NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 59 of 115 < 1 2 ... 57 58 59 60 61 ... 114 115 >
Topic Options
#1026536 - 03/11/2011 14:42 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: SBT]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
I have lifted the below complete from the UK "MetIndex" site which is a climate history of the British Isles from about 12000 BCE.
The author, a British meteorologist has used a large number of sources to put this climate history together.
He also in a number of cases provides a possible weather pattern explanation as to the why's and hows some of the extreme events described in that history actually were initiated.
I have just picked the period from 500 AD to 600 AD as that was one of a number of severe weather periods in British climate history.
When one reads through this climate history of just one small island in the north sea and read the immense variations in weather over just a couple of decades, we really do live in a golden age of a stable global climate. Climate history tells us that will not continue for much longer.

And reading this climate history of the British Isles a few years ago and the truly extraordinary range of severe weather across the centuries along with my country farming background and my life long total reliance on the totally unpredictable vagaries of the weather each year to make a living went a very long way to convincing me that all the claims of global warming from a minute increase in a minor atmospheric gas was just plain bulldust and very bad science.

From MetIndex
[ And maybe the climate history below is a real example of the last regular cyclic "Bond Event" some 1500 years ago which, if the "Bond event" cycle analysis is correct, places us right near another Bond Event in the not very far distant time. [ Bond Event Years below 538 to 555 ??? ]
Disclaimer; He who tries to forecast the future is a fool!!! crazy ]

~ AD500
By this time, the storminess of the latter part of the 5th Century (q.v.) had 're-arranged' some coastal alignment in East Anglia. A sea-level rise noted, BUT, Lamb considers that this may have more to do with reporting of increased frequency of inland storm-driven surges, rather than a general world-wide sea level rise. Also note that evidence of significant rise in peat bog deposits by or around this time: therefore implies greater 'wetness' (and presumably cyclonicity).

AD508
Possible severe winter. Rivers frozen for two months. Years also quoted as 507 or 509.

AD520
Major storm surge in Cardigan Bay.

AD525
Possible severe winter. Thames frozen for 6 weeks.

AD536 [or perhaps AD535](spring/March?)
Volcanic eruption# (East Indies) at around 4degS is estimated to have put around 300Mt of aerosols into the stratosphere (c.f. Tambora in 1815 of 200Mt which led to the 'year without a summer' q.v.). This would have brought about an abrupt drop in world-wide temperature, and concomitant changes in atmospheric (& perhaps oceanic) circulation. It is thought that the effects (famine etc.) were experienced over the (then) known world, with a 'severe plague' in the years 541-544 possibly connected; up to 25% of the populations of Africa, Europe and Asia affected. A 'famine' / shortage of bread noted over Ireland in 538, and, if accepted as part of this phase, a severe winter in 554. [ some publications have the effects lasting until at least 555, and certainly tree-ring data suggest a period of reduced growth for western Europe up to at least 545. The implied NAOI [edit; North Atlantic Oscillation Index ] would have been highly negative, with well-above average pressure over Greenland / Iceland sector, and lower values around the Azores. ] (R.Met.S/'Weather' Feb. 2004 & "The Long Summer"/Fagan)
** There is confusion with dating in some texts: 536 is mentioned a lot, but I fancy this is the year when the major world-wide effects were noted: Ice-core sampling suggests the actual year of the major eruption was 535.
## Alternative theories have been put forward for the world-wide effects noted: either a large comet hitting the earth, injecting huge amounts of debris into the atmosphere, or the Earth passing through a cloud of inter-stellar dust.

AD544/545 (Winter)
Intensely cold winter (London / South) & possibly over a wider area (according to Easton, in CHMW/Lamb).

AD548 (perhaps 549)
Possible severe gale/storm in London; many houses damaged and several people killed.

AD553/554 (Winter)
Severe winter: Some confusion between 545 & 554, but Easton (in Lamb/1.) notes both winters as being notably cold / severe. Winter 'so severe' with frost & snow that 'the birds and wild animals became so tame as to allow themselves to be taken by hand'. (A Meteorological Chronology, quoted in "The Long Summer"/Fagan ref: 20)

AD565/566 (Winter)
A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb)

AD566
[ date / season not given, but possibly linked to the cold winter noted above. ] Possible 'Great Storm' affecting eastern & mid-coasts of southern England - 'serious damage'. [ http://www.soton.ac.uk/~imw/chestorm.htm ]

AD580 - 600
Indications of several, or a succession of wet years. Also, tree-lines by this time were falling & glaciers advancing.

Top
#1026605 - 03/11/2011 18:53 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 8071
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: ROM
In view of the increasingly early and colder winter weather over the last 3 or 4 winters in the northern hemi appearing to be edging ever further into the lower temperature bracket and looking at the data on Roy Spencer's post above, I might as well make things interesting;

A question and I will be interested in the answers and comments

Is the world getting very close to another "Bond Event" or worse, are we right at the start of such an event?

"Bond Events" are periods of decades of intense cold across the planet that appear to have a frequency of about 1470 years.
The last "Bond Event's" most intense period was in about 530 to 540 AD.

Wiki; Bond event

The Chiefio; Bond Event Zero

Also ;Dansgaard–Oeschger event
&
Heinrich events

All are rapid temperature excursions with all that entails of some tens to hundreds of years long from a what is assumed to have been a prior relatively stable climate.


From what I've read the answer to your question is dependant on what the Sun is going to do over the next period. All we can do is adapt as you mentioned in a few post above. I believe the Sun is misbehaving as it has done in the past - we are getting "less" out of it atm. If this continues we are in trouble. If it dosent, well, its easier to live and grow food and a warm moist atmosphere than on ice plains.

If CO2 (are we allowed to name that chemical reference in correct-speak nowadays?) DOES cause global warming, then we may need to create "CO2 generators" to save humanity if the Sunspot minimum continues.!

Top
#1027641 - 07/11/2011 19:02 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Petros]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
I think most posters and WZ forum browsers by now are well aware that all the predictions on both increases in global temperatures from increasing CO2 and the predictions on the [ catastrophic ?? ] consequences of that supposed warming are the result of the "predictions / projections" output of climate models which are upheld by the "Natural Climate Change Deniers" as the ultimate forecasters of an increasingly hostile climate due to mankind's sins against the planet.

So how do the actual models and the modeled predictions of the future climate actually stack up in their predictive capabilities and accuracy?

We certainly know that all those predictions of a monotonic increase in global temperatures into both the near decadal future and laughably into the far future of 2100 or even 2200 from a whole bunch of climate warming w****ers from a couple of years back have come badly unstuck as the general acceptance of a now cooling planet even by some of the formerly most outspoken and rigid scientific adherents to the monotonic warming doctrine.
And even privately compared to their not very honest public proclamations as we saw a week or so ago, most warmista scientists are now doing a great deal of hand waving trying to find some excuse for the now increasingly accepted slow down in the increase and even slight decline in current global temperatures since about 2002.

So a paper on the predictive abilities of models [ not the analytic value of models which is a scientific essential in all disciplines including climate science ] including climate models provides a very essential check to the veracity and predictive abilities of those climate models.
And the result; Even with only 3 adjustable parameters and climate models have tens of adjustable parameters, the "predictive" ability of the models is Zilch, Nada, Nothing!


Our Calibrated Model has No Predictive Value:
Quote:
Abstract:
It is often assumed that once a model has been calibrated to measurements then it will have some level of predictive capability, although this may be limited.
If the model does not have predictive capability then the assumption is that the model needs to be improved in some way.
Using an example from the petroleum industry, we show that cases can exit where calibrated models have no predictive capability. This occurs even when there is no modelling error present. It is also shown that the introduction of a small modelling error can make it impossible to obtain any models with useful predictive capability.
We have been unable to find ways of identifying which calibrated models will have some predictive capacity and those which will not.

&

4. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have examined, for a particular case, our ability to calibrate a model and then to make accurate predictions. This has been carried out for cases with and without modelling errors, but no measurement error.
From these studies we make the following observations:

• The basin of attraction around a global optimum may be sufficiently small that search algorithms may not find them. The basins of attraction associated with other local optima may be much larger and hence easier to find.

• When there is no modelling error present, some of the non-global optima may be of quite good quality. However only the global optimum is able to make an accurate prediction.

• When small amounts of modelling error are present, then the global optimum is no longer associated with the truth. The local optimum that has parameter values of the truth case is not of significant quality and could easily be disregarded.

• None of the models tested in the presence of modelling errors have valuable predictive power. In particular the global optima from the history matching period was unable to provide an accurate prediction.

In summary: in the absence of model errors, and with very low measurement errors, it is possible to obtain calibrated models that do not have any predictive capability; such models may be significantly easier to identify than the correct model; we are unable to differentiate between calibrated models with or without predictive capabilities; the introduction of even small model errors may make it impossible to obtain a calibrated model with predictive value.
In this analysis there is nothing that seems to be unique to this model. In particular there is the issue of data availability, adding more measurements does not appear to offer a guaranty of avoiding this dilemma. If the observations made with this model are not unique to the model, and we have no reason to believe that the model is unique, then this presents a potentially serious obstacle to the use of models of this type for prediction.
Our concern is that if we cannot successfully calibrate and make predictions with a model as simple as this, where does this leave us when are models are more complex, have substantive modelling errors, and we have poor quality measurement data.


For this the western world has expended some 94 billion dollars since 1990 on the basis that the say so of a mere handful of modelers with a vested interest in getting as much publicity as possible and who derived their predictions from what we now know were and still are unverified and unvalidated global climate models.
It has taken nearly two decades before somebody,in this case, a group of non climate researchers to ascertain the abilities of models including climate models to predict the future.
And even the simplest model with only 3 adjustable paramaters has failed totally when it comes to predictive abilities.

And for that 94 billion dollars spent on the say so of that handful of warmista adherent IPCC climate modelers in the western world we now have "alternative " energy sources that are totally unreliable and unpredictable and the pwer from which costs some 3 to 4 times the fossil fuel powered energy generators and the creation of which has cost between 2 to 4 jobs in the real economy for every permanent "green" job created in the so called alternative energy industries.

And we now have societal and financial consequences will take a generation to correct, to rebuild public confidence in both our leadership and in science and our public bureaucratic organisations and to rebuild our economies.

This is society's dividend from a science ideology driven by vested interests and a green ideology that will not accept any compromise or even discuss their ultimate aims and objectives

Top
#1028102 - 08/11/2011 19:39 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Those who follow climate matters may have noticed the increasing publicity and increasing angst in the media and from numerous spokes persons from all sorts of obscure environmental and global warming catastrophe outfits over the fact that the world will not achieve low enough emissions of "carbon" to keep global temperatures from rising above that magical 2 degrees extra warming by 2100.

And in every case the message conveyed and intended to be conveyed and never refuted by any warmista organisation, is that the 2 degrees limit to any increase is the point at which the world will enter a warmest induced global catastrophe with unknown but catastrophic consequences.

Lots and lots of grant money publicising all your "might's" "could's", "maybe's", and etc to cover any contingency such as this example but it keeps your backside clean and keeps the grants rolling in if your "mights" "could's", "maybe's" and etc don't work out.

So where did that 2 degrees come from and on what basis was it researched as a catastrophic tipping point?.

From the German; Spiegel online; Jan 2010

A Superstorm for Global Warming Research

Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree Target

Quote:

Climate models involve some of the most demanding computations of any simulations, and only a handful of institutes worldwide have the necessary supercomputers. The computers must run at full capacity for months to work their way through the jungle of data produced by coupled differential equations.

All of this is much too complicated for politicians, who aren't terribly interested in the details. They have little use for radiation budgets and ocean-atmosphere circulation models. Instead, they prefer simple targets.

For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.

It was a pretty audacious estimate. Nevertheless, the powers-that-be finally had a tangible number to work with. An amazing success story was about to begin.

'Clearly a Political Goal'

Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, "life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible."

But this is scientific nonsense. "Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). "The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated."

Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

&

Rule of Thumb

The story of the two-degree target began in the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Administration politicians had asked the council for climate protection guidelines, and the scientists under Schellnhuber's leadership came up with a strikingly simple idea. "We looked at the history of the climate since the rise of homo sapiens," Schellnhuber recalls. "This showed us that average global temperatures in the last 130,000 years were no more than two degrees higher than before the beginning of the industrial revolution. To be on the safe side, we came up with a rule of thumb stating that it would be better not to depart from this field of experience in human evolution. Otherwise we would be treading on terra incognita."

As tempting as it sounds, on closer inspection this approach proves to be nothing but a sleight of hand. That's because humans are children of an ice age. For many thousands of years, they struggled to survive in a climate that was as least four degrees colder than it is today, and at times even more than eight degrees colder.

This means that, on balance, mankind has already survived far more severe temperature fluctuations than two degrees. And the cold periods were always the worst periods. Besides, modern civilizations have far more technical means of adapting to climate change than earlier societies had.


And there you have it.
The catastrophic tipping point of 2 degrees rise in global temperature by 2100 which is so beloved of all the climate warming doom sayers is nothing more than political fig leaf invented by German climate scientists to enable the politicians and green environmental professional doomsters to proclaim to the world that we are all about to be fried in the eternal hell of global warming unless we DO SOMETHING and keep those global temperatures from rising above that "catastrophic" 2 degrees by 2100!

Pity somebody did not get around to telling the now cooling climate that it had to conform or else!

Top
#1028489 - 09/11/2011 12:32 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Those who regularly follow the climate debate /argument / row! might have noticed a distinct change in the word usage and in climate terminology over the last year or so.
The term, "consensus" has almost totally disappeared from the lexicon of the "Natural Climate Change Deniers" otherwise known as the global warmers.
The other term that has almost totally disappeared from the warmista's lexicon is "the science is settled".

As the hiatus in the rise of the previously heavily promoted by the warmistas, so called and now denied "Monotonic global warming" continues and even a slight cooling of the global climate temperatures is becoming evident, a whole raft of papers with what could be described as a considerable skeptical content which papers would have been shouted and bullied down and censored out of existence by the AGW gate keepers in the major science journals in the past, are turning up with a number of alternative hypothesis to the formerly claimed monolithic "carbon", aka to the more sophisticated climate debaters as "CO2", the steady increase of which was claimed to be the sole driver of the claimed Anthropogenic Global Warming.


Perhaps more important is that the Anthropogenic ie; man made part of the claims of a global warming is also being heavily challenged and are no longer being pushed by it's adherents in the climate science world with the same vigour and obstinate dogmatism of the past.

There still remains of course a very high level of climate warming zealotry amongst the climate warming blog followers. Most of whom have little concept of the science but instead are psychologically fixated on another catastrophic event which gives them a purpose in life and a feel good relationship with others of similar beliefs who all feel they are a part of the true faith tribal group that is fighting the evil unbelievers.

I have provided links and quotes from some of these new global climate science papers in the last couple of weeks.

Items such as the inability of models, including all climate models to have any predicitability for the future.
The increased emphasis and the number of papers surfacing on cycles or perhaps more accurately, Judith Curry's "oscillations" with the probability of harmonics within the ocean / atmosphere / cloud cover / solar interactions all making the future long term predictability of the global climate both globally and regionally an almost impossible goal.
Global cloud cover which is suspected as being one of the main influences on global temperatures and the concept that global cloud cover is heavily influenced by solar activity .
Then there is the now fashionable "aerosol " explanation from the wamista scientists for the cooling in the global temperatures but this is a bit like the previous "carbon" argument; We can't think of any thing else, at least without condescending to the skeptics that they might be right after all.
Another clutching at straws hypothesis from the warmers is that solar heat energy is disappearing deep into the ocean depths so stabilising global temperatures. This without that solar heat energy ever being seen or measured by the satellite systems or the 3000 ARGO float array in the top 600 metres of the world's ocean as that supposed solar origin heat energy goes past on it's way deep into the ocean deeps,

And all the while there is the studied avoidance and a unspoken denial by the warmistas that it will be proven in the times ahead that the great ball of energy in our heavens, the Sun is the ultimate provider of the heat energy that enables life on this earth to exist and it is the variations in the the Sun's, the solar output energy that drives all the atmospheric and ocean interactions that create what we call the global climate.
And it is these solar driven global cycles, oscillations and harmonics and their short and long term interactions in our atmosphere and oceans that create the short and long term warming and cooling episodes and the great geological time series events that characterise the history of this planet.

As another arrow to the bow of a solar driven climate, Nicola Scaffetta, a very well known name in climate science has a new paper, the abstract for which Roger Pielke Sr has posted on his "Climate Science" web site.
Nicola Scaffeta has also encouraged work and research into Landscheidt's barycentric theories which I have posted on previously, on the solar driven control of the global climate.

Scaffeta's abstract from the Climate Science blog.

“A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature” By N. Scafetta 2011

Quote:
Abstract;
Herein we show that the historical records of mid-latitude auroras from 1700 to 1966 present oscillations with periods of about 9, 10–11, 20–21, 30 and 60 years. The same frequencies are found in proxy and instrumental global surface temperature records since 1650 and 1850, respectively, and in several planetary and solar records. We argue that the aurora records reveal a physical link between climate change and astronomical oscillations. Likely in addition to a Soli-Lunar tidal effect, there exists a planetary modulation of the heliosphere, of the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth and/or of the electric properties of the ionosphere. The latter, in turn, has the potentiality of modulating the global cloud cover that ultimately drives the climate oscillations through albedo oscillations. In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied, which also include a historical record of meteorite fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. We show that a harmonic constituent model based on the major astronomical frequencies revealed in the aurora records and deduced from the natural gravitational oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a reasonable accuracy the decadal and multidecadal temperature oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data before 1950, and vice versa. The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60–70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced. Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.


The highlights listed in the announcement of the paper read

Quote:
► The paper highlights that global climate and aurora records present a common set of frequencies.
► These frequencies can be used to reconstruct climate oscillations within the time scale of 9–100 years.
► An empirical model based on these cycles can reconstruct and forecast climate oscillations.
► Cyclical astronomical physical phenomena regulate climate change through the electrification of the upper atmosphere.
► Climate cycles have an astronomical origin and are regulated by cloud cover oscillations.


Shades of the approx 60 year PDO cycle with a possible delay period between the solar phase and the ocean phases.

Top
#1029165 - 10/11/2011 12:33 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
In a post above I quoted from a series of climate science articles from the online version of one the most widely published German newspapers, Der Spiegel.

The quoted "Part 8" of that series of articles," A Superstorm for Global Warming Research" outlined the history of the claimed catastrophic consequences of a "2 degrees" increase in global temperatures and how this "2 degree" figure was basically plucked out of mid air without ANY researched scientific basis for that 2 degrees as to being the absolute limit in the increase in temperatures before a climate catastrophe of some unknown but catastrophic consequences was created.

And those German climate researchers selected that "2 degree" limit to the rise in global temperatures because the number "2 degrees" sounded good, didn't frighten the populace with extreme predictions and had the real advantage that the politicians now had a politically acceptable fig leaf that had an apparent full scientific backing so that they, the politicians could be seen to taking action on global warming based on scientifically supported facts.

But as I have said a number of times now, stuff just seems to keep coming and very little of it is now favourable to the warmista let alone the radical CAGW cult beliefs.

A long quote via the UK "Bishops Hill" blog.
The quote is from Richard Betts, head of the UK Met Office's "Climate change Impacts".

This is in itself an interesting development as the UK Met Office is / was the home of climate alarmism in the UK with numerous forecasts in the past of hot and Barbeque summers, snow disappearing forever and etc.
Well as anybody who follows the climate blogs will know, the last 3 years and now this upcoming northern UK winter have turned out to be some of the coldest, nastiest and snowiest winters recorded for at least 40 years and maybe since the end of the LIA in the mid 1800's.
UK Met in fact has stopped issuing seasonal forecasts as they had become the butt of so much sarcasm, jokes and anger over the gross inaccuracies of their seasonal forecasts.
So an article such as the following quote from "Bishop Hill" is another interesting development in the now rapidly changing world of climate change and global warming.

Dangerous climate change? by Richard Betts, UKMet Climate change Impact dept.
Quote:
Most climate scientists* do not subscribe to the 2 degrees "Dangerous Climate Change" meme (I know I don't). "Dangerous" is a value judgement, and the relationship between any particular level of global mean temperature rise and impacts on society are fraught with uncertainties, including the nature of regional climate responses and the vulnerability/resilience of society. The most solid evidence for something with serious global implications that might happen at 2 degrees is the possible passing of a key threshold for the Greenland ice sheet, but even then that's the lower limit and also would probably take centuries to take full effect. Other impacts like drought and crop failures are massively uncertain, and while severe negative impacts may occur in some regions, positive impacts may occur in others. While the major negative impacts can't be ruled out, their certainty is wildly over-stated.

While really bad things may happen at 2 degrees, they may very well not happen either - especially in the short term (there may be a committment to longer-term consequences such as ongoing sea level rise that future generations have to deal with, but imminent catastrophe affecting the current generation is far less certain than people make out. We just don't know.

The thing that worries me about the talking-up of doom at 2 degrees is that this could lead to some very bad and expensive decisions in terms of adaptation. It probably is correct that we have about 5 years to achieve a peak and decline of global emissions that give a reasonable probability of staying below 2 degrees, but what happens in 10 years' time when emissions are still rising and we are probably on course for 2 degrees? If the doom scenario is right then it would make sense to prepare to adapt to the massive impacts expected within a few decades, and hence we'd have to start spending billions on new flood defences, water infrastructure and storm shelters, and it would probably also make sense for conservationists to give up on areas of biodiversity that are apparently "committed to extinction" - however all these things do not make sense if the probability of the major impacts is actually quite small.

So while I do agree that climate change is a serious issue and it makes sense to try to avoid committing the planet to long-term changes, creating a sense of urgency by over-stating imminent catastrophe at 2 degrees could paint us into a corner when 2 degrees does become inevitable.

*I prefer to distinguish between "climate scientists" (who are mainly atmospheric physicists) and "climate change scientists" who seem to be just about anyone in science or social science that has decided to see what climate change means for their own particular field of expertise. While many of these folks do have a good grasp of climate science (atmospheric physics) and the uncertainties in attribution of past events and future projections, many sadly do not. "Climate change science" is unfortunately a rather disconnected set of disciplines with some not understanding the others - see the inconsistencies between WG1 and WG2 in IPCC AR4 for example. We are working hard to overcome these barriers but there is a long way to go.

Top
#1029195 - 10/11/2011 14:05 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
[ UK ] The Telegraph; no 'practical strategy' for keeping lights on in Scotland
Quote:
Scotland faces buying power from abroad to keep the lights on because Alex Salmond has no “practical strategy” for delivering his promise of a green energy revolution, a damning report by a leading engineering group has concluded.

&

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME) said the First Minister has set a target of generating the equivalent of 100 per cent of all Scotland’s electricity from green sources by the end of the decade with little heed to infrastructure that will be required.
Mr Salmond’s has not compiled the necessary “factual data” or a “comprehensive engineering assessment” on what can realistically be achieved, the group said, and he has made too few allowances for the intermittent nature of wind and wave power.

&

Their scathing analysis came after Citigroup, the banking giant, warned that independence would mean each Scottish household paying an extra £875 per year to subsidise Mr Salmond’s green energy plans.

&

Mr Salmond has pledged to source 30 per cent of all Scotland’s energy, including that needed for heat, transport and electricity, from renewables by 2020. This includes the equivalent of 100 per cent of electricity.


All sounds very familiar and equally stupid, impracticable and ultimately very depressing.
What is is about us anglo saxons at the moment that we are guilty of electing this type of a pathetic mentality to positions of power?

Top
#1029283 - 10/11/2011 18:45 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Seina Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7770
Loc: Adelaide Hills
A reference:

“WATER VAPOR FEEDBACK AND GLOBALWARMING”
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Vol. 25: 441-475 (Volume publication date November 2000)
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441

Isaac M. Held and Brian J. Soden
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration


Paper here.

Top
#1030453 - 14/11/2011 11:13 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seina]
Seina Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7770
Loc: Adelaide Hills
Hypothesis:

As CO2 and H2O levels increase, the atmosphere has the tendency to head towards a state of moderation, wherein the temperature evens out (becomes more moderate – falls) as the Clausius-Clapeyron relation tends to towards more cloud cover and higher humidity. This implies more rainfall and a more frequent occurrence of humid-tropical conditions in mid-latitudinal regions. There is also likely a redistribution of available water.

Top
#1030461 - 14/11/2011 11:21 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seina]
Brett Guy Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 05/10/2010
Posts: 5159
Loc: Bently Park, Cairns
Originally Posted By: -Cosmic- (naz)
Hypothesis:

As CO2 and H2O levels increase, the atmosphere has the tendency to head towards a state of moderation, wherein the temperature evens out (becomes more moderate – falls) as the Clausius-Clapeyron relation tends to towards more cloud cover and higher humidity. This implies more rainfall and a more frequent occurrence of humid-tropical conditions in mid-latitudinal regions. There is also likely a redistribution of available water.


No Cosmic. Havn't you listened to the warmistas. CO2 increases are only ever reposible for bad events. Fires, floods, drought, cyclones, earthquakes, alien invasion etc etc.If anything good were to happen it could not possibly be linked to AGW. Stop being so Naive. Jeez! cool


Edited by Brett Guy (14/11/2011 11:21)

Top
#1030778 - 15/11/2011 14:14 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Brett Guy]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Stuff just keeps coming and some of it is quite mind blowing!

The ground is steadily being cut away from under the CAGW belief as reality sets in and a number of second rate extremist Catastrophic Global Warming scientists are being left exposed and sitting like a shag on the global warming rock as the science moves on.

Consensus?? What consensus!!!

The following are very interesting releases particularly as the next big piss up of the IPCC's activist catastrophic global warming cultists and "Natural Climate Change Deniers" is due to be held in Durban within the next few weeks.

This can also be found on Lubos Motl's "the Reference Frame"
"IPCC on extreme weather: no climate change for next 20-30 years"

And on Roger Pielke Jr's site;

Leaked Text of the IPCC Extremes Report'

Roger Pielke Jr has done considerable research on extreme weather and is scathing of the barrage of mis-information and deliberate corruption of data and insurance claims by insurance companies based on the IPCC's forecasts of extreme weather events becoming more common due to so called global warming even though he has, like his father, warmist leanings himself.

Quote:
Has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finally gotten the issue of extreme events right? Maybe so. At the BBC Richard Black says that he has a copy of the forthcoming IPCC extremes report and shares some of what it says prior to being considered by governments this week:
For almost a week, government delegates will pore over the summary of the IPCC's latest report on extreme weather, with the lead scientific authors there as well. They're scheduled to emerge on Friday with an agreed document.

The draft, which has found its way into my possession, contains a lot more unknowns than knowns.
He describes a report that is much more consistent with the scientific literature than past reports (emphasis added):
When you get down to specifics, the academic consensus is far less certain.

There is "low confidence" that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, "limited-to-medium evidence available" to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and "low confidence" on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.

In terms of attribution of trends to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, the uncertainties continue.

While it is "likely" that anthropogenic influences are behind the changes in cold days and warm days, there is only "medium confidence" that they are behind changes in extreme rainfall events, and "low confidence" in attributing any changes in tropical cyclone activity to greenhouse gas emissions or anything else humanity has done.

(These terms have specific meanings in IPCC-speak, with "very likely" meaning 90-100% and "likely" 66-100%, for example.)

And for the future, the draft gives even less succour to those seeking here a new mandate for urgent action on greenhouse gas emissions, declaring: "Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability".

It's also explicit in laying out that the rise in impacts we've seen from extreme weather events cannot be laid at the door of greenhouse gas emissions: "Increasing exposure of people and economic assets is the major cause of the long-term changes in economic disaster losses (high confidence).

"Long-term trends in normalized economic disaster losses cannot be reliably attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change."
None of this is a surprise to me, and it won't be to regular readers of this blog. After working for more than a decade on this issue with many colleagues around the world, it is indeed satisfying to see the climate science community on the brink of finally get this topic right, after botching it at almost every previous opportunity.

But before declaring victory, it is worth noting Black's expectation that governments will be pressing for different conclusions because money is at stake:
Developing countries like the fact that under the UN climate process, the rich are committed to funding adaptation for the poor.

Yet as the brief prepared for the Dhaka meeting by the humanitarian charity Dara shows, it isn't happening anywhere near as fast as it ought to be.

Only 8% of the "fast-start finance" pledged in Copenhagen, it says, has actually found its way to recipients.

It's possible - no, it's "very likely" - that the IPCC draft will be amended as the week progresses, and presumably the governments represented at the Climate Vulnerable Forum will be asking their delegates to inject a greater sense of urgency.
The good news about the leaked document is that efforts to alter the text will be noticed. Based on Black's report, it seems that the IPCC has at long last done the right thing on extreme events and climate change. It will be most interesting to see the reactions.




Edited by ROM (15/11/2011 14:15)

Top
#1030789 - 15/11/2011 14:36 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
And from the GWPF and soon to appear in" Science" if it has not already done so.

One of the critical indicators of CO2 induced warming is the "sensitivity" number; ie the number of degrees of warming that arises from a doubling of CO2.
The higher the "sensitivity" the greater the warming from a doubling of CO2. Sensitivity has been one of the most argued items in the scientific debate on global warming as it has been very, very difficult to pin down in the real world scenario.
Plenty of modelled claims on climate sensitivity but as usual most are not within a bulls roar of what is happening in the real world.
The one paper that used actual real life, empirical researched and hard data as compared to the half dozen papers using modelled numbers in the IPCC's AR4 was recently found to have been altered significantly from the original paper to make it appear that sensitivity was a lot higher than what was found by the authors of the original paper who based their conclusions on actual hard data. Nowhere is there any explanation as to why this alteration was made by some IPCC person but the agenda is obvious.
So this new "Science" paper appearing when the IPCC's AR5 is being prepared for release in 2013 is going to make it hard for the IPCC elite to avoid using the data and conclusions of the paper on climate sensitivity in AR5.

The figures given below for climate sensitivity are also much closer to those that Roy Spencer, head of NASA's satellite based global temperature division claims to be the real climate sensitivity numbers based on actual satellite observed data.

A New, Lower Estimate Of Climate Sensitivity
Quote:
There is word circulating that a paper soon to appear in Science magazine concludes that the climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide—likely (that is, with a 66% probability) lies in the range 1.7°C to 2.6°C, with a median value of 2.3°C. This is a sizeable contraction and reduction from the estimates of the climate sensitivity given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), in which the likely range is given as 2.0°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate of 3.0°C.

Further, the results from the new analysis largely eliminate the “fat tail” of the distribution of possible values of the climate sensitivity (that the IPCC AR4 report was fond of) which included the possibility that very large climate sensitivities are a realistic possibility. In the new paper, the authors find only “vanishing probabilities” for a climate sensitivity value greater than 3.2°C and that values greater than 6.0°C are “implausible.” Contrast that with the IPCC assessment of the literature (summarized in our Figure 1) which routinely includes studies concluding there is a greater than a 10% possibility that the true climate sensitivity exceeds 6°C and some which find that there is a greater than 5% possibility that it exceeds 10°C.

Top
#1030797 - 15/11/2011 14:50 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
You can read the BBC's Richard Black's [ a totally committed warmist ] report on the Climate Extremes posted above here;

Mixed messages on climate 'vulnerability'

Top
#1030843 - 15/11/2011 16:39 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: ROM
The one paper that used actual real life, empirical researched and hard data as compared to the half dozen papers using modelled numbers in the IPCC's AR4....


The IPCC refers to multiple papers discussing climate sensitvity based on observational data, and quote a most likely range based on observational evidence of between 2 and 3 degrees. This new paper at 2.3 degrees is within the IPCC range for observational estimates, and just barely below the midpoint.
(link)

And if you are going to talk about 'empirical researched and hard data', it is worth noting that this new paper is based on a paleoclimate reconstruction using proxy-data, and not any direct measurement of actual temperature.

Originally Posted By: ROM

The figures given below for climate sensitivity are also much closer to those that Roy Spencer, head of NASA's satellite based global temperature division claims to be the real climate sensitivity numbers based on actual satellite observed data.


I am not aware of any actual number that Roy Spencer has published on sensitivity. However in the past he has repeatedly claimed that feedbacks are negative which would make climate sensitivity less than 1. This paper is closer to the IPCC value of 3 than it is to a zero feedback sensitivity. Roy Spencer's last paper on climate sensitivity actually states that climate sensitivity cannot be determined using the satellite data.

For an interesting discussion on this paper without all the denial hype, see James Annan: (link)

If this paper holds up to scrutiny, then it joins a number of other papers that find that very high values of climate sensitivity which the IPCC consider possible not likely, are actually extremely unlikely. This would be quite good news, as one of the critical issues with climate change is not the average expected result, but the low possibility of an extreme result which could be an absolute disaster for mankind.

One issue being that this paper estimates climate sensitivity at the last glacial maximum, but climate sensitivity could be different under today's conditions. The other issue being that this paper's lower estimate of climate sensitivity is largely based on a new reconstruction of the temperature during the last glacial maximum that is milder than previous estimates of the last glacial maximum. However James notes that we have come full circle with the most recent estimate similar to a much older estimate.

Top
#1030873 - 15/11/2011 17:34 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Mike Hauber]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
From Judith Curry's "Climate Etc " The IPCC’s alteration of Forster & Gregory’s model-independent climate sensitivity results
By Nicholas Lewis who found the unrecorded and undocumented alteration to the Forster / Gregory 2006 paper.

Such an completely hidden and undocumented alteration is completely verboten in any science particularly at the level of the IPCC where governments are going to spend billions of their tax payers hard earned on the say so of the IPCC's reports.
But then we are dealing with "climate change science" and it's supporters so anything goes and is acceptable to advance the cause and the hell with those who are forced to pay.

The following is only just one of a number of sources for this IPCC alteration to the one and only major empirical based "climate change" indicator in the AR4 WG1 report. [ Assessment Report 4. Working Group 1. the climate science group of the IPCC.]

Quote:
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4) contained various errors, including the well publicised overestimate of the speed at which Himalayan glaciers would melt. However, the IPCC’s defenders point out that such errors were inadvertent and inconsequential: they did not undermine the scientific basis of AR4. Here I demonstrate an error in the core scientific report (WGI) that came about through the IPCC’s alteration of a peer-reviewed result. This error is highly consequential, since it involves the only instrumental evidence that is climate-model independent cited by the IPCC as to the probability distribution of climate sensitivity, and it substantially increases the apparent risk of high warming from increases in CO2 concentration.

In the Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis Report of AR4 (“AR4:WG1″), various studies deriving estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity from observational data are cited, and a comparison of the results of many of these studies is shown in Figure 9.20, reproduced below. In most cases, probability density functions (PDFs) of climate sensitivity are given, truncated over the range of 0°C to 10°C and scaled to give a cumulative distribution function (CDF) of 1 at 10°C.

&

Of the eight studies for which PDFs are shown, only one – Forster/Gregory 06 [Forster and Gregory, 2006] – is based purely on observational evidence, with no dependence on any climate model simulations.

&

The transformation effected by the IPCC, by recasting Forster/Gregory 06 in Bayesian terms and then restating its results using a prior distribution that is inconsistent with the regression model and error distributions used in the study, appears unjustifiable. In the circumstances, the transformed climate sensitivity PDF for Forster/Gregory 06 in the IPCC’s Figure 9.20 can only be seen as distorted and misleading.

The foregoing analysis demonstrates that the PDF for Forster/Gregory 06 in the IPCC’s Figure 9.20 is invalid. But the underlying issue, that Bayesian use of a uniform prior in S conveys a strong belief in climate sensitivity being high, prejudging the observational evidence, applies to almost all of the Figure 9.20 PDFs.

Top
#1031062 - 16/11/2011 00:12 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

People should read Foster and Gregory 2006 and see if they can make the math work.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3611.1


Pinatubo happens, Solar radiation falls by 5 W/m2 and temperatures fall 0.5C. That gives 10 W/m2/K (not 2.3).

Pinatubo happens, Solar radiation falls by 5 W/m2, LW emitted falls by 2 W/m2, temperature falls 0.5C. That gives a net 6 W/m2/K (not 2.3).

Its just made-up math.

Top
#1031178 - 16/11/2011 11:38 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: ROM

Such an completely hidden and undocumented alteration is completely verboten in any science particularly at the level of the IPCC where governments are going to spend billions of their tax payers hard earned on the say so of the IPCC's reports.
But then we are dealing with "climate change science" and it's supporters so anything goes and is acceptable to advance the cause and the hell with those who are forced to pay.


The alteration is to apply a Bayesian uniform prior to climate sensitivity and is documented in the IPCC report. The original Forster result effectively assumes a uniform prior for Y - a critical number used to determine climate sensitivity.

However, when Nicholas attempts to calculate the result of applying a Bayesian Prior she gets slightly different results to what the IPCC gets. This difference and disapears if the Forster estimate of uncertainty is changed from 1.4 to 1.51. This is less than a 10% increase.

So perhaps IPCC made a deliberate undocumented change to the Forster uncertainty of less than 10%. Or perhaps they made an accidental error. Or perhaps Nicholas made an error in analysis.

Originally Posted By: ROM

The following is only just one of a number of sources for this IPCC alteration to the one and only major empirical based "climate change" indicator in the AR4 WG1 report.


The IPCC lists nine papers that are based on empirical data to estimate climate sensitivity. The distinction of Forster et al is that the paper makes no use of climate model result at all. Other estimates make use of climate model results in some way or other, but are still primarily based on observational data. For instance Knutti et al (link) use a climate model to estimate changes in aerosol forcings over the last century, and to estimate heat content of the ocean in the 19th century. All other quantities required for the calculation of climate sensitivity are obtained by direct observation.

Top
#1031181 - 16/11/2011 11:41 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Bill Illis]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis

People should read Foster and Gregory 2006 and see if they can make the math work.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3611.1


Pinatubo happens, Solar radiation falls by 5 W/m2 and temperatures fall 0.5C. That gives 10 W/m2/K (not 2.3).

Pinatubo happens, Solar radiation falls by 5 W/m2, LW emitted falls by 2 W/m2, temperature falls 0.5C. That gives a net 6 W/m2/K (not 2.3).

Its just made-up math.


For Pinatubo net radiation falls by 4 w/m2. Temps fall by 0.5. That gives 4 w/m2/K. Thats not a long way from 2.3, and a linear regression over all values could easily produce a final answer of 2.3 when the change between two nearby points gives an answer of 4.

Top
#1031231 - 16/11/2011 13:56 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Mike Hauber]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Quote:
For Pinatubo net radiation falls by 4 w/m2. Temps fall by 0.5. That gives 4 w/m2/K.


Isn't that 8 w/m2/K? Or am I missing something?
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1031443 - 17/11/2011 10:23 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Arnost]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
I think that must have been a typo - net radiation falls by 2 w/m2.

Top
Page 59 of 115 < 1 2 ... 57 58 59 60 61 ... 114 115 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 45 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
MatthewBr, Raweth, Russellmill
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529247 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image