day), as can be seen in this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png

Furthermore, the eccentricity of our orbit is on its way to one of its lowest ebbs and the axial tilt (which is approaching its minimum) is largely irrelevant in terms of total insolation.

We've had this discussion before, I've shown this assertion to be wrong before, and yet you keep on trying to hammer the (inaccurate) point home.

CB

[Iceberg]

Do you have any response to your over-egged warming figures?

Do you have any response to your PPM figures that clearly show they should no effect according to Arrhenius?

Just wondering?

(Even GW has conceded that the LI theory must be true - see other thread)

Not at the moment as I've not had time since being home from work nor will I tonight.

Maybe 06.30am tomorrow or tomorrow morning at work, btw I am not sure I've mentioned any PPM figures yet !.

and which of my figures do you not agree with I quote rough warming trends for the 50's, 80's and the last 10 years. ?

[Iceberg]

Had a look VP and I stand by what I've said, I've looked at the graphs you posted of linear trends but am not really sure what your getting at ?.

CB, I 've done some rought calculations on the CO2 % increase if we take your figure then we are increasing at over 1% a year currently, leading to a doubling over 100 years, in line with Arrhenius of a doubling = 2C (not quite right nowadays) leading to 0.2C a decade, very rough and I will try to put a bit more flesh on it.

[VillagePlank]

Had a look VP and I stand by what I've said, I've looked at the graphs you posted of linear trends but am not really sure what your getting at ?.

CB, I 've done some rought calculations on the CO2 % increase if we take your figure then we are increasing at over 1% a year currently, leading to a doubling over 100 years, in line with Arrhenius of a doubling = 2C (not quite right nowadays) leading to 0.2C a decade, very rough and I will try to put a bit more flesh on it.

Well you're going for a lower bound of 0.2C warming, and the data shows an actual rate of 0.07C - some 25% of your lower bound. I might be missing something here, but that feels very much like a fourfold exaggeration of the facts, to me.

Edited April 22, 2010 by VillagePlank