573 replies to this topic

[Captain_Bobski]

I'm assuming, from the posts of the last 24 hours, that we're allowing the Milankovitch misconception to stand? Nobody seems interested in getting to the bottom of the matter.

Another thing that springs to mind is that it is incorrect to say that ENSO has no net effect on temperatures.

If we accept that a negative ENSO tends to cool the globe (draws heat into the ocean) and a positive ENSO tends to warm the globe (expels heat from the ocean) then, superficially, it seems that ENSO's net effect is zero.

However, if we have a negative ENSO during a period of higher insolation then there may be two effects: firstly, the globe may not cool as much as it would with lower insolation and, secondly, the oceans may draw in more warmth.

If the next positive ENSO period then occurs during a period of higher insolation then you have the dual effect of higher insolation plus more heat coming from the ocean.

I do believe, if I'm not very much mistaken, that this process would introduce some kind of...um...what's the word?.... Lag, is it?



(Just to clarify, ENSO's net effect is zero if all else remains equal which, as is quite obvious in the real world, is never the case.)

Edited by Captain_Bobski, 03 June 2010 - 12:22 .

[Yorkshiresnows]

Hi All,

Some good discussions on here today and interesting points made by a few.

I know that the issue of clouds is quite controversial and I (as well as others) have posted on the bizare point that the IPCC only assumes a positive (enhancing) effect of increased water vapour as a feedback of CO2 induced warming ....... yet ignores the very real possibility that at least a portion of this increased water vapour may turn to clouds and act as a negative feedback ... cancelling out some of the warming.

I've alos posted a lot on Peter taylor's work as well as Roy Spencer and this has proved particularly controversial.

Anyway, Dr Spencer has an interesting addition to his current blog on this issue:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Y.S

[Thundery wintry showers]

laserguy, on 03 June 2010 - 12:10 , said:

http://www.newsweek....in-science.html

This is alright,the final paragraph of which has particular resonance for me and I suspect,for all those of a similar persuasion. Whilst the bickering goes relentlessly on,here and everywhere about the validity of the extremely rocky science of AGW,we encroach by the minute the real (and very tiny snapshot) state of things to come. Fretting over "AGW" is comparable to a man in his death throes from some dreadful rampant tumour being more concerned with treating the sniffle he's just picked up. The tragedy here is that AGW is still nothing more than a hypothesis/theory. See y'all on the other side. Gawd I wish it was October.....

An interesting link indeed. I think, though, that the main thing undermining the credibility of the AGW cause is when politics gets involved. The science may not be perfect at achieving a balanced overview but it's pretty good, but when politics comes into play there's a desire to express everything in black and white rather than in probabilities and varying shades of grey. Also, in political discussions debate is often stifled as you have to "play the party line" or be kicked out.

The ethos of the last paragraph is similar to my own sentiments, and I say that as someone who believes in AGW.

Regarding cloud feedbacks it is well established that these are uncertain- uncertain both ways, that is.

[sunny starry skies]

LG - http://climateprogre...climate-denier/ Always best to see both sides, and here we see the Newsweek article exposed as rubbish, including the last paragraph.

YS - you don't get it (why am I not surprised)... how do you know your source was right? You should read up on how to verify historical data. It's a nice book (I never said it wasn't), but that doesn't automatically make everything in it correct. I'd say my sources are more current than yours, as they are people actively working on Norse Greenland, not somebody who's written a much wider-ranging book of which Greenland is only a small part. I certainly don't need to ask my dad! Farming records in Europe go back to the Medieval, yes, but not in Greenland...

Speaking of Roy Spencer:
http://tamino.wordpr...spencers-folly/ (in 3 parts)
http://scienceblogs....he_increase.php
http://scienceblogs....at_if_you_d.php
http://scienceblogs....off_his_roc.php
http://www.realclima...e-easy-lessons/
yikes! Some, ah, "interesting" theories there...

C-Bob, how does an internal redistribution of energy lead to a radiative imbalance? By definition, ENSO causes temporary warming and cooling (as observed), but cannot add heat to the system. You're speculating, without evidence (lots of 'ifs'). And if Ruddiman's right, Loutre is wrong on his 'long interstadial' hypothesis with decoupling from CO2, which is beside the point as our forcing has changed the picture entirely, at least in the short term - e.g.: Cochelin et al (2006), Climatic Change.
sss

[jethro]

North Sea Snow Convection, on 03 June 2010 - 12:06 , said:

I did say, Jethro, that it was just an observation....

I have not yet had time to read both links (and for some reason can't open the second one anyway) but the first one which I have read (and which I am in a lot of agreement with) is, still imo, a shift in sentiment from your current one. Or rather, the other way around , the shift has occured since then. Perhaps also, in retrospect, having posted late yesterday, 'sentiment' is the word I should have initially used.

You are naturally entitled to that, it is not criticism, just, as as I tried to say, an observation which can be deemed wrong if wished.

Well, what can I say, I know what I believe and think about things, I can explain as honestly as I possibly can but if that is then interpretted as something else by someone else, so be it. Ironically, that "What is my stance" thread was started as there had been so much confusion about where people stood in this debate.

Perhaps there were some expectations from some quarters that when I became a MOD, I'd favour one side of this debate over the other, perhaps supporting my own views or even perhaps champion the few female posters; I stick with how I deal with day to day life and that's as fair minded as possible on a meritocracy basis.

EDIT: If I confuse folk now isn't that a clear indication that I do try to put my own views to one side and be as fair minded as I can be? Isn't that a good thing?

[Captain_Bobski]

sunny starry skies, on 03 June 2010 - 14:20 , said:

C-Bob, how does an internal redistribution of energy lead to a radiative imbalance? By definition, ENSO causes temporary warming and cooling (as observed), but cannot add heat to the system. You're speculating, without evidence (lots of 'ifs'). And if Ruddiman's right, Loutre is wrong on his 'long interstadial' hypothesis with decoupling from CO2, which is beside the point as our forcing has changed the picture entirely, at least in the short term - e.g.: Cochelin et al (2006), Climatic Change.
sss

Okay, I was not specific enough in my last post, so let me rephrase.

ENSO's net effect should be zero given enough time. We have been talking pretty much exclusively about the effect of ENSO on global temperatures during the "global warming" period.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the period we have been discussing is 150 years. Is 150 years long enough for ENSO's effects to balance out at zero?

I accept that we have been through a number of ups and downs in the ENSO cycle, but quite clearly these ups and downs have not all been equal, not just in the magnitude of the peaks and troughs but in terms of the varying heat within, and entering, the system at any given point.

So ENSO's effect over the past 150, 200 or 1000 years does not have a net value of zero.

This is patently not "speculating without evidence" but rather an absolutely fundamental truth of the nature of ENSO - it is the way it must be.

Do you agree with this?

Actually - if I may further clarify - ENSO does add heat to the system if we're talking about the atmosphere! Since we do not generally take the total heat content of the oceans into account, any heat which comes from the ocean should be treated as a heat input into the (atmospheric) system.

[Yorkshiresnows]

sunny starry skies, on 03 June 2010 - 14:20 , said:

LG - http://climateprogre...climate-denier/ Always best to see both sides, and here we see the Newsweek article exposed as rubbish, including the last paragraph.

YS - you don't get it (why am I not surprised)... how do you know your source was right? You should read up on how to verify historical data. It's a nice book (I never said it wasn't), but that doesn't automatically make everything in it correct. I'd say my sources are more current than yours, as they are people actively working on Norse Greenland, not somebody who's written a much wider-ranging book of which Greenland is only a small part. I certainly don't need to ask my dad! Farming records in Europe go back to the Medieval, yes, but not in Greenland...

Speaking of Roy Spencer:
http://tamino.wordpr...spencers-folly/ (in 3 parts)
http://scienceblogs....he_increase.php
http://scienceblogs....at_if_you_d.php
http://scienceblogs....off_his_roc.php
http://www.realclima...e-easy-lessons/
yikes! Some, ah, "interesting" theories there...

C-Bob, how does an internal redistribution of energy lead to a radiative imbalance? By definition, ENSO causes temporary warming and cooling (as observed), but cannot add heat to the system. You're speculating, without evidence (lots of 'ifs'). And if Ruddiman's right, Loutre is wrong on his 'long interstadial' hypothesis with decoupling from CO2, which is beside the point as our forcing has changed the picture entirely, at least in the short term - e.g.: Cochelin et al (2006), Climatic Change.
sss

H'mmmm lets see ..... oh I get it ... your right and I must be wrong because ...... you say so.

Your are joking, making yourself look plain silly and going nowhere.

My dad is dead thanks but again you missed the point of what I was getting at. Your sources tell you what exactly ...... and how are they prooving me wrong

The fact that you wish to marginalise the medieval warm period / Little ice-age in the face of massive overwhelming data (proxy data from around the world and historical fact) is quite beyond me ...... I guess its that they are an obvious problem to explain in regards to the current view on AGW and past cycles (your not related to Michael mann are you ?).

Anyway, folk reading these increasingly pointless posts (that I somehow cannot stop myself replying to) must wonder what on earth this place is all about. I would urge reading up on all sides of the arguments and coming to your own peaceful conclusion ... whatever that may be.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. El Nino has now completely collapsed with La Nina conditions likely before the end of the year and with no overall warming for the past 10 years that does not compute with IPCC forecasts....... but of course natural cycles have no part to play !!!!

Y.S

[sunny starry skies]

Captain_Bobski, on 03 June 2010 - 14:40 , said:

Okay, I was not specific enough in my last post, so let me rephrase.

ENSO's net effect should be zero given enough time. We have been talking pretty much exclusively about the effect of ENSO on global temperatures during the "global warming" period.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the period we have been discussing is 150 years. Is 150 years long enough for ENSO's effects to balance out at zero?

I accept that we have been through a number of ups and downs in the ENSO cycle, but quite clearly these ups and downs have not all been equal, not just in the magnitude of the peaks and troughs but in terms of the varying heat within, and entering, the system at any given point.

So ENSO's effect over the past 150, 200 or 1000 years does not have a net value of zero.

This is patently not "speculating without evidence" but rather an absolutely fundamental truth of the nature of ENSO - it is the way it must be.

Do you agree with this?

Actually - if I may further clarify - ENSO does add heat to the system if we're talking about the atmosphere! Since we do not generally take the total heat content of the oceans into account, any heat which comes from the ocean should be treated as a heat input into the (atmospheric) system.

C-Bob, have a read of:
http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm
You'll see the relative amounts of heat injected into the atmosphere and ocean since 1950. The rest of teh article is instructive reading too. Most anthropogenic warming is going into the ocean, only a little is warming the atmosphere. ENSO does not do that. You're still not showing me a long-term trend in ENSO either, only suggesting what might be, and so no I don't agree with you.
http://www.skeptical...ming-going.html

An interesting article for those that doubt water vapour feedbacks here (Dessler and Sherwood 2009, in Science), but should be freely available from here:
http://geotest.tamu....6/dessler09.pdf
sss

YS, we agree that in Greenland the MWP was relatively warm. We disagree on ice covering settlements in the LIA, and on a lack of sea ice in the MWP. Both of which you stated, without providing evidence. I provided evidence for the opposite. We also disagree on how to interpret historical records. I'll give you a clue - how do you know they are historical 'facts', especially when they were not written contemporaneously, or pertain to another region of the world? And with respect, you brought up your father, not me.

And thanks for putting words into my mouth, I have no wish to see the MWP 'disappear', neither does any other researcher. It was a perfectly sound event if you're a European or a Medieval Greenlander. But that does not mean it's a global event. And I'd put a summary of >1000 records from around the globe over your romantic assertions on that one. Remind me again, just exactly what the climatic significance of a strong global MWP is, by the way? High climate sensitivity in the future, or low climate sensitivity? I know which one I'd prefer. Low climate sensitivity, as shown in the global 'hockey stick', is rather prefereable over high sensitivity, given how much we have perturbed the energy balance of the Earth. But you seem to wish to believe that the MWP was global, and somehow that's a good thing in the context of global warming? :shok:

You also don't realise that the MWP has nothing to do with the fundamentals of AGW theory...

No global warming in 10 years is rubbish and you know it. Apart from my 2nd link above, look at:
http://woodfortrees....from:2000/trend
See any downward slopes?
And yet again I'll post to this excellent guide to the 2000s by Tamino:
http://tamino.wordpr...riddle-me-this/
and to:
http://tamino.wordpr...12/15/how-long/

See any spectacular deviations from our warming trend? [and I'd reiterate that despite the insults flying at me here I'd really like to see that trend going the other way...]

Edited by sunny starry skies, 03 June 2010 - 16:04 .

[Thundery wintry showers]

sunny starry skies, on 03 June 2010 - 14:20 , said:

LG - http://climateprogre...climate-denier/ Always best to see both sides, and here we see the Newsweek article exposed as rubbish, including the last paragraph.

Having read those two articles now, I don't think it is quite as black and white as that. The response from the "other side" also contains a good deal of bias, but from the pro-AGW perspective as opposed to the anti-AGW one.

The reference to the Neweweek article as emphasising a "climate denier viewpoint" is somewhat OTT. The Newsweek article acknowledges that AGW exists, but plays up the uncertainties associated with AGW, which is not the same as saying something along the lines "AGW is a myth". This is a case of lumping climate sceptic positions together with extreme denier positions.

The main problem with the article was tarring climate scientists with the same brush as politicians. I see a lot of the problems that it describes, but it is usually a political problem, trying to make out that the science is more cast-iron black and white than it is, and not a problem with climate science as the article infers. I think that aspect of it was addressed quite fairly, though with a rather arrogant tone.

Regarding public opinion on AGW, I think both the article and the response are guilty of taking individual surveys of public opinion and drawing strong conclusions from them- one apiece to suit the opposing agendas ("AGW isn't taken seriously" vs "yes it is").

A couple of points from the response that I think are extremely open to question:

Quote

As I’ve noted many times, the possibility we are greatly overestimating the sensitivity is very, very low, whereas the possibility we are greatly underestimating it — and hence greatly underestimating the chances of catastrophic impacts — is quite high.

Quote

The overwhelming majority of the recent scientific literature has raised concerns that the extent and time frame of human-caused global warming is graver and faster than what the IPCC — let alone most of the media — reported

Neither of those tally very well with the range of papers that I've seen on the subject- including those printed in the likes of Nature, Journal of Climate etc. All papers are agreed that the recent warming that can be attributed to AGW is not less than the lower bound of the IPCC's uncertainty estimates, while some warn that it may be progressing at a considerably larger rate. But the consensus strikes me as being more that the current warming is in line with what the IPCC expected from AGW, not well in excess of it.
And as for the uncertainties, many papers point to potential uncertainties in both directions. Furthermore, the reliability of conclusions regarding AGW, in climate model driven simulations, are dependent on the reliability of climate models, which although being the best we have, are not strong enough to support such a sweeping statement as that in bold. In fact I think such an assertion is as bad as the frequent implication that uncertainty on AGW implies that it is being overestimated and ignoring the possibility of underestimation.

There are also doubts about the "globally the warmest winter on record" status for 2009/10 and downplaying the cold over Europe (2nd coldest winter in 100 years in Scotland- not exceptional?). This is only true if you accept the NASA/GISS stats as gospel and ignore the NCDC and CRU stats, which have it inside the top five but not a record-breaker. I've seen the argument "GISS includes the Arctic" used in support of that stance, but am yet to see climate scientists coming out in numbers rejecting NCDC/CRU data- they may well have other advantages that GISS does not have. (For sake of balance, it's worth noting that NCDC has January-April 2010 combined as the warmest on record globally, albeit only with a couple of hundreths of a degree in it).

As for the "debunking" of the last paragraph, it is clearly assumed that the reference to "certainty" implies "we should do nothing about AGW unless it is absolutely certain"- a strong case of "reading between the lines" and not necessarily what was intended. The last paragraph even offers AGW as a reason to take action, but downplays the significance of it. I think it is very reasonable to state the other reasons for promoting more sustiainable approaches- even if AGW is a more serious threat than the others- because the public and governments are more likely to take more notice if numerous reasons are "pushed" rather than just one of them.

So while the initial article contains numerous flaws, the attempt to expose it as rubbish also contains numerous flaws.

[Captain_Bobski]

sunny starry skies, on 03 June 2010 - 15:34 , said:

C-Bob, have a read of:
http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm
You'll see the relative amounts of heat injected into the atmosphere and ocean since 1950. The rest of teh article is instructive reading too. Most anthropogenic warming is going into the ocean, only a little is warming the atmosphere. ENSO does not do that. You're still not showing me a long-term trend in ENSO either, only suggesting what might be, and so no I don't agree with you.
http://www.skeptical...ming-going.html

I'll read those links through later on, but you're missing the point.

I'm pointing out that the ENSO fluctuations, in and of themselves, are not the be-all and end-all of the ENSO phenomenon - you are not taking into account the relative insolation at every point during the ENSO cycle.

If you're going to be pig-headed about it and not actually address the issue that I am raising then I'm not going to bother discussing it with you. But then that seems to be an ongoing trend in these debates - answer the question you can answer - even if it wasn't the question that was asked - but evade the question that you can't answer.

Edited by Captain_Bobski, 03 June 2010 - 16:27 .

[sunny starry skies]

So what, CB, then the changes in relative insolation would be the driver, not ENSO. Since it's well established that the Sun cannot be the dominant driver (incompatible spatial pattern in the atmosphere), clouds show little response (albeit with relatively large uncertainty), what drives relative insolation, or energy input into the oceans and atmsphere? How about increased CO2? This is ridiculous. You'll be telling me that McLean et al were right, next! Seriously, CB, maybe it isn't worth discussing with you if you don't make sense.

TWS, yes, Climate Progress may lean a little farther over to one side, but at least it's supported by evidence. Sure it was cold in Scotland, but despite what had to be about ideal conditions, record temperatures weren't set. That, I find remarkable. And a fairly nondescript day (synoptically) two weeks ago set record May highs in parts of Scotland. But I am of course aware enough that Scotland is not the world, and cold air here came from somewhere, and overall most other regions were warmer than average, as shown in all datasets.

You emboldened a statement that actually I'd agree with. And many of those sensitivity estimates are not made with models - notably palaeoclimatic ones. I've yet to see anything much credible that places sensitivity below 1.5C/doubling (Knutti and Hegerl is a good place to start there), 3C is quite likely, and higher sensitivity is estimated by some when looking at Pliocene climate, and cannot exactly be ruled out, unfortunately.

http://climateprogre...-hottest-april/
http://climateprogre...-heat-wave-may/

And the hottest 12-month period in the GISS record. Hmmm, certainly no sign of cooling...

If I've avoided questions, it's because of the veritable gish gallop of non-sensical claims that I'm trying to deal with. I fear it's going to be time to fade into the background rather than try and explain the basics to people unwilling to accept some or all of : that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we're significantly increasing the concentration in forcable amounts, we expect that to cause warming, we're observing the warming, we're observing the greenhouse effect actually happening, the spatial pattern of that warming is distinct to GHGs, and the responses of the cryosphere, biosphere, oceans and atmosphere are essentially exactly what we expect.

One last link for now:
http://www2.sunysuff...ming/index.html
Some nice links here from Prof Mandia with explanations as to why it's humans, the role of natural variations, the size and impact of the fossil-fuel-funded denial machine (quite an eye-opener) among a host of other topics.
ta ta the noo, happy debating!
sss

[Captain_Bobski]

sunny starry skies, on 03 June 2010 - 17:30 , said:

So what, CB, then the changes in relative insolation would be the driver, not ENSO. Since it's well established that the Sun cannot be the dominant driver (incompatible spatial pattern in the atmosphere), clouds show little response (albeit with relatively large uncertainty), what drives relative insolation, or energy input into the oceans and atmsphere? How about increased CO2? This is ridiculous. You'll be telling me that McLean et al were right, next! Seriously, CB, maybe it isn't worth discussing with you if you don't make sense.

Well, yes - insolation is the driver, when all is said and done, but it's not an instantaneous driver, which is what I've been trying to get at for well over a year.

I'm also still not convinced, obviously, that the "spatial pattern in the atmosphere" is incompatible with insolation being the main driver, and it's an issue I am still trying to resolve - but one slight downpoint does not, to my mind, render all the other points redundant.

I have been trying to seriously approach this issue from an alternative viewpoint, my arguments are logical and - where necessary - I have conceded errors and even altered my viewpoint (which has, in turn, led to an adaptation of my arguments - but this is not the same as leaping from argument to argument, you understand). What have I got in return? Scoffing, patronising, frankly insulting drivel from you. You say that I don't make sense? Well, plenty of other people on here seem to think I'm making some kind of sense, so the fact that you will not allow yourself to consider an alternative to the All-Hallowed AGW shows you to be a closed-minded jerk.

Since you still will not tackle the point that I have actually raised then I see no reason to continue this discussion. And you have still not responded to my points about the Milankovitch cycles beyond saying "some people disagree with you". I really am sick of the whole thing - the only reason I continue to stick my oar in these discussions is that I hate to think that the absence of sensible skeptic voices makes some people think that the AGW debate is settled.

I think I should give up, not because "you've won" but rather because you won't listen, you won't reason, you won't discuss, you won't consider and you won't treat others with any kind of respect.

Quote

If I've avoided questions, it's because of the veritable gish gallop of non-sensical claims that I'm trying to deal with.

You're trying to deal with? What, single-handedly? Well, what a martyr you are to The Cause.

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

<snipt>

That's me out of it again. I'm not going to go 'back to basics' and my normal mathematical skill is not in doubt - it is awful, as always.

Carry on, guys.

Edited by VillagePlank, 03 June 2010 - 21:38 .

[jethro]

Goodness me, how quickly this all descends. Yet again.

Is there really any point in having a Climate area on this forum if the simplest of debates cannot be had without the petty bickering?