A direct link between human activity and the break-up of the Larsen Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been demonstrated according to Dr Gareth Marshall, the lead author of a recent paper entitled ‘The Impact of a changing Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode on Antarctic Summer Temperatures’ in the Journal of Climate (Vol 19: pg. 5388-5404).
Dr Marshall also said, “Climate change does not impact our planet evenly – it changes weather patterns in a complex way that takes detailed research and computer modelling techniques to unravel. What we’ve observed at one of the planet’s more remote regions is a regional amplifying mechanism that led to the dramatic climate change we see over the Antarctic Peninsula.”
The human impact is thought to be from both global warming and the ozone hole. The paper concludes: Given the modelling studies indicate that the observed change in the summer Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode is predominantly a response to anthropogenic forcing*, then the physical mechanisms outlined in this paper enable this climatic change to be linked directly to the Larsen Ice Shelf disintegration and any consequent sea level rise.
Here’s a link to the media release, from the British Antarctic Survey.
———————
* Strengthened westerly winds force warm air eastward over the natural barrier created by the Antarctic Peninsula’s high mountain chain warming the north-east Peninsula by around 5 degrees C, creating the conditions that allowed the drainage of melt-water into crevasses on the Larsen Ice Shelf, a key process that led to its break-up in 2002.
This blog post is based on an email from Luke.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Will be interesting to see whether other research groups support this hypothesis.
I do wonder what the effect of the warmer winds will be on the far, far larger Eastern and Western ice sheets. Hopefully minimal.
So, they are linking the collapse of an ice shelf to global warming, because global warming is generally believed to be the result of human activities. This requires several leaps of faith – first that global warming is man-made. We have an estimate for the contribution of the radiative forcing of increased CO2 at 26.5 to 28% based on current assumptions and knowledge. What about the other two thirds or so? Secondly, are computer models fully representative of the real thing? Thirdly, do we fully understand circumpolar winds? Fourthly, has natural variability been exceeded? Is global warming permanent, for the first time in the Earth’s history, or will it soon be followed by global cooling The British Antarctic Survey has consistently failed to be objective about the causes of climate change.
Given the fact that a model is designed to yield the results it actually yields, the best anyone can say is that scientists are studying a model they built.
Making claims bolder than that–such as Marshall offers–is tantamount to claiming that the map is the territory. And what is worse, nobody has yet proven they have the right map.
It’s utterly fascinating that Schiller and Paul have a priori decided on the basis of not knowing exactly what has been achieved.
This is why the climate scientists involved wouldn’t even bother engaging you guys. It’s classic denialism. No questions. All assumptions on your part. No followup.
They have a detailed set of observations. A literature of significant prior work. And independent modelling that confirms the observations, not tuned to the results. This is classic investigative methodology in this field. Without this – we know nothing and will never know anything.
For the modelling to check out without anything in it at all would be the equivalent of the hurricane blowing through the junkyard and building a 747. Or a group of monkeys pounding on a piano and creating Mozart.
It’s fascinating that the blog will run at stuff like cosmic rays when a cursory examination of the data shows no correlation. Fossil stomates preferred over chemical measurement. An assured position of what the weather was like in the Cretaceous at 4pm in the afternoon.
And also fascinating that we’ve had many here banging on about why the peninsula has warmed and the interior of the continent not. With these results one would simply say – “and reasonably so”.
So we have two guys sitting in the other hemisphere. There are very interesting changes occuring in the southern hemisphere as well as the north my dear boreal-centrics. Changes in ocean currents, high pressure systems, rainfall patterns, Antarctica. And you’re not a bit curious ?
Not even a question about what might happen when the ozone hole is “repaired” but the atmospheric CO2 much higher.
Luke: to be fair to these sceptics the global atmospheric science is still only at the interesting stage. The study of any hot spots or cold spots won’t tell us much about which way we are going. It brings me back to repeat my old comments perhaps with a new variation: no model works for all yet.
But guys; we are forced to look around and see for ourselves if we want to know something definite. Old mother earth is still there. Don’t let your new fascination with science itself become addictive.
Luke: I know none of you have done your basic ice water experiments yet, either at home or at school.
Gavin, I’m assuming you mean the fact that the melting of floating ice sheets has no direct effect on sea level. I think It would be reasonable to assume that most people know that now. However, as they no longer prop up glaciers, which can then flow into the sea, there is an indirect effect. The reason I mentioned the east and west ice sheets in an earlier post is that they are either land based or anchored to the see floor – their melting would have a rather large sea level effect. Hopefully it doesn’t happen.
Gavin – yea a major change in the whole Antarctic circulation affecting the southern hemisphere ocean and atmosphere probably nothing of interest. Back to sleep.
Luke,
For any given alarming event, you will find tarot card readers willing to claim credit for predicting it.
Furthermore, it would be easy to develop a computer model which would show the validity of the dealings of the cards which predicted the event.
This does *not* validate reading tarot cards. For any event, I could easily generate an *ex post facto* account.
But science is supposed to be predictive and explanatory. I want to see proof that the ice fell off because of humans, and I mean, a solid but-for analysis.
Slapping a “denialism” bumper-sticker on something doesn’t guarantee that it sticks.
I’m slapping a “global socialism through CO2 control” on you. I think that’s far more adhesive.
Since we’re still recovering from the Little Ice Age, the fall of ice shelves will be endlessly trotted out as harbingers of global catastrophe.
I want to see some hard causality and not junk trotted out from someone’s latest video game.
Schiller – it’s not prediction- it’s post hoc. So this shows how devoid of any intelligence you are.
You retort is actually stupid – so I’m putting total denialist beyond redemption blowhard sepo label on you. Video game – that’s really inane. And the socialism comment is drivel. There is nothing that any scientist could say that would convince you. Of that I’m convinced.
Explain what ‘recovering from an ice age actually means’.
Luke,
Very credible source and interesting information – no doubt a useful contribution to our growing understanding of the science of climate change.
BUT – look back at what Paul actually said; the suggestion is that there has been a link DEMONSTRATED between human activity and the break-up of Larsen.
Given that we don’t know how much of the current warming is directly linked to AGHG ,then the release would appear to be more activist than objective?
“Demonstrated” is surely proveable , proveable is measurable/quantifiable.
Wouldn’t it have been more honest ( less partisan) to simply note that the events at Larsen are now more explainable in terms of the current warming and leave it at that?
Nexus: have you ever monitored a brown patch on an apple or an avocado kept in the fridge? The big question is how do we know when the core is rotten?
Science in the Antarctic can’t be based on our personal experience other than watching fundamental models like cubes of ice in your drink at some pre determined room temp. Given that constant; what changes in your glass? What can we measure versus what we see in the sea?
Alternatively our actions must be seen as part of the big experiment. How are we involved?
I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at there, Gavin.
Nexus: In giving the blog another target besides Luke I’m hoping you will see that a big ice block moving in the Weddell Sea is more than we’ve sneezed at in our recent historical past.
Jim paper says:
Although winter is the season of greatest warming at Faraday, on the west
coast (cf. Fig. 1), the southward migration of the 0°C isotherm during summer is
responsible for the clearest signs of regional climate change: in total more than 13500
km2 of ice shelves have disintegrated from the Peninsula in the last 30 years (Scambos et al. 2004). Most recent has been the collapse of the northern sections of the Larsen ice shelf on the eastern side.
Marine sediments from below where the farthest south of
these, the Larsen B, was formerly located indicate that its collapse is unique within
the Holocene period (Domack et al. 2005). Although basal melting may have played a
role in the ice shelf break-up (Shepherd et al. 2003), crevasse propagation due to
percolating surface meltwater is generally thought to be the primary mechanism
involved (Scambos et al. 2000, 2003; van den Broeke 2005). This is a direct consequence of marked summer air temperature increases in the 1990s.
The paper notes that the observed change in the summer Southern Annular Mode is assessed as predominantly a response to anthropogenic forcing (e.g. Kushner et al. 2001;
Gillet and Thompson 2003; Marshall et al. 2004),
Paul, your figures for warming attributable to CO2 come from Roger Pielke Sr I presume. So you are impressed with this particular fellow so much that you prefer his take over that of many other fine researchers, that is your perogative. (granting him the position of arbiter of what is “current knowledge” is a bit questionable though.)
But the majority of the rest of Dr Pielke’s attributions are also anthropogenic, so you must of course be in the AGW camp after all. Ergo, your rejection of the post’s conclusion is clearly just knee-jerk denialism as astutely pointed out by Luke.
Luke,
The press release states;
“……stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, driven principally by human-induced climate change, are responsible for the marked regional summer warming that led to the retreat and collapse of the northern Larsen Ice Shelf.”
The key phrase is ” driven principally by human-induced climate change”.
As the extent of human-induced as opposed to natural warming can’t at this point be specified, then my criticism stands.
I don’t have any problem with the contention that there has been warming for the last 30 odd years and I also accept the expert view that some of this is attributable to human activity – I’m not an expert ; I don’t pretend otherwise.
But the language in the press release was sloppy to put it kindly.
Gavin, I’ve still got no idea what you’re on about. I’m unsure how I’m a ‘target’ as well.
Jim, would it be fair to say that you believe only a minority of recent warming can be attributed to human activity? If so, what do you suspect causes the majority? What is the forcing agent? Whether human-induced or natural, there has to be forcing agents for climate change. To the best of our scientific knowledge human activity leads to the primary forcing agents, increased atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs. The press release merely works off that assumption. You’ll note the release says “principally” not “entirely” as well.
Jim – I think we’re splitting hairs. The authors are as all good scientists are guarded above absolute claims. They have not said “solely” or “totally” reponsible. “A link” No further apocalyptic derivations. They have said a demonstrated link. And an amplifying mechanism. Given the papers conclusion about SAM this is clearly what they think. They think the breakup is “predominantly” due to anthropogenic influence.
Is that is what they believe they should state they have a demonstrated link. To say otherwise would be underselling their point and leave them totally unsure. They’re not unsure. Having read the paper I believe they have enough detailed evidence to make the claim.
(obviously bloggians here might say “well it’s all crap” but they are not the scientists and of course no level of proof would be sufficient for these denialists – they are simply unreachable, and I would expect anything I would post would be objected to, on cue, without a sliver of consideration).
I believe that when you add to this other things going on in the southern hemisphere I would have thought there might be more curiosity at least. But I do thank you for your interest.
Nexus 6 – no I don’t have a clue how much of the warming is man-made and how much is natural.
If there is credible , scientific evidence which confidently apportions these , then I’m all ears.
That’s my point – if we don’t know then the range is from all to none.
Luke – yes it is a minor distinction but it could have major implications ; language is critical for scientists less so for activists / politicians / “shills” ( LOVE that word) . If we are to have light rather than heat in this debate then scientists need to maintain objectivity/disinterest.
My point here is that the release appears to suggest that the apportionment is decided when it isn’t and that’s not to be expected from scientists!
Luke – Bloggians?????
And that’s my point, Jim. There are no credible primary forcing agents other than CO2 and GHGs that have been identified. Changes in sunlight, cosmic radiation, earth’s orbit etc. just don’t stack up when applied to recent warming. Accordingly, the press release’s comments are fair.
I don’t have the advantage of access to this paper, so my comments may be easily refutable, but it does seem that a localised warming (the 0C isotherm) is being attributed to GLOBAL climate change, and yet the Antarctic region doesn’t appear to be warming according to these records.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSSPol.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/GISS90S-64S-an.htm
The Impact of a changing Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode on Antarctic Summer Temperatures’
My question is:
Is the changing Annular mode rigourously established, and if so does it have implications for Australian climate, what ever the driving forces are?
Jim – bloggians are inmates of this love to hate it blog.
OK Jim – they were unable to suggest that the change was natural. Natural – just ain’t natural – it has to have some “cause”.
Detribe – from my reading and listening there seems to be a change in the latitude of the high pressure belts essentially dropping rain in the southern ocean, putting shear forces across tropiocal cyclone formation regions in the Coral Sea (but not far north or NW WA)- so drought.
And I believe theere is also movement in the eastern current gyre and Indian Ocean gyre – ocean biodiversity impacts – terrestrial impacts on Australia??
I think there is enough to worry about about a possible greenhouse/ozone combination link – see previous papers in my drought post – but in SW WA also some multi-decadal effects at play perhaps.
I would have at least thought people would be “pretty interested” if not convinced.
From Detribe:
My question is:
Is the changing Annular mode rigourously established, and if so does it have implications for Australian climate, what ever the driving forces are?
What I found at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/pubs/chapter2.pdf
McInnes et al. (2002b), in a report on climate change in South Australia, show a map of the consistency between ten global climate models in the sign of the projected annual pressure change based on scenarios of increasing greenhouse gases (mostly without ozone depletion). They find that the models agree strongly (at least eight out of ten models) on decreases in surface pressure polewards of 60 degrees latitude in both hemispheres, and on increases in surface pressure in the belt between 30S and 60S. (A similar increase in surface pressure is only shown in the northern hemisphere over the North Atlantic.) The report relates this change in surface pressure to projected decreases in rainfall across southern Australia, again in at least eight out of ten climate models, particularly in the southwest of Western Australia.
Less rain. Hope they’re wrong.
Of course no mention about the discovery of an undersea volcanic eruption near the Larsen Ice Shelf. This eruption would have been one effect of a crustal heat surge in this region.
My comment above on Antarctic temperatures just came through moderation.
The interesting thing about this paper is the claim of ” direct evidence linking human activity to the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves “. Does the paper provide this evidence, or is it implied by the AGW theory of global warming? And the Southern Hemisphere doesn’t appear to be warming, so how is this accounted for in the paper?
Obviously it would be impossible to understand this link to human activity without the use of complex computer modeling. Does anyone know of a no BS discussion of computer models that the ordinary unwashed taxpayer can understand? What they can and can’t do, strengths and weaknesses, that sort of thing. Or do we just have to accept that the climate scientists are acting in our best interests and keep on stumping up the tax dollars, secure in the knowledge that the experts have it right?
Paul,
As climate is sensu strictu a non-linear chaotic process, it cannot be modelled.
What’s worse is that there remains no experimental evidence that the fundamental theory of AGW is correct – small increases in CO2 leading to increased H2O to increase the greenhouse effect. It remains an interesting hypothesis.
Ive just been to the electronic sites for the journal and unfortunatelty the press release is ahead of the issues generally available from the scientific society so actual disacussion of the data and analysis is resricted to those who have contact with the authors, A bit of a bummer.
This study is one of observations. Then the observations are backed up by modelling studies from a number of groups. So we have an observed set of information, a mechanism suggested and modelling of that mechanism. That’s the way the climatologists like to do it – so as they have an end to end understanding. So this stuff is climate change NOW – not 2030 or 2070.
There’s a reason why inner Antarctica hasn’t warmed. The vortex walls it off.
The southern ocean is warming but as David has posted some time back (see archives) it will warm more slowly due to larger ocean area.
So you have to look for a holistic understanding and track it all down.
In terms of models – most modellers spend their time seeing if their models validate real world processes. That’s the point. Does it check out.
Unfortunately it’s serious Journal of Climate type literature. Or course if you get along to an annual open CSIRO climate science review meeting you might be pleasantly surprised with what’s discussed. At some point though it’s very specialised high end mathematics, physics and multi-variate statistics – you have to make a value judgement that they know “enough”.
If you then get through that and “believe” you have to decide what can practically be done about CO2. And I don’t think going back to the caves will get a run.
There are some recent analyses buried here in the blog climate archives that inner Antarctica is actually slowly warming but with the meteorological conditions now in play – you probably should see the interior as isolated.
Paul email me lswalker33 AT gmail.com if you need more.
Louis has been reminded on a few occasions about 4 papers providing empirical evidence for AGW but he has forgotten.
Why all the fuss about C02? Humans evolved in a much higher concentration of it. As Dr Buteyko (a Russian Doctor specializing in treating asmtha) noticed – human cells need ‘a definite concentration of CO2; (7% approx) must be an absolute essential condition of each human cell for it to sustain all the normal pathways of the biochemical processes.
I am not sure of the amount now but in 1982 the CO2 level was 0.03% so the lung alveolar spaces retain it keep it to around 6.5%. to stop us from dying if it gets below 3%. The gaseous mix in the womb keeps it at 7 – 8%. If the body gets below 3%, alkalosis may occur shifting the pH level to 8 then the whole organism dies.
If the world evolved in high levels then it can cope with more now. And it seems that humans account for about 2% of it anyway. What about volcanoes etc?
The current fear campaign sounds a lot like Henny Penny.
And sorry for the serial posts – keep reading above.
The models do themselves exhibit chaos like the real world. So that is why they a bunch of similar runs are made – an “ensemble” – 10-50 runs – with very slightly different starting conditions. The extent to which the models agree is an indicator of “predictability” and a sample of the “probability space”.
Luke or Phil Done
You seem not to understand the difference in meaning between experimental and empirical.
Louis says “As climate is sensu strictu a non-linear chaotic process, it cannot be modeled” and IMHO he is dead right. We can no more best guess the exceptional wear and tear on Antarctic extremities in advance than we can forward guess the impact of air flow on a impeller blade in a jet engine. However like all good engineers we can do some tests.
Louis and his mates can do this at the nearest pub. Get your friendly barman to fill two big jugs with decent ice cubes then add sufficient ice water to a convenient line. Leave both on the bar and get everyone to stand real close to one while puffing and blowing over this bit –
“Do you believe we are suffering from man made global warming??
Stick at it because we all need your feedback on which jug melted first and by how much.
And the point of that experiment would be what, Gavin?
Why not just get two jugs with ice and put one in a warmer room and one in a cooler room? Or, if you really want to blow air over them, blow warmer air over the one in the warmer room and blow the same amount of cooler air over the one in the cooler room. Then tell us which one melted first and by how long.
Sound like a better experiment or what? Proper controls and all.
However, even then, it’s still a poor model (for fairly obvious reasons).
Well don’t leave us in suspense Sinkers – inform us about experimental vs empirical !
What would you like to see .. ..
Methinks there’s not much to Sinkers beyond the one-liner and Gladstone bag of socialist quips.
Nexus: I spent a long time in industry and labs monitoring a wide variety of turbulent fluid reactions. Over my early years we had very limited instrumentation at any level. It was my job to fault find our instrument systems and operations regardless. The hardest task was getting people to realize that sometimes our gauges and thermometers were right, even in the lab. Proper controls come after we decide which direction we are marching.
Note however I have never been hung up on science for its own sake. But it sometime takes a bit of experience to cut through the BS settling over the dials. Sensing major change early should be instinctive: proving it, creative; dealing with it, entirely individualistic and witty, that’s how we survive one by one.
Nexus: Your job say as a scientist is to convince me and any other practical folk working from the bottom up that you actually know what is going on down under. None of this treading softly, softly between all the various scenarios. The whole world is looking forward to some confidence from contestants in this latest round in the ring.
Make decisions up front, followed by the winner takes all.
the assumed greenhouse model is that a small increase in CO2 will cause an increase in the major greenhouse factor, water vapour and thus raise the earth’s thermal state. Earth’s thermal state or its atmosphere?
However the recent Danish experimental data showing atmospheric cloud formation to be linked to cosmic radiation (charged particles or electric currents in other words) is a factor not in any of the GCM’s.
They are, dare I say, somewhat incomplete and apart from the impossibility of modelling non-linear chaotic systems, we have the equally embarassing situation where our met departments cannot predict the weather 1 week in advance, but can 100 years from their much vaunted computer modelling? They can’t even compute the thermal state of the earth correctly!
Strange days
Science 31 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5769, pp. 1914 – 1917
Significant Warming of the Antarctic Winter Troposphere
J. Turner,* T. A. Lachlan-Cope, S. Colwell, G. J. Marshall, W. M. Connolley
We report an undocumented major warming of the Antarctic winter troposphere that is larger than any previously identified regional tropospheric warming on Earth. This result has come to light through an analysis of recently digitized and rigorously quality controlled Antarctic radiosonde observations. The data show that regional midtropospheric temperatures have increased at a statistically significant rate of 0.5° to 0.7°Celsius per decade over the past 30 years. Analysis of the time series of radiosonde temperatures indicates that the data are temporally homogeneous. The available data do not allow us to unambiguously assign a cause to the tropospheric warming at this stage.
British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK.
Yet the Antarctic ice mass is increasing. Strange days indeed.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L16707, doi:10.1029/2006GL027057, 2006
Antarctic temperatures over the past two centuries from ice cores
David P. Schneider
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Eric J. Steig
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Tas D. van Ommen
Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Antarctic Division, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Daniel A. Dixon
Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA
Paul A. Mayewski
Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA
Julie M. Jones
Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht, Germany
Cecilia M. Bitz
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Abstract
We present a reconstruction of Antarctic mean surface temperatures over the past two centuries based on water stable isotope records from high-resolution, precisely dated ice cores. Both instrumental and reconstructed temperatures indicate large interannual to decadal scale variability, with the dominant pattern being anti-phase anomalies between the main Antarctic continent and the Antarctic Peninsula region. Comparative analysis of the instrumental Southern Hemisphere (SH) mean temperature record and the reconstruction suggests that at longer timescales, temperatures over the Antarctic continent vary in phase with the SH mean. Our reconstruction suggests that Antarctic temperatures have increased by about 0.2°C since the late nineteenth century. The variability and the long-term trends are strongly modulated by the SH Annular Mode in the atmospheric circulation.
“Even if you account for the cooling in the ’90s,” said Schneider, lead author of a paper about the work published August 30 in Geophysical Research Letters, “we still see that two-tenths of a degree increase from the middle of the 1800s to the end of the 20th century.”
The main reason Antarctica seems to have cooled during the 1990s is that a natural phenomenon called the Antarctic Oscillation was largely in its positive phase during that time.
The Antarctic Oscillation is so named because atmospheric pressure in far southern latitudes randomly oscillates between positive and negative phases. During the positive phase, a vortex of wind is tightly focused on the polar region and prevents warmer air from mixing with the frigid polar air, keeping Antarctica colder.
Typically, the Antarctic Oscillation alternates between phases about every month. But in the 1990s, the positive phase occurred much more often, Schneider said. Without the influence of the Antarctic Oscillation, he added, it is likely the Antarctic would show the same kind of warming as the rest of the Southern Hemisphere.
Before 1975, Antarctica seems to have warmed at about the same rate as the rest of the hemisphere, about 0.25 degrees Celsius per century. But since 1975, while the Antarctic showed overall cooling, the Southern Hemisphere warmed at a rate of about 1.4 degrees per century.
“The second half of the 20th century is marked by really large variability. The periods of cooling correspond with a very strong positive Antarctic Oscillation,” Schneider said.
Louis’s undersea volcano
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040527235943.htm
Can’t predict the weather therefore can’t predict climate? Boring!! (http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/10/climate-models-vs-weather-models.html)
Read the RC post Louis which I know you won’t – and tell me how the cosmic radiation post does against temperature.
The fact that Antarctic ice mass may be increasing in the interior is actually the point. Have you not got it yet?
As for the small increase in CO2 and water vapour one – you have the relevant papers and I have never heard back.
Nexus has swotted the other one.
Come on Louis – have a go at something more interesting – try QBO and solar.
zzzzzzzzzzzz boring zzzzzzzzzz
“Without the influence of the Antarctic Oscillation, he added, it is likely the Antarctic would show the same kind of warming as the rest of the Southern Hemisphere.”
Except that the SH isn’t warming
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=831
Clearly Luke and its mates are unable to debate – they merely post links to sources which they think might support their argument.
I have yet to read any post of Luke’s that indicated it actually understands the content of the links referred.
(It because I am being politically correct).
This is why I suspect Luke=Phil Done
Why bother repeating something that’s already been said so succinctly before, Louis. That’s the beauty of the internets. Just so you don’t have to hurt your clicky finger I’ll post it here for you:
If we cannot predict the weather next week, how can we predict the climate over the next century?
While this sounds like a reasonable argument, there are in fact good reasons to accept 100-year climate forecasts even though we cannot predict the weather more than a few days out.
Predicting the weather is hard because you have to get the exact details of a weather system right. If your prediction of a storm track is 100 km off, then a giant snowstorm predicted to bury a city might fall harmlessly offshore. If your temperature is 3 deg C off, then what you predicted as rain turns into snow. If your initial conditions are off, then precipitation predicted to fall during rush hour falls at midnight. All of these things mean that you’ve blown the forecast, and people will mumble about how weather forecasters don’t know what they’re doing.
For the climate, these things generally don’t matter. What matters is that, in the long run, one gets the statistics of the weather right. If one storm in a climate model is 100 km too far East, that won’t matter if the long-term statistics of the storm track is right. This is quite a different problem than predicting the EXACT evolution of a single atmospheric disturbance.
One simple way to think about the difference in predicting weather and climate is to think about rolling a six-sided die. Predicting the weather is like predicting what the next roll will be. Predicting the cliamte is like predicting what the average and standard deviation of 1000 rolls will be. The ability to predict the statistics of the next 1000 rolls does not hinge on the ability to predict the next roll. Thus, one should not dismiss climate forecasts simply because weather forecasts are only good for a few days.
One should not take from this that climate modeling is easier than weather forecasting. There are several aspects of the problem that make climate modeling more difficult than weather forecasting: climate models need to also predict the evolution of long time-constant domains like the oceans, cryosphere, and biosphere. Weather models don’t have to worry about these things because oceans conditions, etc. don’t change over a few weeks. Climate models also use uncertain predictions of future emissions, from which the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will be determined.
Another statement you hear is that:
Because climate models do not predict next year’s climate, why should you believe a prediction in 100 years?
Here’s why: short-term forecasts (e.g., over the next few years) require accurate simulation of the magnitude and phase of short-term climate variability like El Nino. Over much longer time scales, however, one does not need to accurately simulate these short-term climate variability. I discussed that here. The upshot is again that one should not dismiss the long-term climate forecasts because short-term forecasts are problematic.
From (http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/10/climate-models-vs-weather-models.html)
Luke,
at least you get some of the facts right, but as your geological knowledge is basically zero, there is little wonder about your obvious gullibility for crank theories like AGW.
You’ve been on that norty site again. Paul – sigh – why don’t you look at the bulk of evidence. Desperate cherry picking stuff.
The SH continents have warmed. SH oceans warmed. And …
Science 26 May 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5777, p. 1179
DOI: 10.1126/science.1125566
Enhanced Mid-Latitude Tropospheric Warming in Satellite Measurements
Qiang Fu,1,2* Celeste M. Johanson,1 John M. Wallace,1 Thomas Reichler3
The spatial distribution of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature trends for 1979 to 2005 was examined, based on radiances from satellite-borne microwave sounding units that were processed with state-of-the-art retrieval algorithms. We found that relative to the global-mean trends of the respective layers, both hemispheres have experienced enhanced tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling in the 15 to 45° latitude belt, which is a pattern indicative of a widening of the tropical circulation and a poleward shift of the tropospheric jet streams and their associated subtropical dry zones. This distinctive spatial pattern in the trends appears to be a robust feature of this 27-year record.
1 Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
2 College of Atmospheric Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, 730000, China.
3 Department of Meteorology, University of Utah, 135 S 1460 E, Room 819 (WBB), Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0110, USA
Louis – stop blathering like a little boy and bat up !
Nexus6
Don’t waste our time with specious waffle – you cannot predict climate, or weather.
In the mining industry where we actually have to physically produce the results we predict from our theories, you would be dismissed as a charlatan.
Luke,
So you admit arument lost on our part, hence the ad homs?
PS
I edit my previous post since using an Apple computer and a Windows Computer has its differences in the keyboards. 🙂
So you admit argument lost on your part, hence the ad homs?
Actually it’s about time for Louis to do a runner again. He likes to wind up the debate get lots of input then debunk. Here we have the classic case of the unrelenting denialist probably in cahoots as far as we know with big interests and therefore is beyond any hope of an objective discussion.
Do we see any substantial arguments – never – always does a runner as his intellectual position is essentially bankrupt.
Luke, Phil,
Once again you are totally wrong son.
Substantive arguments? Goodness me, all you do is link to urls or spew vile comments. Not once have you offered any substantive argument, probably because as a credulous fool, or as Lenin put it, a useful idiot, when referring to the Webbs.
Dear Highsunk, your inability to engage says it all grandpops. Your’re just an old bigot. Don’t worry about us – do a substantive post and lay out your position. Spare us the asides and the bolsh – talk some science. But you don’t actually want to talk and science – you’re just after a one-sided debate and mutual backslap session with your cronies.
Luke
with your last post you clearly showed you lost.
Grandpop – ignore me and start talking some science. Come on.
Luke
Easy, we ignore you and start talking science.
This is the science section: AGW is junkscience.
Give it to them Louis, you’ve got the AGW’s on the run. Amazing isn’t it? If Antarctia ice sheets collapse, it’s “global warming”; if the ice is thickening in the antarctic interior, it’s still global warming! Same with advancing glaciers, (see all of New Zealand’s 50 recorded glaciers advancing again, http://www.niwascience.co.nz/pubs/mr/archive/2005-08-30-1 )what do thew say? “Glaciers skating away to the sea fast!, another result of global warming.” Got it! If glaciers retreat, it’s caused by global warming; if glaciers advance, it’s also caused by global warming! How can one argue with that mentality ?
Thanks Sid
Can someone who has read the article summarise the “first direct evidence linking human activity to the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves”?
There are some of us here who aren’t mathematicians but can follow an argument if it is clearly summarised. It should be possible to explain this “direct evidence” to us. How about it Luke? Not a cut and paste of selected article abstracts, but in your own words.
Incidently, how do we reconcile conflicting data? Knocking the site where it is linked to and calling it cherry picking won’t make it go away.
Louis – last chance expired for a science comment – haven’t got one left eh – empty – OK then – bye bye chump !
Sid clearly you are unable to read. Amazing isn’t it that someone who’s over 100 can’t read. And see most of the world’s glaciers are retreating. Incredibly you are so thick you don’t even read your own web links. Read it again and tell us what it says (in toto – not a single line) or maybe get the kids to help you.
Paul – what are you on about – direct evidence discussion – that was 10000 words back. Read it again. Or the polar vortex is affected by AGW and ozone and it forces warm air over the Peninsula. The melt water destablilises the ice shelf from the bottom.
A refereed published paper on the MSU issue beats some of the latest bolsh of up and down statistics from Christy & Spencer. READ WHAT THE CUT n PASTE SAYS – or would you like me to paraphrase it for you. How good are these guys (C & S) – errors galore and can’t even tidy up their satellite signal. In any case look at the wider body of evidence. Give me the checklist : tell me what the literature on ocean temps, terrestrial temp and MSU say for the SH. Don’t be lazy now – do some of your own research and tell us. How many MSU units can a cherry picker pluck. Oh about the sign of the signal. Please !
Oh dear, Luke has elected himself class captain again.
Thanks for that lucid explanation, Luke. I did see that you had read the paper, I thought you might summarise the “direct evidence” for us. I did read a bit from you above about computer models and monkeys playing Mozart. Was that the evidence?
To dismiss Christy and Spencer as you do seems strange. They are major players in their field.
At times like this I get a mental picture of Luke discovering Kipling and reading Tomlinson
Sorry Luke,
When scientists study things of their own creation *in silico*, they may only boast of “discovering” things they themselves have *created*.
It’s altogether too convenient to invent one’s own discoveries, so people are justly suspicious of claims about AGW based on computer models which are–strictly speaking–inventions rather than discoveries.
God’s creations, however, are perfect and His flock is free to use the environment as they choose without pause, as God will recreate it for His chosen Ones anyhow.
Lunatic,
You likely think that you have presented us with some unique irony, when in fact you are largely correct.
I’m willing to consider the evidence Schiller, can you make a recommendation?
Schiller diller – you have learned zero from th discussion. Take brain – press start. You’re a mile out. A lot was done “in outdoors-eo”.
Rog – about the level of comment possible. A sentence. Wow. Now get up the back of the class and stop disturbing the other pupils.
Looney – Religious instruction is down the hall – keep moving.
Ian Beale – English class is next – wait your turn.
Paul – if you graph the MSU data set and I have you’ll notice a bloody big discontinuity towards the end in the SH smoothed trend – otherwise the trend pattern matches the NH. The paper I quoted (because I thought it better to use their words instead of my words just to satisfy you that I can read and it’s not link link link) shows a good spatial story that ties up with both hemispheres and El Nino. If you take the years x latitude plots you can see warming in NH and SH but more in NH and not uniform. The stratosphere is also behaving as it should and cooling.
Christy & Spencer have had problems with their data before. And until others cleaned up their satellite signal (which crikey Bob is par for the course given sensor drift and different platforms) they had the wrong trend. These guys are a bit dodgy IMHO. In any case ask what the ocean temps and terrestrial temps are doing. Is their a wide body of evidence. This is why I say do the checklist.
I have also added other papers which show troposphere warming in Antarctica and a temperature/SAM terrestrial story.
P.S. Rog doesn’t like link linka syou may to have actually read something and think which is a problem. Schiller is unable to focus on the page. Ideological dyslexia I’m afraid. Bad case.
Jennifer you may be surprised: Despite what goes on here I have great faith in fellow man. On one hand in the Canberra Times today we have JH on a whistle stop tour of drought stricken farming communities in NSW see “Farmer’s futures bleak as land”. On the other we have an article by Rosslyn Beeby “Big bang puzzle solved and it’s a gas” about a report due out in Science on disappearing He3. This is a story about our use of super computers and 3 D models. But we have some hurdles yet.
Lets ask rog re above: Why shouldn’t a young qualified diesel mechanic abandon his paddocks in the dust and head with his family for the mines in WA?
The big bang chase may not mean much to many but I always found it fascinating with just a smattering of physics. This is all about how we measure stuff in the dark and what we can make of it as we go, how science fumbles along after a theory. Today’s story is one of the best illustrations of what we can do with a determined mind set. Small things can count though.
Luke: What bothers me most about this timid climate science is the current lack of debate on how we built our data base. I n some ways I have a lot of sympathy with Louis. Extracting gold from core samples is a laborious business although I knew a guy at ANU who did it for a fee every day. He never met the guys at BMR or the mines who minded the core shed. They were all a world apart.
Louis would be amused though that I also knew the private owners, the smart boys and girls in our town who owned forty odd drilling rigs scattered round the country. We had the inside running on lots of excitement but never made a fortune from our speculative enterprise, darn it. It’s a long way from looking at cores to finding the money that avoids you building some super.
Drilling rigs wear out or become idle in the downturns. I bet the smartest guy of all is still looking through the residue.
Luke: There is still a lot we don’t know. Before remote digital data was collected anywhere we had a few hurdles in all measurements and analysis. The A to D sampling rate controversy was ongoing when scientists were allowed in numbers to visit Antarctica. Depth in sampling for trend analysis is another whole big game. Luckily I chose not to try for a spot on any team in the stop gap period when my supervisor was the engineer on the Australian team selection committee.
This chap a former navy commander had the job of building our permanent bases. He thought I could be down there doing cores in between. I told him I couldn’t swim or stand the cold so we should let it go. In those days he had to hand pick two for each spot after dropping them in the briny of Portsea. Scientists hardly got a look in but measurements were made regardless. Two decades later I worked with a chap who loved it all after a few trips down there minding communications. He survived several winters there working in the dark on various measurements. What had changed most was the comfort zone for scientists. Data until then was only what we grabbed on the run between blizzards. Climate science owes a lot to other disciplines. One of those is geology another is engineering.
Overall the Australian science contribution is probably quite small as it is in everything including climate change. What we should never loose sight of though is our odd but often uncanny ability to pick winners often after a lot of trying. I reckon our diesel mechanic has as good a chance as any of surviving out in the dust. I hope the PM thinks that too and this is about our natural instinct.
Schiller, FYI, ‘Lunatic’ is ‘Pinxi’.
Pinxi, It is one thing to use a pen name, it is another to swap and change identities while holding particular people who use their own name at this blog to a particular point of view and demanding information from them.
Luke,
There are elements to the discussion, elementary elements, which you are not attending to. You appear to be claiming that the computer models you rely on are reality-based to the extent that they use “real data” from various things.
However, it is possible to generate “real data” using tarot cards. And it is possible to generate an algorithm which shows that, given the intervention of one skilled in the art who has predicted the fall of an ice shelf, precisely how the algorithm resulted in the fall of the ice shelf. That does not, however, prove that card-reading is justified as “hard science.”
My analogy to reading tarot cards is not as far-fetched as you might think. Cards are physical objects, and the shuffling of them is subject to the laws which govern the behavior of multiple pieces of stacked cardboard under conditions which, though visible, still have yet to be fully explained.
Science has not yet fully explained the behavior of cards being shuffled, and that is why playing at cards is called “gambling.” And that is precisely why, when you talk of “probability space,” you are merely quantifying ignorance. There are many probabilities, and many possibilities, but in the end, there is only one outcome.
Sir, you are demanding that governments around the world adjust their energy policies on what is, ultimately, casting tarot. I have no doubt that you can generate a computer program which makes the results look elegant and credible, but planetary and cosmic events make your postulations equal to anything the tarot can accomplish. That is, rendering an explanation of what is unknown.
Schiller: I for one have never used tarot cards. All those around me in industry and science never used tarot cards. Since you can’t see the insult I will carry on: My post was about building climate data in the first place and the scramble to back date knowledge.
Hard headed engineering anywhere never rolled a dice. Probability is only a science for economists. Certainty in my world comes from having reserves up your sleeve like another twenty percent, instant plug-ins pre calibrated etc.
Challenges in good choices are only ever met with experience. I doubt if Luke knows short cuts while cutting a stack. That’s about boldness and watching your opponent’s eyes. Winner takes all in this game but there are more losers than winners.
Scillsy – nope – a mile off mate.
This relies on obs more than models. Models simply confirm and explain the obs.
I’m afraid (and I’m not being patronising you have no grasp of the science here or the methodologies involved – you’re simply reading in what you want which reinforces kick anything to do with AGW on instinct – so you will stay uninformed).
We are not dealing in tuning algorithms here. We are not fitting parameters to a regression model. It’s just a tad more complex than that.
Chaos is present in the real world atmsophere and pleasingly in the physics and mathematics of the simulations. And if you think chaos simply = error – go and have a read of Glieck’s book “Chaos”
Glieck, J. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin. 1987.
Probability space is quite necessary I’m afraid. And you can apply robust statistical tests to that probability space to test for significance.
And nope I’m not asking governments to adjust energy policy. I’m interested in whether we have a problem first. And in our bloody hemisphere not yours. What to do about it if we are is complex. Pls consider there may be people out there who don’t fit in one of your two category boxes.
The difference I’m afraid is I chase the cosmic stuff and other contrarian ideas down – you don’t show the courtesy back in the other direction. It’s simply bigotry.
I can build a model of tarot that deals more in obs than in models.
But it’s still a model.
And chaos theory theory is still a model, and still quantifies ignorance. The more possible outcomes you identify, the greater your ignorance. In the end, there is only one world-state. All other possible world-states were the products of imagination.
I may be a bigot, but if I am, I hope that I discriminate against world-views that not only embrace ignorance as a virtue, but proclaim quantifying ignorance as a science.
“and still quantifies ignorance” – mate you’re wacked ! Your fundamental ignorance of chaos as a process is “breathtaking”. I think you’re not quite up to it Schillsy and we’re wasting our time attempting to communicate. Try Tarot.
Or actually turn on your tap. Just a bit. Then a bit more, and more and more. Then turn it on full bore. Report back.
Luke,
Saying “whacked” and “breathtaking” and similar things does not rescue you from the fundamental fact that you are are plugging data into models just as fast as card-readers plug tarot cards into *their* models.
You have departed so far from accepted notions of scientific inquiry that you should declare yourself a “data clairvoyant” so as to preserve at least some pretense of honesty.
Lake, you silly boy, glaciers have been generally retreating since the end of the last IA about 10,000 yrs. ago. The melt accelerated during the MWP when Greenland was colonised and farmed,(much warmer then today!). Glaciers then advanced worldwide, rather dramatically during the LIA, (frost fairs on the frozen Thames, and polar bears walking from Greenland to the Orkneys!). Yes, I know, Dr. Mann disposed of these ficticious
periods with one swipe of his ‘Hockey Stick! When the LIA ended in the mid 1800’s, glaciers again started to retreat. From 1840 to mid 1980’s Franz Joseph Glacier in NZ retreated about 3km. Since then it has advanced about 1/2km and again can be seen from FJ village. For a full list of advancing glaciers around the world, see http://www.iceagenow.com/list_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm and assoc. sites.
It is a matter of great mirth to one, to see the contortions and hand wringing these scientific spin doctors of AGW go through, to try and explain away advancing glaciers.
But back to Antarctica; you guys are like mercury, to try and pin down. Try this, “Antarctica cooled by two-tenths of one degree in past 150 years,-caused by AGW”. The hard fact that antarctica then cooled by ONE degree, in ten years from mid 1990’s, is explained away as”by natural causes”. (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905225912.htm). Uh huh, really! Also see http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/New Images/images.php3? Do the massive under water volcanic eruptions off the Ant. Penn. play on the warming water there??
And what about record lows and snowfalls last northern winter? Similarly NZ, S Africa and parts of Australia this past winter? ! I know! It’s all caused by AGW!
Get real fellas.
*Why shouldn’t a young qualified diesel mechanic abandon his paddocks in the dust and head with his family for the mines in WA?*
I give in, tell me.
Whilst I have your attention Gavin, why is a qualified diesel mechanic farming?
And Luke, call your doctor.
rog: it’s my experience a qualified diesel mechanic in any rural community would be kept very busy on and off their farm in a normal year. My cousin set up a second hand Repco injector service lab over the road from my parents place. I watched his operations over many years. He and others were my customers on and off as they each broke something. I was indirectly in rural service too.
What’s your story?
sid here reckons there is a lot of melt water running down the Snowy and the Murray. No probs for Jen’s rice farmers.
Whoz dreaming hey!
Last time it snowed properly in this big hill town was 1987
And I still have the pics to prove it.
So did you do the tap experiment Schillsy – 2 minutes of your time.
Sid – you really are an utter ninny – what vast eruptions ?
As for records snows here and there – who cares. It’s trends my little cento-generian – trends and the bulk of evidence.
As for http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905225912.htm – better get the kids to read it for you closely and tell you what it means as I’ve given up.
And don’t quote shill sites that present a totally distorted view of the glacier situation. Glacial retreat is ubiquitous and widespread across the globe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
There is good reason why some glaciers are not retreating.
The frost fair stuff is a furphy
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=32
The one thing you have not learned from this whole thread from the original BAS press release in the introductory post is some of the complex interactions involved in global climate change. Your inability to even consider the evidence puts you in the “don’t bother” bracket.
It seems a paper publsihed in geology in 2001 pointed to a massive melting of Antarctic sheets 2000 years ago.
The abstract:
The retreat of five small Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves in the late 20th century has been related to regional (possibly anthropogenic) climate warming. We use the record of ice- rafted debris (IRD) in cores to show that the Prince Gustav Channel ice shelf also retreated in mid-Holocene time. Early and late Holocene-age sediments contain IRD derived entirely from local ice drainage basins, which fed the section of ice shelf covering each site. Core- top and mid-Holocene (5–2 ka) sediments include a wider variety of rock types, recording the drift of far-traveled icebergs, which implies seasonally open water at the sites. The period when the Prince Gustav ice shelf was absent corresponds to regional climate warming deduced from other paleoenvironmental records. We infer that the recent decay cannot be viewed as an unequivocal indicator of anthropogenic climate perturbation.
Pudsey, C.J., and J. Evans. 2001. First survey of Antarctic sub-ice shelf sediments reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat. Geology 29(September):787.
Imagine that, 2000 years ago but as this is data not supportive of AGW, it is studiously ignored of course.
So the demonstrated link between the Larsen Ice Shelf breakup and human activity might be a tad premature in light of this paper.
Why’s the link premature? Ice sheets collapse when it’s warm. The current warming is primarily human induced. The warming 2000 years ago wasn’t human induced.
I don’t think the ice sheet makes a decision on who or what caused the warming before deciding whether to collapse. Strange point you’re trying to make there, Louis.
Cripes – just when you’re about to write the blog off as numb nuts territory and go to the pub and drown your sorrows while singing the Red Flag with the comrades – Louis lobs one in ! Wow !
Nexus 6
The current warming is primarily human induced?
We humans also initiated the recent submarine volcanic eruption near the Larsen B area?
Geologically it is far more likely that the Larsen B ice shelf collapse is linked to the crustal thermal activity in that region than any nonsensical attribution to humanity burning oil can coal. An erupting submarine volcanoe implies a very serious increase in heat flow in the region.
And I might add that the assumption that the earth’s internal heat is produced from radioactive decay of uranium and thorium, as assumed in the GCM’s is also wrong since the amount of helium such a decay produces is not observed.
Hence the GCM’s are based on false premises, as is the whole theory of AGW.
Perhaps you could inform us how close to the ice shelf the volcano is, Louis? And how much heat it would have to generate to collapse an entire ice sheet from underneath? Was it actually underneath at all? And all the water pools on top of the ice shelf before it collapsed – pure coincidence?
You really are grasping at straws. This is the silliest theory I’ve yet heard.
It’s in the ocean – Antarctic Sound – off top of the Pensinsula. Who says it’s erupting?
http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcanoes/region19/antarct/jaegyu/3003jun1.jpg
http://aadc-maps.aad.gov.au/aadc/gaz/display_name.cfm?gaz_id=121849
Two observed positive thermal anomalies (up to 0.052°C), recorded by temperature probes towed over the volcano from S to N, may be associated with two active volcanic centers. Wow – 0.052!!!
Louis I don’t think you know ANYTHING about GCMs actually. But prove us wrong.
You have also to refute the empirical/experimental evidence of AGW you’ve been given in many posts – 4 articles now.
Actually if you really wanted to thrash us – do a discursive guest post check-listing why all the aspects of AGW are wrong. Could be an all time classic and send us running for our Mummies.
Anyway free kick coz you’re playing 50% better and haven’t said socialist this evening (yet) – try QBO and solar and vortex !
P.S. Phil say “Hi but he’s not playing” – Doctor’s orders after the mauling you gave him last year.
Nexus6
Luke posted a link above re the volcanoe.
Volcanic activity in the region would cause a local increase in crustal heat flow more than sufficient to cause the effects you note.
Your ignorance of geology is worrying and perhaps explains why you think I am grasping at straws.
Luke
Articles? Not scientific papers?
Louis, I’ve read the link (and a couple of others).
The volcano isn’t that close to the ice shelf. If you honestly believe a local point heat increase hundreds of metres below the surface, that’s not actually local at all, could heat up an entire non-static volume of ocean sufficiently to collapse an ice shelf than your knowledge of geology, not to mention basic physics, is more than worrying. I’m sorry, but that’s the poorest display of critical thinking I’ve come across in some time. Best give up on that one and start again, hey? Maybe start with something likely, such as warm air and melt-water.
Nexus 6
A volcano might be a very small localised heat source but it is but a small blister of heat over a larger thermal anomaly.
As I am a professional geologist, your patronising attitude is summarily dismissed.
C’mon Luke, you’ll have to do better then that! “There is a good reason why some glaciers are not retreating”. I note that you can’t bring yourself to use the A word…Advancing! OK, what is the good reason? I wait with great expectations. Also you should go off and do some homework on underwater volcanoes…Particularly those in the Larsen area!
Also, did you know that there are an increasing number of former AGW advocates who have seen the light and deserted the cause, the latest being the eminent French geophysicist, Dr. Claude Allergre. So Luke, there is hope for you yet, especially as I detect a note of doubt creeping into some of your postings…So why not come aboard, I’m sure Louis and Paul and the crew will welcome you once you have confessed all your sins.
Louis I have made a grave error – I should have said papers. Looking after Phil and his respirator has tired me out.
Luke,
unfortunately incompetence is not an excuse.
Oh dear I have just wet myself after reading Sid’s post. Needed a good laugh. Coz I just remembered where I’d seen IceAge Now
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/
Iceagenow.com was constructed by a man called Robert W. Felix to promote his self-published book about “the coming ice age”. It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the “ice age cycle”; and that “underwater volcanic activity – not human activity – is heating the seas”.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/
Is Felix a climatologist, a vulcanologist, or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a “former architect”.(6) His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says.
Porkies !
And more on heating from volcanoes
And I just remembered that Earth heat flux source.
http://timlambert.org/2004/12/hissink/
De Claude Allergic – hehehehe –
I’ve gotta lie down I think I’ve burst something.
Hehehehehe .. .. Sid you crack me up.. ..
Yes Louis – that’s why Phil is beating me. Ouch !
There’s no need to wave your qualifications around, Louis. I do realise your a geologist. That’s why I’m kinda surprised.
Incompetence or incontinence? Phil would never stand for such laxity.
Careful Luke. Is it the old gang of four? or have we moved up to six?
Ah oui – La professeur Claude.
“En brûlant des combustibles fossiles, l’homme a augmenté le taux de gaz carbonique dans l’atmosphère, ce qui fait, par exemple, que depuis un siècle la température moyenne du globe a augmenté d’un demi-degré.”
How you say en Anglais – le shill?
Cold kills more people than heat.
People burn lots of things to keep warm.
Burning things produces CO2.
Global warming will reduce the demand for burning things to keep people warm.
Looks like a negative feedback loop.
Global warming makes ice melt. Does this endanger biodiversity in Antarctica, or what? Maybe there’s some endangered ice-moss or something.
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
Schiller, at least you are consistent with your comments.
Aucun Luke, Professor Claude n’est pas strident, mais vrain plutot raisonnable!
Not shrill, but sensible
I wish Exxon was paying me to say this, but I do it for free because I like being warm.
I also drive an SUV. It’s a five-liter Ford Bronco, overbored, milled heads, mildly high-lift cam and headers, and the shift-points on the 4-speed automatic transmission have been moved to tick over at higher RPMs. In overdrive (4th) it barely idles at 65 mph, and easily makes 28 mpg.
Here on the farm, in granny-low and 4WD with the axles locked, I’ve pulled trees and navigated three-foot drifts of snow with ease.
Doubtless this makes Luke sit back and wonder about people seeking more power out of a gallon of gasoline than the factory offers.
Actually, it’s quite important. People actively seek energy efficiency completely independent of doomsayers and bureaucrats, and they do so avidly.
Yet another negative feedback element. Put that in your software model please.
Schillsy – simplistic fluff.
Forget warmth – think changes to ends of weather probability disributions. Get out of primary school level thinking. And you wonder why climate scientists don’t bother enagaging you guys. You have to put your brain in first year and have the engine running.
You want to know what happens to drought, flood, heatwave and hurricane frequency in a gloobally warmed world. These all kill 100,000s of people NOW !!
Libby – thanks – these guys are thick. It’s almost not worth it. The difference between these guys and a computer is that you only have to punch the data into a computer once.
But pooning a few newbs is always good fun.
Strident my butt.
Speaking of pooning a few newbs
If you lie with dogs you’ll get fleas Sid. Here we have another geologist out of their depths, past their use-bys, and this one is politically sus.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/con-allegre-ma-non-troppo/
As for glaciers – I knew where I’d seen the site before:
Iceagenow.com was constructed by a man called Robert W. Felix to promote his self-published book about “the coming ice age”. It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the “ice age cycle”; and that “underwater volcanic activity – not human activity – is heating the seas”.
Is Felix a climatologist, a vulcanologist, or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a “former architect”.(6) His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/
And as for the warming ground – the all time classic.. ..
http://timlambert.org/2004/12/hissink/
Sid – your pants are around your ankles – you’ve been quoting some of the greatest b/s artists of all time.
It’s all good old stuff – I haven’t laughed so much in years. Golden oldies.
Read the last one – it’s classic stuff !
And final Schillsy – Ford’s are crap. I’ve got a 6 litre Chevy Corvette, wild cam that doesn’t idle under 3000 rpm with supercharger that would pull your Ford to the wreckers.
Luke,
If people independently and spontaneously seek more energy efficient alternatives, why would you call that “fluff?”
Admit it, Luke, it only counts with you if it’s a government mandate. You want global ubersocialismus and you want it NOW, and forget that everyone wants more HP and BTUs out of a gallon.
Nope – I hae no influence. I’m simply sick of drought and increasing global signs based on very good science that AGW is on. ALSO AND READ THIS – EXISTING CLIMATE VARIABILITY IS ALSO A BIG CURRENT PROBLEM. Surely a cropper like yourself gets that. El Nino etc. I’m an agriculturalist. I’m pro good agriculural technology and if you like to eat you’re involved in agriculture. Australia has more climate variability than anywhere else on Earth (save the Antarctic). Our water storages are 3x yours in USA and Europe in size for equivalent yield. South Africa a bit the same.
So don’t pre-suppose my motives are based on your pre-determined categorisation of AGW = socialist greenie plot. It’s a significant aspect of our future global agricultural management – massive industry and social implications. If you are involved international industry seed associations I would think you’d be deperate for the best advice.
My recent posts on the Antarctic ozone x greenhouse interaction are simply to alert bloggians here on Australia’s pre-eminent environmental punchup blog to developments in the evolving science understanding.
We in Australia have a lot to lose (or are already losing) if what I’m presenting pans out.
I’m surprised by the sheer unwillingness to even listen and be INSTANTLY dismissive. I would personally hightailed it the library and sussed it out.
But you guys don’t want to listen as you fear there’s some political plot (which at some level there maybe is but cripes nows) but this is the science NOT THAT.
So Luke, then tell me something.
If individual humans unerringly prefer energy conservation measures, which of course tend naturally to reduce CO2 emissions on the broadest base there is, how can any initiative possibly eclipse this?
From the mud huts of Africa, to the slums of Calcutta, to the wastes of the bad side of New York, any technology that reduces dependence on energy is adopted as quickly as it becomes available.
Whatever you have to say about CO2, it makes no difference! Humans everywhere, since the dawn of the Stone Age, have been working tirelessly to increase energy efficiency from whatever source is available. And since those sources have historically come from combustion, the effort has continuously been to reduce CO2 as a by-product.
If you’re concerned about CO2, join the rest of us and quit whining. Join the rest of us in developing clean, cheap, low-impact technology. We’ve only been working on that since fire was first tamed.
Moaning and complaining making demands pays the bills if you’re a shill for the Greenies. The rest of us, well, we work as efficiently with technology as we can, and the best of us devise better technology.
Want to save the planet? Then invent something better than what we have.
Schiller – nope – doesn’t work that way. We’ve worked tirelessly from the Stone Age to produce as much CO2 as we can.
Yes of course we chase fuel efficiency or vehicle performance to an extent – but not till fuel gets expensive or we want to go really fast. Fuel price moves the car fleet from 8 and 6 cylinders to 4 cylinders. Brings fuel injection, better chamber, valve and cam design, electronic ignition. Ethanl starts to figure in the price.
But in the end it’s still a numbers game. Less cylinders, but more cars overall, more wealth = more travel, China and India coming on stream. More appliances in the home, more air travel, more air-conditioning – and we all love it – who wouldn’t).
Same with power stations.
The market doesn’t react until it really has to – Doesn’t if price is relatively low. Compare US car fleet to European car fleet and overall vehicle design philosophy. Yank tanks vs sporty farty multi-valve jobs.
But signals need to be sent – I think we’re going to need everything we can get – nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, fuel efficiency, hydrogen economy, ZeroGen coal fired power stations, geosequestration, forestry, and carbon friendly farming.
It probably won’t be enough becuase of the developing world’s demands so we need to plan now and adapt. e.g. don’t put the hospital on the storm surge water front at Cairns!
The problem is potentially massive.
6 billion people wanting a good standard of living means CO2 growth will keep going.
Just letting the market piddle along redesigning camshafts doesn’t work if you need to paradigm jump to hydrogen.
You will note your beloved Exxon is having two bob each way bet – slowly down climate change politics to give breathing space and extract the last buck from fossil fuels – while also investing like crazy in new energy technologies. Why bother if it ain’t necessary – we have 100s of years of coal left ! They know where this is leading.
We need effective government/business/academic linkages to improve the innovation cycle. For heavens sake – you guys in the US are supposed to be good at this type of stuff !
(and oh yea – their should be a fair profit in it with good economic growth – export opportunities -far from the end of the world).
Luke,
Quoting Tim Lambert is not a useful thing to do.
Abacus Tim finds difficulty recognising fiction, fantasy and fact.
Oh my apologies, you already know that.
Truth be known Luke has a battered unregistered Chrysler Valiant hemi, purple in colour, no wheels and still on the blocks in the backyard.
Thats about as close as Luke will ever get to power. If he had any chooks I’m sure thet they would be roosting in it but I suspect the chooks would have left long ago, flewn the coop to escape the endlesss stream of consciousness.
Who could blame them.
Valiant, what a crap name Luke.
http://www.toonopedia.com/val.htm
Don’t think so Louis – I have all your arguments in a database – it’s taken some time – you’re going to be in my upcoming book “I was a Teenage Denialist”.
Hehehehehehehehe – very good Rog. Hat tip.
Rog, rog, rog.
It’s actually a fully worked 5.0 litre 2002 Commodore, with fully worked head, mild cam – so it’s a bit lumpy – tweaked computer and nitrous for seeing creeps like you off who want to play num chumps. No outward signs of modification except slightly lower than normal. But I only use it on weekends when I take Phil for his weekly drive to visit his Mum. Too much GHG the rest of the time. Phil complains its bumpy though which affects his condition. Phil also reckons I should plant trees to offset things.
My Mum used to have a Charger though. 265 hemi.
From this we then return to the topic being debated.
Here’s my prediction – the drought will be decisively broken by drenching rains before the next federal election.
Anything to stop this fear mongering watermelon gaining traction;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1775844.htm
Rog – yep hope so and probably will. You’ll then tell us a drover’s dog could have told us that.
However interesting to note you would have lost that bet for many years now in a row. And where does it leave you if it doesn’t rain.
The reality – drier – and still not that much more advanced on climate change really (science speaking).
What our current situation does tell us – we need to understand and be able to manage these periods much better than we do now. And maybe manage them much more in climate changed future.
Well I am managing this period, you obviously aren’t, not enough reason for “we” to make better management decisions.
Well one can only hope it never rains at your place again.
but he’s had to put his mum-in-law back in the collar to pull the plough again, poor thang
Luke
have sat down and thought about the comments you posted above?
Humanity adapts to change via the cash/black econmy which you, nor any of your political gods control.
It’s called capitalism.
Gawd, some spell checker I seem to have – Mac of course
Ummm – I don’t have any Gods in the existential church Louis. But possibly close to a rare communication – continue.. .. by all means.
Louis has a Plan B – the informal economy will address climate change? I really want to hear this plan B, it’s gotta be better than the one from that Lester Brown fella! Please explain!
Pinxi,
is it climate change, Anthropogenic global warming or global warming?
You seem to confuse all three.
Loses Luke who wandered into a house of the existential church….
I should have pointed this out before but
“The paper concludes: Given the modelling studies indicate that the observed change in the summer Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode is predominantly a response to anthropogenic forcing*, then the physical mechanisms outlined in this paper enable this climatic change to be linked directly to the Larsen Ice Shelf disintegration and any consequent sea level rise.”
Comment:
1. What do the authors MEAN by stating “Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode”? In terms of plain English it is nonesense. As an expert in nonesense, Luke is hereby charged to explain it.
2. “Modelling Studies indicate”. Not prove or demonstrate but “indicate”.
But let’s wait for Luke’s erudite explanation. Or Phil Done’s, since there is now enough data in this commentary thread to form the tentatie assumption that Phillip and Luke are the one and same.
SAM is big news and big science Louis.
The Southern Annular Mode (or SAM) is a ring of climate variability that encircles the South Pole and extends out to the latitudes of New Zealand, a pressure see-saw between Antarctica and the sub-tropcal high pressure belt at 40S. The SAM was first identified in the 1970s. On a week-to-week basis, it flips between states – causing either windier or calmer weather over New Zealand latitudes – in an unpredictable way, apparently at random. Though these phase changes of the SAM cannot be predicted more than a few days in advance, once changed, the phases tend to persist for several weeks.
In recent years, scientists have noticed a trend in the SAM towards more periods of the positive phase, with a tendency towards strong westerlies over the southern oceans and lighter winds over the middle latitudes. The trend appears to be related to the Antarctic ozone hole, and the influence of the stratosphere on the weather lower down.
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/CSIRO_FF_report.pdf has the very latest ! Read it and weep.
Luke,
Splendid.
Now explain it.
I did – which bit were you unclear on? Explain your difficulty?