Dear Jennifer,
Here at ABC News Online, in an article titled ‘Study shows more severe droughts ahead for Australia’, is another example why there are so many cynics/sceptics about Anthropogenic Global Warming [1].
On the one hand the alarmists bang on about the fact that we are the cause of the increase in temperature over the last 100years, and if anyone raises questions about the role of the sun they get jumped on.
But now the academics are saying that the sun will affect our future prospects of drought or no, because they have a connection between sunspots and SOI and our weather.
Here is a delicious concept of one bunch of alarmists, with their “we are doomed because of drought caused by the sun”, actually mucking up the argument of “we are doomed because it is Co2, and BTW the sun is not involved at all”.
It would seem that the alarmists have some explaining to do.
Cheers,
Malcolm Hill
Littlehampton (where it is very cold and wet).
Australia
—————————————
[1] ABC Online: Study shows more severe droughts ahead for Australia.
New research into the sun suggests eastern Australia could face more severe droughts over the next 500 years.
Last Update: Wednesday, July 12, 2006. 1:36pm (AEST), http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1684681.htm
A study at the University of New England in New South Wales has shown a link between solar cycles and rainfall patterns, which can be used in conjunction with the southern oscillation index to more accurately predict droughts.
Associate Professor Robert Baker says …
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
You seem to be about to talk about the University of New England study when you end your comment. The media release about that study is “Sunspot cycles a key to drought prediction” (dated 6 July) and is available at http://www.une.edu.au/news/archives/000535.html
A key paragraph is …”Changing patterns of dark spots on the surface of the Sun are a visible indication of changes in the magnetic forces within. Dr Baker has correlated these sunspot patterns – which have been recorded since 1745 – with historical rainfall records in south-eastern Australia. The correlation shows that periods of high rainfall are associated with periods of increased sunspot activity.”
cheers
Even as a greenie I do believe that the statement ” …correlation that periods of high rainfall are associated with periods of increased sunspot activity” may be correct.
It is also unfortunate that many “environmentalists” cry wolf every time a natural disaster occurs blaming it on antrophogenic global warming. This happened for example during the tsunami catastrophie. Such unfounded statements do undermine the environmental movement.
mmmm .. “an academic” has found Inigo Jones’s lost diaries. Lots of people has lost their souls on sun spots, even a few “alarmists”.
Show us the double cross validated stats or begone with you.
Anyway back to ringing the village bell and shouting “wolf”.
What else would one expect from someone who has to hide behind a nome de plume.. the normal standard of content free drivel..as usual.
If Associate Professor Baker has lost his soul and cant provide the validated stats,then thats a problem for you and him.
BTW I would have thought that if there is any wolf crying, it was done by Baker at the conference he released his paper.
Touchy eh? You are the one banging on about “alarmists” (as usual) which suits your propagandist position. Have another chardonnay.
“Academics” – no – “an” academic. The global warming position does not say that there is no solar impact so you’re talking drivel yourself. That’s a complete misrepresentation of the position.
I’ll say it again – a lot of people have thought they have forecast ability with sunspots but it has fallen down in prediction – why – because the climate system is full of “quasi-periodic” behaviour. So – one would be sceptical unless they’ve done some serious statistics to answer such difficulties and a comparison with alternative explanations.
But maybe Malcolm you don’t need stats as religion will do.
But yes I’m interested in his proposition nonetheless – all fascinating stuff. (Probably my indulgence for the occasional outside bet). Be good if you could get some more information on the “breakthrough”.
And let’s take a mug punt – if he was right – it doesn’t stop a anthropogenic greenhouse warming effect over the top of any underlying climate “periodicity” – the other physics isn’t suddenly invalidated.
Incidentally – where are the “alarmists” and “doom-sayers”. And what exactly are they saying?
People have made predictions about lots of things that haven’t come true. Here’s one;
“We will report here on the first results
of a calculation in which separate
estimates were made of the effects on
global temperature of large increases
in the amount of CO2 and dust in the
atmosphere. It is found that even an
increase by a factor of 8 in the amount
of CO2, which is highly unlikely in
the next several thousand years, will
produce an increase in the surface temperature
of less than 2(degrees)K. However,
the effect on surface temperature of an
increase in the aerosol content of the
atmosphere is found to be quite significant.
An increase by a factor of 4
in the equilibrium dust concentration
in the global atmosphere, which cannot
be ruled out as a possibility within
the next century, could decrease the
mean surface temperature by as much
as 3.5(degrees)K. If sustained over a period of
several years, such a temperature decrease
could be sufficient to trigger an
ice age!
To perform these calculations we
adopt a model atmosphere that reflects
present-day globally averaged conditions.
S. I. RASOOL
S. H. SCHNEIDER
Institute for Space Studies, Goddard
Space Flight Center, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration,
New York 10025
SCIENCE, VOL. 173,9 JULY 1971”
Now there’s a “forecast” that’s spectacularly wrong. To give Schneider (our current “Thinker in Residence”) his due, he seems to have adapted well to the change in data, and elevated CO2 to the pre-eminent position. As we (maybe) enter a sunspot driven mini ice age, watch out for the revival of the aerosol hypothesis!
Paul – And here are some more. Most of them far more humerous that yours.
“# “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
# “Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons.” — Popular Mechanics, 1949
# “I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won’t last out the year.” — The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.
# “But what…is it good for?” — Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
# “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
# “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” — Attributed to Bill Gates, 1981, but believed to be an urban legend.”
My favourite is:
“”That Professor Goddard with his ‘chair’ in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react–to say that would be absurd. Of course, he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.” — 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard’s revolutionary rocket work. The remark was retracted in the July 17, 1969 issue.”
Mind you this one is also good:
“”The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.” — Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.”
And he was right for the time before modern sanitation and drugs. Goes to show that prediction is a mugs game as there is always more information.
Paul Williams – spectacular b/s.
You have selectively quoted a part of the paper in true anti-AGW style. Aerosols were an issue in the 1970s and the work if not a prediction – moreover an exploration of the science issues. And aerosols do make a difference to climate.
Tell us what the full paper says – or did you just grab the quote from contrarian central. Looking at the full paper you have quoted way out of context.
We have also have learned a few things since 1971 including how to reduce aerosol pollution.
Ender, this bit is even more humourous
“From our calculation, a doubling of
CO., produces a tropospheric temperature
change of 0.8°K (12). However,
as more CO, is added to the atmosphere,
the rate of temperature increase
is proportionally less and less, and the
increase eventually levels off. Even for
an increase in CO, by a factor of 10,
the temperatture increase does not exceed
2.5 °K. Therefore, the runaway
greenhouse effect does not occur because
the 1 5-,am CO., band, which is
the main source of absorption, “saturates,”
and the addition of more CO.,
does not substantially increase the infrared
opacity of the atmosphere. But,
if the CO, concentration in the atmosphere
becomes so high that the total
atmospheric pressture is affected (which
will require a CO., increase by a factor
of 1000 or more), then the absorption
bands will broaden, the opacity will increase,
and the temperature may start
to rise so rapidly that the process could
run away (13). However, this appears
to be only a remote possibility for
Earth, even on a geological time scale,
as a large buildup of CO., in the atmosphere
will be severely restrained by its
interaction with the oceans, the biosphere,
and the crust (14).
The main conclusion of this part of
the study is that even an order of magnitude
increase of CO., in the atmosphere
by human activities, which at
the present rate of input is not expected
within the next several thouLsand
years, may not be sufficient to produce
a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth.
On the short time scale, if CO2, is augmented
by another 10 percent in the
next 30 years, the increase in the global
temperatuLre may be as small as 0.1°K.”
(From the same paper.)
The point, for those of limited comprehension (Luke, pay attention), is that predictions are often confounded by events, as Ender’s examples confirm.
And the Hockey Stick has just been hit for six.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=750
“But yes I’m interested in his proposition nonetheless – all fascinating stuff.”
Ah, so we can agree on something. It is fascinating stuff, but as to the truth of the matter, it is up to Associate Professor Baker to now strut his stuff and show us.
If subsequent scrutiny shows that it has merit, then it may change the way one looks at the role of the sun from that of perceived minor player to some thing more important.
Who knows it might even be more than the 16-36% of GHG warming currently being bandied around.
BTW Luke, I have no need for any religion, and certainly have even less need for shonky stats and arguments, as peddled by some of the AGW fraternity.
Malcolm “From our calculation, a doubling of
CO., produces a tropospheric temperature
change of 0.8°K (12). However,
as more CO, is added to the atmosphere,
the rate of temperature increase
is proportionally less and less, and the
increase eventually levels off. Ev”
However subsequent research has found this not to be the case – I don’t see the problem here. Are you trying to say that all scientific research should only be released if it will never ever be challenged or proven incorrect in the future?
BTW MBH98 is fine and even if it wasn’t it would have no effect on AGW theory as MBH98 has nothing to do with the greenhouse theory of global warming.
Ender- I do get a certain amount of enjoyment from posting these previous announcements from one of AGW’s prominent gurus, one who has defended exaggerating scientific evidence in order to sway public opinion.
While the ice age scare was never as widely publicised or taken up as public policy like the AGW scare, the precautionary principle, if applied back then, would have taken us in entirely the opposite direction to that being urged on us now. That’s only 35 years ago, yet AGW proponents are projecting scenarios out for the next 100 years, and saying we only have a few years to take action to avoid disaster. What would have happened if the step change in global temperature had occurred in 1996 instead of 1976? The ice age theory would have gained similar traction to the current AGW theory and we would be getting tax credits for emitting CO2!
Did Schneider publish a paper correcting what he published in 1971? I hope he did, perhaps you have a reference for it?
Of course theories can change as new data is collected, but I was under the impression that the science of CO2 was settled long before 1971. I think the new research you allude to is merely a parameterising of the GCMs to make the observed temperature increase fit the CO2 theory.
MBH98 will, I think, go down in history as one of the great scientific scandals, given the influence it has had (and still does) on public policy and public perception. It looks as though the Hockey Stick graph has been quietly dropped from the Australian Greenhouse Office website, to be replaced by the multi proxy “Spaghetti” graph.
I cannot believe we are regurgitating this ice age scare nonsense made large of in the popular press not science literature in the light of 1000x published new research. Get real.
MBH in trouble by the kangaroo court of republican shonks but strangely OK by the National Academies report.
……………
Comment edited byJennifer at 8.30pm Sunday 16th July because some of the content was considered offensive by some readers.
I think we all can agree that the annual-mean global temperature has increased with about 0,48 degrees, according to NASA( Goddard Institute for Space Studies).
But as a real layman on this issue I am very confused about all this information on global warming in my part of the world, Northern Europe.
Some studies say ” Global warming will make Northern Europe colder switching off the Golf Stream”, ” Global warming will cause more snow storms ” etc.
Information from other NGOs state like Government officials that “it is going to be warmer and there will be more arable land in the north” etc.
Very confusing.
To make it even more confusing the latest winters in Norway and Sweden have had record cold winters, for example this winter in Sweden was among the 4th coldest winters ever recorded.
Iceland on the contrary had record warm winter and record cold spring etc. The list is very long.
I think the weather patterns are extremely chaotic. Anyway there are many records one way or other.
One thing that strikes me about global warming is that if we weren’t hearing about it in the media, no one would know it was happening. The impact on people’s lives of climatic change, as distinct from weather, is essentially nil.
Yes – apart from the droughts, heatwaves, and increased tropical storm intensities you’d never know would you.. All those people that have died probably just pined away.
(and how does one “experience” climate change without changed weather?)
Paul that’s a non-point isn’t it? It’s like saying that before modern medicine, sickish people didn’t have cancer because they didnt know they were dying of cancer. You are suggesting, with yr blanket generalisation, that even scientists didn’t realise global warming was happening until they heard about it from the media?
Some people are already experiencing land losses due to raised water levels. Tell them they will never be climate change refugees.
Tinxi, just who are the people who have lost land due to rising sea leavels?
Ender.In your post of 9.46 above you have the wrong attribution.It was Paul Williams not me.
However, the comment “BTW MBH98 is fine and even if it wasn’t it would have no effect on AGW theory as MBH98 has nothing to do with the greenhouse theory of global warming.”
It is relevant in that it shows that MBH et al, were shonky in their representations, or so, the Barton/Wegman document is clearly saying.It would seem that a number of leading USA statiticians have signed off on the judgement, an this work was done pro bono.
Because a main promotional plank of the AGW argument of the IPCC was so flimsy,it casts doubt on the rest, and this includes the propensity to only look at the insolation effect of the sun.
Meanwhile if anyone can get to the substance of Professor Bakers claims, that sunspot activity can be correlated with the SOI and drought it would be appreciated.
Talk about non-points, there has been no (recent) recorded loss of environment, human life or economic activity due to sea level changes.
Academics come under further fire;
“..in the 12 months it has operated, its windmills have consumed 43 times more power than they have generated.”
“….The project to make Tsukuba a self-sufficient showpiece for green energy has failed, bringing scorn upon the government programme to test alternative sources. It is likely to be cited by sceptics elsewhere, including in Britain, where the Government published its energy review this week. Tsukuba is involved in civil litigation, criminal investigations and an assault on the academic reputation of Waseda University, Japan’s most respected seat of learning.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-2269183,00.html
Paul Williams – “MBH98 will, I think, go down in history as one of the great scientific scandals,”
No the vested interests dogged pursuit to falsely discredit a scientific study will go down as the scandel. When Smokey Joe and his cohorts are finally found out for what they are then this will redress the balance.
rog – so the wrong type of wind turbine, as savonius rotor, in a low wind area is supposed to mean that all wind turbine are bad? That is cherry picking of the highest order.
Now the key here is “The playground swelters without the slightest breath of breeze,” perhaps a more enlightened designer of renewable power would have put in solar panels.
Luke:
Re Your comment back to Paul Williams on 11.04,
“And in terms of parameterising GCMs to fit – well what a big liar you are. Put up the detail or shut up.”
Working Group 1 The Scientific Basis of the IPCC
Chapter 1.3.3, Makes it clear that empirical parmametization is involved.
Tinxi(?), of course I’m not suggesting scientists heard about AGW from the media. Sorry if that wasn’t clear, I didn’t really think I had to spell out that I was talking about people in general.
People who were dying from cancer in the middle ages certainly knew at some point that they were dying. I would think that with all the talk of disaster that is going to be caused by AGW, we should notice SOMETHING happening around us.
What effects have you noticed in your life that you can attribute to AGW that couldn’t be explained by normal weather? Or, to put it more clearly, if you hadn’t heard of AGW, would you think the climate was changing? I honestly don’t think I could say it is, based on my own life. Some years are hotter and some are colder and it all seems quite unremarkable.
And that’s not to deny the existence of climate change, just an observation that it’s essentially invisible to most of us.
As usual Ender you completely miss the point.
hasbeen: Tuvalu
and the odd bangladeshi or 2 is having the occasional issue with increased flooding
(& loss of smallscale agriculture in low-lying areas near the sea in the Indian sub-continent, but very localised and unlikely to be reported in national GDP reports so far rog)
as usual, there are other factors are at play, including sea water levels
Paul W ok, i have a strong dislike of generalisations & sweeping statements.
one well defined personality type is that of sensors who only trust what they can perceive with their own senses and experiences. You see these types loudly denying the possibility of climate change simply because they can’t perceive it themselves and are by nature of their personality, loathe to trust any scientific models or theories that don’t match their personal outlook. It’s not a helpful position to take or defend.
The very nature of climate change (ie long term patterns) defies many personal individual experiences, esp in the modern world, until it (if it) becomes so dire as to be undeniable. In thta sense it’s not useful to say most people wouldn’t notice it, as it even challenges the range of scientific data & hence much of the controversy.
I did notice years ago in Tassie though, that the sun felt much stronger -> more burn factor in winter (not climate change per se, but a related observation)
some peoples with long histories via narrations have reportedly noticed differences, eg decreased snow cover & permafrost
Yes – some empirical paramterisations – but of what processes with what impacts ? and is it curve fitting as you suggest? What a con. You guys have opened the case – put up the detail don’t just bluff (if you have it)!
I think a temperature increase of 0,5 degrees is a no thing for most humans , but birds and insects respond very rapidly to changes in temperature.
I wrote about this in a post yesterday but it seems like Jen has not posted it yet.
Bottom line : migrating birds both in Australia and Scandinavia are arriving earlier and leaving later. One of the big concerns is that this may lead to asynchronity between reproduction of birds and when their food will appear.
Paul – “I would think that with all the talk of disaster that is going to be caused by AGW, we should notice SOMETHING happening around us.”
How about the arctic ice melting, the siberian permafrost thawing out, the unprecedented rise in the Greenland ice melting, the slowing down of the Atlantic themohaline circulation ….
What is this not enough for you?
And in terms of having impacts check out the latest NCAR research
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/hurricanes.shtml
Global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor, according to a new analysis by Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study will appears in the June 27 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union.
“The global warming influence provides a new background level that increases the risk of future enhancements in hurricane activity,” Trenberth says. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s primary sponsor.
The study contradicts recent claims that natural cycles are responsible for the upturn in Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995. It also adds support to the premise that hurricane seasons will become more active as global temperatures rise. Last year produced a record 28 tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma all reached Category 5 strength.
Trenberth, Kevin E.; Shea, Dennis J.
Atlantic hurricanes and natural variability in 2005
Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 33, No. 12, L12704
10.1029/2006GL026894
27 June 2006
Atlantic hurricanes and natural variability in 2005
Kevin E. Trenberth
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Dennis J. Shea
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Abstract
The 2005 North Atlantic hurricane season (1 June to 30 November) was the most active on record by several measures, surpassing the very active season of 2004 and causing an unprecedented level of damage. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical North Atlantic (TNA) region critical for hurricanes (10° to 20°N) were at record high levels in the extended summer (June to October) of 2005 at 0.9°C above the 1901–70 normal and were a major reason for the record hurricane season. Changes in TNA SSTs are associated with a pattern of natural variation known as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). However, previous AMO indices are conflated with linear trends and a revised AMO index accounts for between 0 and 0.1°C of the 2005 SST anomaly. About 0.45°C of the SST anomaly is common to global SST and is thus linked to global warming and, based on regression, about 0.2°C stemmed from after-effects of the 2004–05 El Niño.
So it may be on after all !!
Oh I see.We have now gone from a sweeping blast implying that there is no parametisation at all, (indeed calling some one a big liar), to when presented with evidence to now ackowledging that there may be, but that the original person should provide yet more evidence as to the detail.
It would seem to me that the ball in is your court to demonstrate that any paramnetsiation that is used is of a low relevance.
Given the need for a nome de plume and the ferocity of your statements it does suggest that perhaps you are a CSIRO apparatchik. Budget running low is it?
Not with CSIRO sorry.
Malcolm you guys have brought up the paramaterisation issue. It’s in your court to discuss and make your point. (if you have one).
Check your own rhetorical bluster for ferocity too and have another chardonnay.
lswalker33@gmail.com
Luke,
The IPCC Working Group 1: The Scientific Basis Chapter 1 makes it abundantly clear that parametisation is one of the tools used in order to develope models (plural) of the climate and its elements. That is there for all to read and see, as a public document.
If you dispute this, then you take it up with the authors.
I am not in a position to judge the authenticity of their claim, but am entitled to rely upon it as being factual unless proven oherwise.
..and yes will have another chardonnay.
Malcolm Hill – “It would seem to me that the ball in is your court to demonstrate that any paramnetsiation that is used is of a low relevance.”
Do you actually know what parameterisation is? Perhaps you can explain it to me because I don’t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametrization_%28climate%29
Try this for size
Tinxi, trying to decipher your post, I think your answer to my question “if you hadn’t heard of AGW, would you think the climate was changing?”, is no.
Ender, “How about the arctic ice melting, the siberian permafrost thawing out, the unprecedented rise in the Greenland ice melting, the slowing down of the Atlantic themohaline circulation ….” So you haven’t noticed any signs of AGW either, unless you’ve been taking your winter break in Siberia? Actually, what is the evidence, other than computer models that those things are caused by AGW, or that they are catastrophic?
Some of the posters at Climate Audit have suggested that a searching examination of the GCMs by disinterested experts would be at least as interesting as the Hockey Stick debacle. It seems a worthwhile idea, given the importance of the GCMs in the AGW debate.
Well Paul Williams – inform us how all these warming related phenomena all around the world are happening then?
And also why the radiative physics explanations are wrong – all those 100s of deluded papers..
And by your answers on parameterisation I can see you have idea and just parroting what you read somewhere on contrarian central.
Well, have you guys heard about climate change refugees?
I think for example, there are about 135 million climate change refugees due to desertification.
Ranting on…
Especially Arctic hunting communities are affected by climate change.
Sea temperatures are increasing and changing the whole pattern of fisheries. Right now there’s a conference in Iceland regarding climate change and ocean currents.
In a more funny way… living in the high north , who wouldn’t like to have some more hot summer days;)
Paul Williams – “So you haven’t noticed any signs of AGW either”
So what you have to actually see these things before they are real. OK suppose someone broke into your house while you were away however the police refused to prosecute the persons they identified with DNA evidence because no-one saw the burgulary take place. Do you think that would be reasonable?
“Some of the posters at Climate Audit have suggested that a searching examination of the GCMs by disinterested experts”
Some of the posters will have to then get university degrees in climatology, join the peer review process and do some real scientific work to be able to do this. GCMs are not something you just load up and check. BTW some of the parameters that you imagine are dodgy are used in hundreds of other branches of science and engineering that use fluid flow to design things as diverse as jet aircraft to feed hoppers for iron ore crushing plants.
I asked you to explain it to me because I do not believe you have even the first clue how these parameters are used in GCMs and have no idea what paramerisation is. I only have a tenous grip of it however I am not doubting the GCMs other that the normal uncertainlty that is associated with any computer models. Scientists only use GCMs to run experiments as we do not have a spare Earth to change things on. Computer models are the only way we have to run changes and see what might happen.
There is no evidence that Tuvalu is affected by rising sea levels – in fact there is evidence that levels have fallen.
More scaremongery
There is actually good evidence from monitoring that sea levels are indeed rising across the South Pacific in line with predictions. How soon that this issue becomes a threatening process is complicated by tidal influences on any day and storm surge issues.
Calm down Ender, and try reading what I actually wrote. Your second and third paragraphs are at cross purposes to what I wrote. Nothing new in that with you, though.
As far as parameterisation goes, I was using it in this sense;
-doubling CO2 causes tropospheric temp increase of 0.8K
-however, the temperature was expected to decrease and it turned out that temperature increased
-to fit the observed temperature increase doubling CO2 must cause a tropospheric increase in temp of (say) 1.2K
-now lets use that new value of CO2 to project temperature increases for the next century.
That’s my conception of what has been done. Maybe I’m wildly wrong, but if so please give a plain language summary of what actually happens. Oh, that’s right, you can’t because you have no idea (your words).
Ann, have you noticed the climate changes caused by AGW, and have these been catastrophic? Please note, I’m well aware that there are lots of reports that such and such is due to AGW. But if there were no media reports of AGW, who would notice any real climate change?
I’m just commenting on the lack of impact that such a prominent looming “catastrophe” has on our actual day to day existence.
Welcome back Phil. Who have you been for the last few weeks?
Paul,
Regarding climate change, personally I have only observed that some migratory birds are not leaving the country any more, like blackbirds…
But climate change is not only a matter of human welfare, we are losing biodiversity with every temperature degree, anyway that’s the case here in Scandinavia.
Correction: we are losing biodiversity with increasing temperature
Paul – “As far as parameterisation goes, I was using it in this sense;
-doubling CO2 causes tropospheric temp increase of 0.8K …..”
However that is not how it is done. GCMs are not used to predict what will happen with climate change they are used to conduct experiments. If a researcher did what you said then the experiment would be meaningless. Parameters are changed to try and make a GCM better conform with observed and ral facts. Not facts the researcher would like it to be but what is observed in nature.
Ok Ender, change that last line to read;
-use the new value of CO2 to conduct (virtual) experiments.
Now we are in agreement.
Although you seem to be saying that the temperature projections to 2100 were not obtained using GCMs?
Ann, having blackbirds around all year hardly seems a catastrophe. Maybe they are particularly aggressive in Norway? And how do you know that ANTHROPOGENIC climate change is the cause? Maybe they were around all year when the Vikings were farming Greenland.
Paul – “Ok Ender, change that last line to read;
-use the new value of CO2 to conduct (virtual) experiments.
Now we are in agreement.
Although you seem to be saying that the temperature projections to 2100 were not obtained using GCMs?”
The temperature projections are guesses derived from work in GCMs. Scientists do not use crystal balls. They are all heavily caveated that other scientists take note of. To use these projections agianst science people remove the caveats and cherry pick parts of the studies and try to portray the work as what scientists predict the temperature will be when this is not the case. No-one knows what the temperature will be in 2100 and no GCM will tell it and all scientists and people who understand this work know this. You do not know either nor does any contrarian.
Now your response to this lack of knowlege, even though qualified people are saying what could happen, is to exhort society to carry on regardless in the most reckless way imaginable. My position is that even though the knowledge is not complete or certain there is enough to consider changing to a more sustainable model.
Where do the temperature projections for the rest of the century come from if not from GCMs?
GCMs seem to be “black boxes” at the moment for all but the programmers. A bit more plain language explanation of what they do and the assumptions built into them may be helpful before we start changing our economy to avert a threat which is so far invisible.
And where to you get off calling me reckless? Try and keep the discussion on topic, please.
Paul Williams – we are not changing our economy because of projections of GCMs. That is a gross distortion that stems from a basic lack of appreciation of what AGW really is.
AGW does not come from, is not proven by or even needs GCMs. AGW is a theory formulated before computers got large enough to run effective GCMs and comes from basic physics.
In a nutshell it states that humans through releasing greenhouse gases and environment changes are upsetting the global carbon balance. This is leading to a rise in greenhouse gas levels(observed). These gases are known by basic physics to regulate the amount of heat leaving the Earth(observed in experiments). These extra greenhouse gases, through changing the Earth energy balance, are causing global average temperatures to rise(observed).
Nowhere in this are GCMs. Changing the economy to be sustainable and not release as much CO2, methane, and NO2 is from this basic physics. The consequences of not doing this are illustrated in a broad uncertain forms by experiments carried out in GCMs.
BTW the term ‘you’ was rhetorical and intended to include contrarians in general.
Paul,
Regarding the blackbirds.
When I was a child , the blackbirds always left the country in the autumn. They don’t do that now.. Of course this is not a catastrophe but an indicator.
Interesting with Greenland and blackbirds. Actually Audubon Society has observed blackbirds on Greenland in January 2000.This is REALLY strange. Wonder if this has anything to do with climate change? Personally, I think this is very likely.
Thanks for that, Ender. So the temperature projections ARE from GCMs. Thanks for the discussion.
Paul Williams – however you conveniently ignore the fact that AGW is not. Some of the temperature projections are just straight line extrapolations of the data. Are they wrong too?
Ender, it’s the anthropogenic part of AGW that I’m questioning. Here’s why (and I know that you wont change your opinion).
-Earlier environmental predictions of doom failed spectacularly, leaving those of us who believed them at the time with a skeptical attitude towards future doomsday predictions.
-The 1970’s ice age didn’t happen, reducing the credibility of those scientists who proposed it.
-The Hockey Stick seemed to overturn the consensus account of climate during the last 1000 years, otherwise the current climate would be considered unremarkable compared to previous climate. That seemed suspiciously convenient for the warmers. Now the HS has been comprehensibly debunked. The warmers have “moved on”, but the rest of us are saying, hang on a minute, this could be on the nose.
-Predictions of catastrophe appear regularly in the media, yet climate change is essentially invisible to most people. If we weren’t being told about it, we wouldn’t know it was happening. Hmm, maybe it’s not as bad as they say.
-Global temperature doesn’t correlate well with CO2 levels. It looks as if the GCMs have to be tortured to make them spit out the correct answers. What, global aerosol pollution miraculously reduced in 1976?
-Other possibilities correlate quite well with climate, eg. sunspot activity, angular momentum of the solar system. And there is a prediction that the climate will tend to cool over the next 30 years or so, towards a little ice age. If it keeps warming, that gives more credence to AGW, if it cools, maybe AGW is not happening.
I find these points impossible to ignore, yet mentioning them draws abuse from the warmers, such as John Quiggin, or our own semi-literate Luke. That hardly strengthens the AGW argument. Even you think it’s ok to call me reckless (I am a “contrarian”, I suppose). I think it’s reckless to rush into action to stop global warming without considering how the effort could be better spent, but I don’t see the need to bring that up as part of what should be a polite discussion.
Paul Williams – Ok I will do it. You need to read the links I post because I am not out to change your mind – you are the only one that can do this. I will reference the accepted work on the points you bring up and you can decide. MAKE SURE you watch the video!!!!!!!!!!
“-Earlier environmental predictions of doom failed spectacularly, leaving those of us who believed them at the time with a skeptical attitude towards future doomsday predictions.”
The earlier data showed the possiblity of global temperatures decreasing however later data has shown this was a small downturn. There was not scientific consensus at this point.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
You will notice that I reference real climate a lot.
“-The 1970’s ice age didn’t happen, reducing the credibility of those scientists who proposed it.”
See point 1 above
“-The Hockey Stick seemed to overturn the consensus account of climate during the last 1000 years, otherwise the current climate would be considered unremarkable compared to previous climate. That seemed suspiciously convenient for the warmers. Now the HS has been comprehensibly debunked. The warmers have “moved on”, but the rest of us are saying, hang on a minute, this could be on the nose.”
Only M&M and his band of cronies think MBH99 is broken. The WSS report is not peer reviewed and does not comment on the climate data. Read the comments in this thread where you can see your mate John A get answered.
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-comments-popup.php?p=324&c=1
“-Predictions of catastrophe appear regularly in the media, yet climate change is essentially invisible to most people. If we weren’t being told about it, we wouldn’t know it was happening. Hmm, maybe it’s not as bad as they say.”
Yes they do however not often supported by a consensus of reputable scientists. Maybe it wont be as bad as they say however do you know this for a fact or are you just guessing and hoping?
“-Global temperature doesn’t correlate well with CO2 levels. It looks as if the GCMs have to be tortured to make them spit out the correct answers. What, global aerosol pollution miraculously reduced in 1976?”
No it lags it because of the heat sinks in the oceans and because we now know that aerosols reduced the forcing from CO2. As explained before GCMs are not tortured to spit out correct answers they are used for what if experiments.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.html
“-Other possibilities correlate quite well with climate, eg. sunspot activity, angular momentum of the solar system. And there is a prediction that the climate will tend to cool over the next 30 years or so, towards a little ice age. If it keeps warming, that gives more credence to AGW, if it cools, maybe AGW is not happening.”
Yes they do however correlation does not imply causation. The reason Greenhouse warming is assumed to be the one responsible is because it has sufficient magnitude (forcing) to produce the observed temperature rise. The others don’t.
“I find these points impossible to ignore, yet mentioning them draws abuse from the warmers, such as John Quiggin, or our own semi-literate Luke.”
Well don’t ignore them however if you go to climate audit, CO2science or tech central station for your information then you will only be getting one side. Look at Real Climate and others and see which is more scientifically accurate. See which sites provide links to peer reviewed papers. See which authors have peer reviewed work in their credits. Peer review is not perfect however it is the only way a layperson like myself can judge these things.
“That hardly strengthens the AGW argument. Even you think it’s ok to call me reckless (I am a “contrarian”, I suppose). I think it’s reckless to rush into action to stop global warming without considering how the effort could be better spent, but I don’t see the need to bring that up as part of what should be a polite discussion.”
Sure however calling Luke semi-literate is hardly polite. If you want politeness then be polite yourself. Consider what the money is being spent on now. Reducing greenhouse gases does not have to be hugely expensive. Australians spend more on gambling that it would take to get us well down the road.
Finally please persevere and watch this whole maths lecture – if you do nothing else just watch this.
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461
It is only involves simple arithmetic and really is worth a look. After watching it and understanding the simple maths behind it, decide yourself if growth can go on forever.
Remember, and this is in the lecture, 2% growth sustained means that a quantity will double in 35 years, 7% growth – 10years. I got how to calculate that from the lecture. I would advise everyone to watch it.
Well I dunno how to express myshelf I spose.
Issue with your sundots and angulkar moments if that they have been tracked down and ruled out. But the serious scicne of CO2 fizzics is the only explanation we have. Funny how offensive it is as an explanation. So utterly offensive.
Thanks for your long response, Ender. I have actually read all the references you supplied, except for the last one. I obviously found them less convincing than you did.
The last link, which from your comment looks as though it might be a “limits to growth” style talk, I will look at when time permits. It has to be said that this type of thinking has been expressed since Malthus, if not earlier, and so far events have always proved it to be wrong.
As for GCMs, they have to produce answers that correspond with reality, and if they don’t, they must be adjusted in some way to make the output fit the observed data. If this is not the case, then the modellers are just playing computer games. Surely you agree that this is what happens? The problem arises if factors not accounted for in the model affect climate.
As for politeness, there is a lot of ad hom on both sides of the debate, but the warmers seem to think they have the moral high ground. You yourself have called me immature, blood thirsty, indifferent to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and reckless. And you’re one of the polite ones! I normally ignore typos, mis-spelling and bad grammar, we all make mistakes, but Luke called me a liar simply because I had a different opinion to him. If you read his posts, semi-literate is descriptive rather than insulting. I could have called him something else, but I’m too polite for that.
Paul – “The last link, which from your comment looks as though it might be a “limits to growth” style talk”
I suggest you do it is really worth it – there are limits to growth. This is from the transcript:
“Bacteria grow by doubling. One bacterium divides to become two, the two divide to become 4, become 8, 16 and so on. Suppose we had bacteria that doubled in number this way every minute. Suppose we put one of these bacterium into an empty bottle at eleven in the morning, and then observe that the bottle is full at twelve noon. There’s our case of just ordinary steady growth, it has a doubling time of one minuet, and it’s in the finite environment of one bottle. I want to ask you three questions.
Number one; at which time was the bottle half full? Well, would you believe 11:59,one minuet before 12, because they double in number every minute.
Second Question; if you were an average bacterium in that bottle at what time would you first realise that you were running of space? Well let’s just look at the last minute in the bottle. At 12 noon its full, one minute before its half full, 2 minutes before its ¼ full than 1/8th than a 1/16th . Let me ask you, at 5 minutes before 12 when the bottle is only 3% full and is 97% open space just yearning for development, how many of you would realise there’s a problem?
Now in the ongoing controversy over growth in Bolder, someone wrote to the newspaper some years ago and said look, there’s no problem with population growth in Boulder, because the writer said, we have fifteen times as much open space as we’ve already used. So let me ask you what time was it in Boulder when the open space was fifteen times the amount of space we had already used? And the answer is, it was four minutes before 12 in Boulder valley. Well suppose that at 2 minutes before 12, some of the bacterium realised they were running out of space, so they launch a great search for new bottles. They searched offshore and on the outer continental shelf and the overthrust belt and the Artic, and they find three new bottles. Now that’s an incredible discovery, that’s three times the total amount of resource they ever new about before, they now have four bottles, before their discovery they had one. Now surely this will give them a sustainable society, wont’ it?
You know what the third question is? How long can the growth continue as a result of this magnificent discovery? Well look at the score, at 12 noon, one bottles filled, there are three to go, 12:01 two bottles are filled, there’s two to go and at 12:02 all four are filled and that’s the end of the line. Now you don’t need any more arithmetic than this to evaluate the absolutely contradictory statements that we’ve all heard and read from experts who tell us in one breath we can go on increasing our rates of consumption of fossil fuels and then in the next breath don’t worry, we will always be able to make the discoveries of new resources that we need to meet the requirement of that growth. ”
“As for GCMs, they have to produce answers that correspond with reality, and if they don’t, they must be adjusted in some way to make the output fit the observed data”
Yes they do and part of the discovery process is finding out WHY the parameters have to be adjusted. This is whole point of using them. These experiments lead to other lines of inquiry as to why this parameter is so high etc which then leads to new insights into Nature which is the whole point of science in the first place.
No Paul – just because you were b/s-ing on the parameterisation issue.
In any case in terms of blog harmony I withdraw my comment and apologise for being gratuitous.
Let me re-phrase by saying that IMHO you are not providing complete disclosure on the issue.
Some empirical parameterisations are required on some aspects, schema and representations for other aspects, whereas the majority is simply physics. However a parameterisation is a long way from “tuning” to get a specific answer. Indeed a vast amount of GCM developers time is spent testing and validating models and sub-components. This is the acid test. The point on representing the temperature curve of the last century is that without adding all the forcings together in the one model do you get the historical record. i.e. there are both solar and greenhouse forcings (and volcanoes too)
Ok Luke, apology accepted. I have no idea what you mean by b/s-ing or lack of full disclosure, I am just an interested onlooker with a point of view. I have no employment or financial interests with anyone who is involved in climate research or any type of energy production or policy making.
The point I am trying to make about the GCMs, which both you and Ender seem to miss, is not that they are being cooked to get a predefined answer, but that when actual data turns out to be different to the model’s predicted data, then obviously the model is wrong in some aspect. Presumably the modellers then look for what they may have missed or got wrong, and try to improve the model. This seems commonsense, agreed?
The new and improved model then would be tested to see how well it conformed to historical data, and if it was a good fit, used to predict future conditions under a range of scenarios.
But what if there are other factors not accounted for in the model? What if some of the values, such as the climate sensitivity of CO2, are wrong? From my very basic understanding, models do not allow for non-linear changes, so while they may be a useful study tool, the predictions of doom which the media and some policy makers have extracted from the models probably can’t be supported with sufficient certainty to justify changes to energy policy, etc.
Paul Williams – “But what if there are other factors not accounted for in the model? What if some of the values, …..”
I am sure that there are thousands of factors not taken into account as the atmosphere is thousands of times more complex than even the most sophisticated model. However you do not have to have 100% accurate model to make accurate predictions.
Here is an example. The model of the atmosphere used to design subsonic aircraft assumes that air is incompressible. Assuming this makes calculations possible using easy to use tools. Now you and I both now that you can compress air as you do that in your car tires however for all purposes of subsonic aircraft design air can be assumed to be incompressible and look at it planes do fly OK. The only place where the commpressibility of air has to be taken into account is transonic and supersonic flight. This is where designers around 1943 got into trouble as the aircraft they were then designing and operating were capable, in a dive, of transonic speeds and did not behave as they predicted. The Spitfire accidently had the best transonic performance of all and could be dived up to Mach 0.84 which testifies to the genius of its design.
But I digress – the point is that the models do not have to be perfect and all assumptions do not have to be perfect. Science usually only works on simplified models however that is sufficient for most purposes as the example I gave testifies to.
Paul – the models do exhibit some non-linearity in that they exhibit chaotic behaviour on input changes which is why they do number of runs. In some respects you have to admire systems that can generate cyclone like vortices and other aspects of the climate system if you give them sufficient resolution. These responses are “produced” not programmed for. Whether you believe the models depends on how well they do against a whole range of validation criteria. For example they are not that good at simulating El Nino (IMHO). I think the modellers know they can do some things well and others less well.
But given the real effects heatwaves, droughts, cyclones and floods already have on humanity you wouldn’t want to move the balance on extreme events too far.
The problem becomes if you wait till the science is advanced to the level where someone like yourself will be more than convinced it will be too late to act. The CO2 will already be up there.
In any case I doubt we will act to mitigate (too hard) so we need to plan for adaptation. So we need to encourage the science effort here – not jeer and ridicule it to death.
It’s a pity we can’t get these discussions to a more positive constructive forward looking aspect. And I for one am not suggesting we go back the caves or wreck our economy to both adapt and mitigate. But we do need to do something.
There is a good discussion at;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-discovery-of-global-warming-update
about GCMs. The first comment is #43, and it’s easy to follow the appropriate comments from then on. Martin Lewitt looks like a serious computer modeller. (But probably in the pay of Exxon.)
Paul – I have to say IMHO that Gavin seemed to rebutt any criticism made on solar bias.