Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Alpine & Snow' started by Falls expat, Jun 30, 2015.
Sorry Dark Sith Lord.
more fresh meat... just a little warm and salty...
++ NASA Finds Oceans Slowed Global Temperature Rise ++
A new NASA study of ocean temperature measurements shows that in recent years, extra heat from greenhouse gases has been trapped in the waters of the Pacific and Indian oceans. Researchers say this shifting pattern of ocean heat accounts for the slowdown in the global surface temperature trend observed during the past decade.
read on: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4655
That data doesn't match Geiver's claim of three centuries of a constant increase of sea levels. Nor does it illustrate predictions of imminent run away sea level rise. There is a recent increase in the rate of rise in Australia using tidal gauges, however this is not supported by the satellite data. I don'e see why you have a problem with the projection, the bottom of the projected area is pretty much a continuation of the current rate of warming.
The PDO is fairly cyclical, more so than the SOI, but your post doesn't address my question, (which I ask because I honestly don't know) which was how well can we predict PDO behaviour? Your subjective analysis of "Looks a fairly cyclical sine wave to me" doesn't give me confidence that the PDO can be accurately predicted. I'm not convinced that the rate of temp increase is any more likely to fall than it is to rise. You're argument can easily be turned around and suggest in increase of temperature rise is imminent, improving pollution controls in china, negative SOI, ect. That kind of subjective speculation is pretty meaningless in a scientific context.
If this thread is going to avoid politics you can't keep bringing it back up like you have in your second paragraph. Science is not rhetoric, its purpose is not to convince the public of anything. Introducing rhetoric to the thread will only politicise it.
May I refer you to my post page 1:
This is exactly the point I have been making for quite some time.
Looking at any component of the system in isolation is futile as energy moves between many different components of the system in a very dynamic way.
^this^ and "feedback' doesn't come energy free... It is all part of escalation. If there wasn't a gradient at play what would be driving the energy transfer?
Hi Falls and anyone else who might we interested in arguments for and against. This is a course available on the respected MOOC platform edX (set up by MIT and Harvard).
I know it looks like there might be some stuff that's a bit biased and political in it, but there is lots of good scientific argument, too. A bit like WUWT
I am now travelling on mobile data for the next 3 weeks so i will look at this when i get wifi coverage. However, by your own admission before I see it, you say it is a bit biased and may be political in places which does not bode well for an impartial or honest appraisal of the facts. I just wish that some respected person on both sides who is without bias or agenda would look at the cold hard facts and summarize the topic, but this seems to be an impossible dream.
++ Accounting for short-lived forcers in carbon budgets
Limiting warming to any level requires CO2 emissions to be kept to within a certain limit known as a carbon budget. Can reducing shorter-lived climate forcers influence the size of this budget? A new IIASA study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters analyzes the impact of short-lived air pollutant and greenhouse gas reductions on carbon budgets compatible with the 2°C climate target.
more here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-07/iifa-afs071515.php
Found an interesting graph of the progressive year to date average for all years from 1995 to the present. 2015 is well on track to being the hottest year to date.
Data Source: NASA GISS
OK weather boffins
"The clouds over the Southern Ocean reflect significantly more sunlight in the summertime than they would without these huge plankton blooms."
"In the summer, we get about double the concentration of cloud droplets as we would if it were a biologically dead ocean."
"The dimethyl sulfide produced by the phytoplankton gets transported up into higher levels of the atmosphere and then gets chemically transformed and produces aerosols further downwind, and that tends to happen more in the northern part of the domain we studied"
Clouds are apparently formed by phytoplankton. How does that impact your GW ?
Bears champion ID's contribution and are at a loss when firewood loses potential energy rolling out of their camp fires and has to be rescued by the team and reintroduced into the campfire...they like to liberate all of the CO2 molecules.... aahh Energy Dynamics
Stay on topic.
What do you think it means?
I believe that warmer ocean temperatures associated with GW generally means less phytoplankton. If the article I quoted is correct, then this will mean less cloud coverage for the Southern Oceans due to phytoplankton. Does this mean anything significant ? Someone else will need to answer that one.
Just discovered this thread, will have a read to catch up.
I'm sooo very late! Obviously I've been studying this topic for many years as some know. I really don't know why I don't have a Phd yet... I've been reading about this stuff dating back to the early 80's and the first reports of farting cows. I spoke up then and asked for others thoughts
... and my reputation never recovered since.
I'd like to thank Falls for his contribution, to this thread and over the many years he's contributed to this forum and for humouring me with all my questions about teleconnections and crap like that. I wish I'd caught up with you in the UK. I suspect your posts in this thread have been carefully judged to continue to prod the discussion and provoke debate. Anybody thinking he has an agenda or bias couldn't be more wrong.
I'm not going to add too much to the debate yet - I haven't made it all the way through the thread yet but wanted to reply to a couple of posts before I forget. First up, while I really liked Ian's post on the first page, I particularly liked these 3 posts, in something of this order.
That might be a little ironic to some
Thanks mate. Means a lot.
This is only true in a sense. Plants will not grow the same - the article you linked to covered that a little. The proteins and general structure change and importantly for humans - the properties that we use them for as food and textiles will also change. Perhaps more than anything else, this is the first and greatest risk from increased CO2 as it threatens firstly a vast array of ecosystems but also importantly the quality of our food.
Examples of bread grown in differing CO2 environments - today is on the right, increased CO2 is on the left.
I did a lot of reading on this quite some years ago (around 2003ish) but I can't find any of my posts on the subject. Going off my very faint memory
Increased acidity had an effect on calcium carbonates. The reef was posted about but that is not the important one - the various planktons that form shells, die and sink to the ocean floor are affected. These form the base of the food pyramid as a starting point for concern
The effect of warming in the oceans and the various gyres was interesting - I was looking for the possibility of a slow down in thermohaline circulation in the oceans, which would also impact on depositing the above on the ocean floor as a carbon sink
I recall that the relationship between acidification and warming was slightly paradoxical however and would need to refresh my memory before going further. Put it this way, at the time I vaguely recall withhold certain findings from the forum that did not reinforce the point I was making at the time.
Would I do such a thing? Back then, yes, not any longer.
Was a good post and reminded me of something I once, foolishly, said.
Something along the lines of 'we had already discovered the most important cycles affecting long term weather patterns, there might be minor patterns yet to be discovered but we'd identified the important ones. Nothing was going to majorly affect the GCMs from here'.
I think that was a year or 2 before 'The Pause' started.
I don't actually subscribe to the idea of the pause fwiw. Just that we haven't identified where the energy has yet gone. It's still here, just not in the surface temperature record. We just haven't identified it yet - going back to your post - it's a missing data set.
I know that was tongue in cheek but the reality is while you may be able to write a literature review that accounts for chapter 1 of your PhD. From there you have to describe a new area of research that is identified by that science that needs addressing, devise an experiment to test that area, perform that experiment, analyse the data and report back on it and if it resolves the issue first raised or simply raises more questions (quite a common and perfectly acceptable result). The process of doing all that often changes your perspective of your literature review as you get closer to the science by being hands on with it and the considerations required become real.
So you have chapter 1 draft 1 knocked off
While I basically agree with what @Vermillion said I also think it is a little like walking through an area that is marked as "possible minefield" on a map. You walk 20m into it before you realise and then stop and you have 2 options:
1) Well I haven't blown up so far, probably isn't a mine field, lets keep going
2) Backtrack your steps to the edge and reassess you options.
I have been arguing for a as long as this discussion has been going on here that the science as a total system is far from settled. Individual components of it may be but the interaction of the components isn't well understood.
Continuing on in the minefield is a decision that impacts only you. If you get it wrong, you die, if you don't you get to joke about it at the pub with mates. If we get this one wrong it impacts not just the billions of people on this planet but all the rest of the life that clings to this rock as well. It is a big gamble, I have never been a fan of Russian roulette as a party game.
First question I have on this graph is why is there are regular peaks in temps around Feb through April? This seems a bit odd.
Secondly, I continue to have little faith in the new ERRST v4 changes made by Karl et al.
Updates to Analysis, ERSST v4 vs. v3b
On July 15, 2015, GISS switched from NOAA/NCDC's Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) dataset version 3b to version 4 in their temperature analysis. According to NOAA's ERRST v4 webpage:
"Major improvements include updated and substantially more complete input data from the ICOADS Release 2.5, revised Empirical Orthogonal Teleconnections (EOTs) and EOT acceptance criterion, updated sea surface temperature (SST) quality control procedures, revised SST anomaly (SSTA) evaluation methods, revised low-frequency data filing in data sparse regions using nearby available observations, updated bias adjustments of ship SSTs using Hadley Nighttime Marine Air Temperature version 2 (HadNMAT2), and buoy SST bias adjustments not previously made in v3b."
All of the above in bold Italics can be manipulated to achieve a desired outcome and after one research paper, NASA implement the changes immediately to their data set to show that the 15-18 year hiatus actually never happened but instead ends up looking like a consistent rising trend like this.
Not forgetting that all of the research on surface temperature analysis in the past seems to be thrown out the window to achieve a hidden warming signal in the last 15 years. I understand that the explosion of Argo SST buoys in the last 10 years or so has required some sort of reassessment because they are more accurate, but these buoys show only miniscule warming if at all. So where does this extra warmth come from? Perhaps it is the fine art of data infilling in sparse data regions?
Here's an update to the graph with the new ERSST v4 data. Not a huge change over the other graph but 2015 is still looking to break the hottest year record.
Any reason you chose the 1951-1980 normal period or is this a typo?
Could have used any 30 year anomaly period. Obviously it won't change the rankings of the years if a different 30 year anomaly period is used.
The problem I have with graphs like this is that you have posted it with clear bias that enhances your view on AGW. Why use the lowest point of the modern temp record for a normal? Why label 1996 (a La Nina year naturally cooler) at the bottom? Why does the graph have an odd warm bias in the first few months of the year, is there an error in the data? I just wish that there was clear detached unbiased reporting and analysis of the facts surrounding AGW. There are for or against camps on AGW and no room apparently to question either side in the middle ground.
Perhaps 2015 is the warmest year, but it is not surprising given we have a strong El Nino in place coupled with a very warm Indian Ocean. This vast area of above normal surface must cause a rise in global temps. What happens though when we almost certainly fall back to a cold La Nina event next year or the year after? There will be a rush to announce that the reason 2016 or 2017 is cooler is because of La Nina, but no mention of the fact that 2015 was warm because of a strong El Nino, once again bias towards a desired outcome.
Science is all about questioning and testing evidence. That means everything including well established theories, otherwise it does not advance. I personally believe we will one day be able to travel at or faster than the speed of light. No science or theories to back this up. Einstein's equations suggest this is impossible. However, I think just about anything is possible to overcome in science. If scientists did not think like this then they would give up too easily and we would stagnate.
"The problem I have with graphs like this is that you have posted it with clear bias that enhances your view on AGW."
Nope - no bias - just showing the temps for the past 20 years using data sourced from NASA GISS.
"Why does the graph have an odd warm bias in the first few months of the year, is there an error in the data?"
Not all of the years show a spike in temps in the first few months of the year - at least half of them don't. It's highly unlikely that there is an error in the NASA GISS data. It's all online if you want to check it for yourself.
"Perhaps 2015 is the warmest year, but it is not surprising given we have a strong El Nino in place coupled with a very warm Indian Ocean."
Sceptics like to use 1998 as a cherry picked year to claim that there has been no warming since then. They also fail to point out that that year was one of the largest El Nino's on record - a clear example of bias... It has been warmer than then since and without a record El Nino.
Coldest July in 20 years during the warmest year in living history.
Which means that somewhere else had the hottest July (I know. It could be lots of other somewhere elses with moderately higher temps).
Records are there to be broken, records are a human thing nature cares not about and after all the entire period of human existence is a mere blip in time to nature.
That's local weather not climate, like a US republican senator climate change denier bringing a snowball into the house and loudly proclaiming there's no such thing as climate change.
Look at central Europe at the moment. Temps above 35 for the second consecutive week. 100 years old records broken. Certainly the hottest July or August.
Here you go, and guys like this are running the place.
It must be, we have a climate change thread in the weather forum here and some insist it belongs there because the climate IS about weather.
Cant have it both ways.
It has nothing to do with a thread on an Internet forum.
stay on topic.
And climate change v weather is off topic?
The debate about why this thread exists in this forum is off topic.
So what's your opinion then ? Care to contribute ?
You see here is another example of exaggeration. I am a Met looking at the heat in Europe every day and yes it has been hot at times and yes for a few days in early July some local high temp records were broken, but this is not the hottest summer by a long way. 2003 won that hands down. I am not saying it is not hot, but it needs to be reported in a balanced way. The UK is on track for all three months of summer to be below normal for example. 2015 left, 2003 right for late July early Aug.
I was talking about Central Europe. The temps in the hometown I was born have been above 35 for the second consecutive week, and are to continue for this and next week. Some towns that had been measuring temps for last 130 years had the records smashed by ongoing 35-39 dgrs temps. This is unprecedented weather in THAT area. I could post links, but they are in Czech language, so no luck there.
Exxageration, I don't think so.
Hot temperatures for a couple of weeks or longer is not a conclusive indicator of global warming, just as the coldest July in Victoria in 20 years(or below normal 3 months in UK) for is not an indication that that there is no global warming.
That means it is NOT Global Warming discussion. Please stick to the topic.
A temperature reconstruction is by definition a manipulation of raw data, an average is a manipulation of data after all. Other than not liking Karl et al can you demonstrate that their reconstruction is incorrect? Without demonstrating that their reconstruction is incorrect you seem to be asserting error on the basis of your dogma alone.
[/I]Why do you assume previous reconstructions were correct and the current one is incorrect? You've described one variable but you've failed to justify your position.
You've failed to demonstrate bias in the graph posted @spaatch . If his graph is biased you need to address the data, not the presentation. What does reporting on AGW have to do with the discussed chart? Your constant unjustified accusations of bias in this thread make you look biased despite your protests otherwise. Have you objectively tested you're observation that there is an odd warm bias in the first few months of the year or is that a subjective judgement which potentially reveals your bias? Why do you want a "middle ground (which I assume you feel you occupy)? If you're arguing for the advancement of science you should be arguing for accurate reporting rather than reporting which confirms your bias.
As @spaatch pointed out you're happy to rely on the large 1998 El Nino event to create the "18 year hiatus", why do you want to discount the current El Nino?
Science is about Rigorous questioning and testing of evidence. Not mindless questioning and testing of evidence. Saying you don't like a paper, or that you just think something is wrong is mindless. To be rigorous you need to justify your questions, demonstrate errors in the data or analysis and ask questions which significantly contribute to the body of knowledge.
###### Moderator's note @Telemark Phat :
This part is off topic and will be deleted next time, because it is playing the man:
"Your belief that humanity will one day travel at faster than the speed of light is not rigorous, it is nothing but fanciful dogma until you can justify your belief. Your belief is no better than believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden."
Yes, sorry Dark Sith lord.
Except, in central Europe, it's not just couple of weeks. This has been an ongoing issue for a few summers now, not to mention non-existing spings and autumns. It's just summer and winter. It is changing the landscape, how they manage their water supplies, farming land, what they can grow now (like typically tropic fruit in areas where it wouldn't survive before), et cetera.
That is all.
If it's several summers, non existent springs & autumns you need to quantify it a little more. Managing water supplies, farming the land is not within the topic in the Weather Forum.
This is however, the problem of posting such a topic in here in the first place!
That's not playing the man the man from a scientific perspective, its accurately describing the belief that humanity will one day travel faster than light. There is no justification for the belief which which stands up to more than cursory scientific scrutiny. The belief is no different than believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden.
I'll make sure I leave out the pronoun next time.
Even if you leave out the pronoun, I will still delete it, because it's not needed and it's off topic.
I disagree about the not needed part, but it is certainly is off topic. I'll heed your advice. I hope the post I quoted and others like it are held to the same standard.