On Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:39:34 PM UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:32:16 PM UTC+1, Steve Jackson wrote:





Stephen, I hope my A level students will rationalise that warming in



Scandinavia might just be more than a localised event, mirrored



perhaps in the UK, so certainly of continental proportions, long



before fossil fuel burning became an issue.



===========



Well, I hope they're smart enough to notice a faulty syllogism that concludes the *certainty* of a continent-wide phenomenon based on flimsy premises of "might just be" and "mirrored perhaps". And "continental proportions" still ain't global.





Stephen.

I am bemused by people (not just Steve) using past variations in the climate to justify sceticism over global warming.

I would hope everyone on USW would accept:-
1. The earth has warmed over the last 100 years
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and mankind has been pumping it into the atmosphere.

The only real arguments should be over the relative importance of other factors influencing the Earths climate and positive/negative feedback mechanisms. As these are poorly understood then it seems commonsense that attempts should be made to minimise mankinds affect on the atmosphere.

Saying the Earth's been warmer/colder in the past is irrelevant, of course it has!

Graham
Penzance

On 19/10/2012 09:37, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:39:34 PM UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:32:16 PM UTC+1, Steve Jackson wrote:

Stephen, I hope my A level students will rationalise that warming in
Scandinavia might just be more than a localised event, mirrored
perhaps in the UK, so certainly of continental proportions, long
before fossil fuel burning became an issue.
===========

Well, I hope they're smart enough to notice a faulty syllogism that concludes the *certainty* of a continent-wide phenomenon based on flimsy premises of "might just be" and "mirrored perhaps". And "continental proportions" still ain't global.

Stephen.

I am bemused by people (not just Steve) using past variations in the climate to justify sceticism over global warming.

I would hope everyone on USW would accept:-
1. The earth has warmed over the last 100 years
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and mankind has been pumping it into the atmosphere.

The only real arguments should be over the relative importance of other factors influencing the Earths climate and positive/negative feedback mechanisms. As these are poorly understood then it seems commonsense that attempts should be made to minimise mankinds affect on the atmosphere.

Saying the Earth's been warmer/colder in the past is irrelevant, of course it has!

They are using a common fallacy that sets up the strawman that
everything is due to CO2, then show that some changes are natural and
then deny that any of it is due to CO2. Works for Daily Wail readers.

If you look back over the past 150 years where we have pretty good
records (even sceptics sponsored research like BEST which goes back
further) shows additional warming from GHG forcing after 1970's.

Roughly speaking the natural rise in global temperature due to solar
flux over 150 years and the rise in the 3 decades from 1970 to 2000 due
to GHG forcing appear to be about equal in magnitude. Although I happen
to thing that some of that latter rise was the upside of a periodic
luni-solar term of 58y (2x Inex) also seen to peak in 1940, 1880(weak)
and 1824.

We should be on the downside of a periodic term at the moment but global
temperature rise has merely slowed. If my hunch is right it will pick up
again with a vengeance about 2018.

It is known that the sun is a weak variable star with 0.1% TSI
variability over the solar cycle (more at some wavelengths) and from
astrophysics that on geological timescales it will get brighter.

From an experimentalists point of view it would be handy if the sun
would give us one solar cycle with 1% TSI variation so that we could
more accurately characterise the Earth's actual impulse response.

As it is we are stuck with the deniers chanting "it is only a theory" as
they do about evolution, big bang cosmology and relativity.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Alastair McDonald scrive:
It is the increase in water vapour, the other major
greenhouse gas, which is causing Global Weirding as was shown in the
eponymous programme shown tonight on BBC 4. It will be repeated on
saturday evening at 8 pm.

That was an interesting programme. However, in today's news, it states:

"The scientists said there was no evidence that the weather changes were
a result of Man-made climate change." in a BBC article about said weird
weather. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19995084 )

--
Gianna
Peterhead, Scotland

buchan-meteo.org.uk

On 19 Oct 2012 10:02:37 GMT
Buchan Meteo wrote:

Alastair McDonald scrive:
It is the increase in water vapour, the other major
greenhouse gas, which is causing Global Weirding as was shown in the
eponymous programme shown tonight on BBC 4. It will be repeated on
saturday evening at 8 pm.

That was an interesting programme. However, in today's news, it
states:

"The scientists said there was no evidence that the weather changes
were a result of Man-made climate change." in a BBC article about
said weird weather.
( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19995084 )


Of course there can't be any evidence that one year's weird weather in
one country is a result of AGW; you have to look at the frequency of
extreme weather events over a larger time period and area. However,
that doesn't mean that this year's "weird weather" wasn't caused or
made worse by AGW.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
What children say about marriage etc. -
Q. How would you make a marriage work?
A. "Tell your wife that she looks pretty, even if she looks like a
truck" - Ricky, age 10.

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
news:20121019114216.0c6b24f6@home-1...
On 19 Oct 2012 10:02:37 GMT
Buchan Meteo wrote:

Alastair McDonald scrive:
It is the increase in water vapour, the other major
greenhouse gas, which is causing Global Weirding as was shown in the
eponymous programme shown tonight on BBC 4. It will be repeated on
saturday evening at 8 pm.

That was an interesting programme. However, in today's news, it
states:

"The scientists said there was no evidence that the weather changes
were a result of Man-made climate change." in a BBC article about
said weird weather.
( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19995084 )


Of course there can't be any evidence that one year's weird weather in
one country is a result of AGW; you have to look at the frequency of
extreme weather events over a larger time period and area. However,
that doesn't mean that this year's "weird weather" wasn't caused or
made worse by AGW.


All the "weird" weather over the world has got "climate change" signature
written all over it as the atmosphere tries to adjust to a new equilibrium.
Where it will all end up is anyone's guess, but some good people are working
on possible regional ramifications.

As an aside, I clearly remember a conversation I had with a very senior
climate scientist at the MetO way back in 2003 when we first came to Exeter.
He was saying that in the period 2010-2015 the models at the time were
forecasting a dip in global temperatures and was betting on folk saying that
this would be the end of global warming as winters got harsher in Europe. He
was unsure why the models did that but thought it could be down to sea ice
melt. However, from 2020 onwards the same model runs gave a rapid increase
in global temperature. All that was based on certain emission scenarios and
the parameterisations at the time. Interesting nonetheless though!

I reckon us cold and extreme weather lovers have some exciting times on the
way in the near future :-)

Will
--

On Friday, 19 October 2012 10:10:54 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/10/2012 09:37, Graham Easterling wrote: On Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:39:34 PM UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote: On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:32:16 PM UTC+1, Steve Jackson wrote: Stephen, I hope my A level students will rationalise that warming in Scandinavia might just be more than a localised event, mirrored perhaps in the UK, so certainly of continental proportions, long before fossil fuel burning became an issue. =========== Well, I hope they're smart enough to notice a faulty syllogism that concludes the *certainty* of a continent-wide phenomenon based on flimsy premises of "might just be" and "mirrored perhaps". And "continental proportions" still ain't global. Stephen. I am bemused by people (not just Steve) using past variations in the climate to justify sceticism over global warming. I would hope everyone on USW would accept:- 1. The earth has warmed over the last 100 years 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and mankind has been pumping it into the atmosphere. The only real arguments should be over the relative importance of other factors influencing the Earths climate and positive/negative feedback mechanisms. As these are poorly understood then it seems commonsense that attempts should be made to minimise mankinds affect on the atmosphere.. Saying the Earth's been warmer/colder in the past is irrelevant, of course it has! They are using a common fallacy that sets up the strawman that everything is due to CO2, then show that some changes are natural and then deny that any of it is due to CO2. Works for Daily Wail readers. If you look back over the past 150 years where we have pretty good records (even sceptics sponsored research like BEST which goes back further) shows additional warming from GHG forcing after 1970's. Roughly speaking the natural rise in global temperature due to solar flux over 150 years and the rise in the 3 decades from 1970 to 2000 due to GHG forcing appear to be about equal in magnitude. Although I happen to thing that some of that latter rise was the upside of a periodic luni-solar term of 58y (2x Inex) also seen to peak in 1940, 1880(weak) and 1824. We should be on the downside of a periodic term at the moment but global temperature rise has merely slowed. If my hunch is right it will pick up again with a vengeance about 2018. It is known that the sun is a weak variable star with 0.1% TSI variability over the solar cycle (more at some wavelengths) and from astrophysics that on geological timescales it will get brighter. From an experimentalists point of view it would be handy if the sun would give us one solar cycle with 1% TSI variation so that we could more accurately characterise the Earth's actual impulse response. As it is we are stuck with the deniers chanting "it is only a theory" as they do about evolution, big bang cosmology and relativity. -- Regards, Martin Brown

Most of what you say is true but you reduce your credibility by mentioning "luni-solar" terms, which influence the frequency and periodicity of eclipses and can have no effect whatever on the earth's climate with or without AGW. In any case you do not say what these luni-solar terms represent or why they are supposed the affect the earth's climate.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 at 10:02:37, Buchan Meteo
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

Alastair McDonald scrive:
It is the increase in water vapour, the other major
greenhouse gas, which is causing Global Weirding as was shown in the
eponymous programme shown tonight on BBC 4. It will be repeated on
saturday evening at 8 pm.

That was an interesting programme.

I watched it too.

--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

On 19/10/2012 16:09, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Friday, 19 October 2012 10:10:54 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/10/2012 09:37, Graham Easterling wrote: On Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:39:34 PM UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote: On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:32:16 PM UTC+1, Steve Jackson wrote: Stephen, I hope my A level students will rationalise that warming in Scandinavia might just be more than a localised event, mirrored perhaps in the UK, so certainly of continental proportions, long before fossil fuel burning became an issue. =========== Well, I hope they're smart enough to notice a faulty syllogism that concludes the *certainty* of a continent-wide phenomenon based on flimsy premises of "might just be" and "mirrored perhaps". And "continental proportions" still ain't global. Stephen. I am bemused by people (not just Steve) using past variations in the climate to justify sceticism over global warming. I would hope everyone on USW would accept:- 1. The earth has warmed over the last 100 years 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and mankin
d has been pumping it into the atmosphere. The only real arguments should be over the relative importance of other factors influencing the Earths climate and positive/negative feedback mechanisms. As these are poorly understood then it seems commonsense that attempts should be made to minimise mankinds affect on the atmosphere. Saying the Earth's been warmer/colder in the past is irrelevant, of course it has! They are using a common fallacy that sets up the strawman that everything is due to CO2, then show that some changes are natural and then deny that any of it is due to CO2. Works for Daily Wail readers. If you look back over the past 150 years where we have pretty good records (even sceptics sponsored research like BEST which goes back further) shows additional warming from GHG forcing after 1970's. Roughly speaking the natural rise in global temperature due to solar flux over 150 years and the rise in the 3 decades from 1970 to 2000 due to GHG forcing appear to be about
equal in magnitude. Although I happen to thing that some of that latter rise was the upside of a periodic luni-solar term of 58y (2x Inex) also seen to peak in 1940, 1880(weak) and 1824. We should be on the downside of a periodic term at the moment but global temperature rise has merely slowed. If my hunch is right it will pick up again with a vengeance about 2018. It is known that the sun is a weak variable star with 0.1% TSI variability over the solar cycle (more at some wavelengths) and from astrophysics that on geological timescales it will get brighter. From an experimentalists point of view it would be handy if the sun would give us one solar cycle with 1% TSI variation so that we could more accurately characterise the Earth's actual impulse response. As it is we are stuck with the deniers chanting "it is only a theory" as they do about evolution, big bang cosmology and relativity. -- Regards, Martin Brown

Most of what you say is true but you reduce your credibility by mentioning "luni-solar" terms, which influence the frequency and periodicity of eclipses and can have no effect whatever on the earth's climate with or without AGW. In any case you do not say what these luni-solar terms represent or why they are supposed the affect the earth's climate.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Actually I think they do and I may yet be able to prove it. The Keeling
and Whorf analysis in the PNAS Keeling Tides papers (available online)
also agree with me although their analysis is itself flawed. There is a
58y peak in their power spectrum despite the way they did the analysis.

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8321.abstract
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.abstract

Full text is available from these links.

I am having some difficultly getting my paper published because I am not
a bone fide climate researcher so what I have may yet end up being first
published on WhatsUpWithThat (wouldn't that be ironic).

You are correct that the "Luni-solar" terms, influence the timing,
location and periodicity of eclipses - but they also influence and
fairly strongly at that the extent of maximum tidal range in spring
tides as the moon-sun-earth configuration drifts around. In particular
annular eclipses represent the strongest possible tidal action and there
is a complex relationship between the sun, moon and position over the
continents that affects how much net churn the oceans experience.

Thrashing the oceans about more bring cold water up and shifts heat out
of the atmosphere and conversely when the tides are slightly weaker
there is additional atmospheric warming. It doesn't take much as the
heat capacity of water is huge compared to air.

Present theories favour the nonlinear thermal modes as explanations of
the various multidecadal oscillations. I think these modes are being
excited by the tides. So did Keeling & Whorf.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Friday, October 19, 2012 9:37:01 AM UTC+1, Graham Easterling wrote:


I am bemused by people (not just Steve) using past variations in the climate to justify scepticism over global warming.



==============

Me too. As if the reason(s) for warming must always be the same, and that the fact that there has been warming (global or local) pre human emissions means that human emissions cannot be culpable for current warming.

Stephen.

On Thursday, 18 October 2012 16:58:05 UTC+1, Steve Jackson wrote:
Trembling at the thought of setting anthropogenic global warmers up against the ever growing band of sceptics, I offer you this article on historical warm periods from the past. It is worth a read, and I will offer it to my students without comment, just to maintain a balanced view as ever!



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/1...000-years-ago/



Steve J

Watts not balanced LOL and the 'we are all going to die from increased heat waves, hurricanes and polar bear death counts are?

Au contrai This time next year we we're all be sceptics, my son.