• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by BenBurch
It does, but in a very predictable way. The sun is coolest at sunspot minimum, and hottest at sunspot maximum. You can see this in the temperature record. However, this minimum does not seem to be reflected there.
Wangler
I am fairly certain that various AGW proponents in this forum have argued repeatedly that the 11-year solar cycle has no bearing on the temperature record, at all
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...

You are likely misreading posts then.
It's a CYCLE - it has no bearing on global warming over time as it's a cycle that does not vary greatly.
At any given point in time it can magnify or diminish other forcings. That's WHY it was noted...it at the bottom of a cycle and yet global temperatures are at record levels.

If the positive temperature happened to peak along with a strong El Nino and tossing in our contribution then it could spell some nasty consequences for tropical reefs in particular.

Fortune has smiled in this case and ENSO is trending to a La Nina and along with the lack of solar cycle magnification the peaks may not be severe this year....tho the numbers are staggering given the lack of ENSO or solar magnification. :boggled:

CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER/NCEP
3 June 2010

ENSO Alert System Status: La Niña Watch / Final El Niño Advisory



Spanish Version


Synopsis: Conditions are favorable for a transition to La Niña conditions during June – August 2010.

El Niño dissipated during May 2010 as positive surface temperature (SST) anomalies decreased rapidly across the equatorial Pacific Ocean and negative SST anomalies emerged across the eastern half of the Pacific (Fig. 1). All of the Niño indices decreased between 0.5oC to 1.0oC during the month (Fig. 2). Since the end of February, subsurface heat content anomalies (average temperatures in the upper 300m of the ocean, Fig. 3) have decreased steadily. Below-average temperatures have strengthened at depth and currently extend to the surface in parts of the eastern Pacific (Fig. 4). Also during May, enhanced convection persisted over Indonesia, while the area of suppressed convection strengthened and expanded over the tropical central Pacific (Fig. 5). The low-level easterly trade winds strengthened over the western and central equatorial Pacific, and anomalous upper-level westerly winds prevailed over the east-central Pacific. Collectively, these oceanic and atmospheric anomalies reflect the demise of El Niño and return of ENSO-neutral conditions.

The majority of models predict ENSO-neutral conditions (between -0.5oC to +0.5oC in the Niño-3.4 region) through early 2011 (Fig. 6). However, over the last several months, a growing number of models, including the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFS), indicate the onset of La Niña conditions during June-August 2010.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html
Click to expand...

There is thought in some circles that more frequent La Nina might be a brake on AGW - we can hope. :garfield:
 
macdoc said:
There is thought in some circles that more frequent La Nina might be a brake on AGW - we can hope. :garfield:
Click to expand...

But, la Nina is only a regional energy distribution fluctuation, what is the postulated global mechanism to mask or ameliorate the effects of increasing CO2 and decreasing natural carbon sink capacity which are the hallmarks of anthropogenicity with regards to the current climate change effects?
 
Wangler said:
I am fairly certain that various AGW proponents in this forum have argued repeatedly that the 11-year solar cycle has no bearing on the temperature record, at all.
Click to expand...

I doubt that.

What you more likely heard was that the influence is very slight, and easily lost in the background. People have been looking for a climate signal from the solar cycle since it was discovered, with no great success and many failures.
 
bit_pattern said:
That's the perennial question, isn't it? Joe Romm has a post over at CP on this very subject regarding a Newsweek piece. I certainly don't have an answer, except to say that we should stop beating around the bush and fight fire with fire, we need to stop using such measured and calculated language that befits a scientist and start seizing the issue by the throat. I know that scientists risk their scientific reputations by abusing the facts to create an on-point message, but really we need to adopt the same tactics used by the deniers if we're to have a hope of winning the PR war. We understand science better than they do, but they understand PR better than we do. We need to get ruthless imo.
Click to expand...

Climate scientists could get a lot of hints on how to fight the PR battle by talking with their colleagues in the biology community who seem to have developed a decent response to the latest attacks on evolution. I suggest they start there.

In addition, there are other resources we can all get out there. One of my favorite is a free app for the iPhone or iPod Touch called Skeptical Science. Check it out...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptical-science-iphone-app.html
 
Originally Posted by macdoc
There is thought in some circles that more frequent La Nina might be a brake on AGW - we can hope.
B
ut, la Nina is only a regional energy distribution fluctuation, what is the postulated global mechanism to mask or ameliorate the effects of increasing CO2 and decreasing natural carbon sink capacity which are the hallmarks of anthropogenicity with regards to the current climate change
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

While indeed it does not alter the energy budget it does slow the pace of change down by burying atmospheric heat in deep ocean.
LaNina is called a global air conditioner with good reason.

The mass of the ocean and cryosphere are so great compared to the atmosphere that both save our sorry asses from frying or freezing.
 
BenBurch said:
Arctic Sea Ice extent (not volume) now about 4 std deviations below the 1978-2000 average.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but I heard a report last winter on the CBC radio program Quirks and Quarks that the southern 100 kilometres of ice pack has turned to slush. It looks like ice on the satellite images, but an icebreaker can go through it as if it wasn't there.
 
BenBurch said:
Arctic Sea Ice extent (not volume) now about 4 std deviations below the 1978-2000 average.
Click to expand...

Dunno if you've seen this yet or not:

This week, the “Oslo Science conference” the largest conference ever -it was claimed – was held on polar sciences at Lillestrøm, just outside Oslo. Some of the web-casts from that meeting are worth watching, and I found especially the talk by David Barber (“On Thin Ice: The Arctic and Climate Change”, video link here) both a bit alarming as well as fascinating.

On another note, it is always amusing (in a depressing sort of way) to see sea ice extent plunge like this, namely because an influential tabloid columnist in Australia trumpets winter sea ice whenever it nears the mean again as proof positive that AGW is all teh lies, but is strangely silent come spring/summer and we see results like this. Read about the humorous fail here, it's good for a brief chuckle.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/05/24/the-bolt-effect-happening-before-your-eyes/

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/09/18/arctic-sea-ice-update/comment-page-1/

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepois...a-ice-update-still-happening-before-our-eyes/
 
macdoc said:
While indeed it does not alter the energy budget it does slow the pace of change down by burying atmospheric heat in deep ocean.
LaNina is called a global air conditioner with good reason.

The mass of the ocean and cryosphere are so great compared to the atmosphere that both save our sorry asses from frying or freezing.
Click to expand...

Got reference? My understanding was that it was simply a fluctuation in place of heat release not time of heat release. In a simplified explanation of my understandings, during el Nino the heat comes out in the eastern Pacific rather than the western Pacific, and during la Nina the heat release is in the western Pacific rather than the eastern Pacific. NatGeo had a pretty good explanation up a few years ago that I believe goes along with my understanding, but it is entirely possible that I have misunderstood the sources I've read. I would be interested in reading any good explanations of what you suggest!
 
MattusMaximus said:
Climate scientists could get a lot of hints on how to fight the PR battle by talking with their colleagues in the biology community who seem to have developed a decent response to the latest attacks on evolution. I suggest they start there.

In addition, there are other resources we can all get out there. One of my favorite is a free app for the iPhone or iPod Touch called Skeptical Science. Check it out...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptical-science-iphone-app.html
Click to expand...

Some heads are getting together to tackle this issue in Aus atm

Scientists to tackle scepticism
TOM ARUP
June 15, 2010

REPRESENTATIVES of scientific organisations including the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology will meet today to discuss better communication of the science behind man-made climate change, in the wake of crumbling political and public consensus on global warming.
Click to expand...
 
bit_pattern said:
Some heads are getting together to tackle this issue in Aus atm
Click to expand...

Good, it's about damn time the climate science community clues in and starts to fight back in the PR war. Scientists in general should be taking notes, in my opinion.
 
Trouble I have with the media coverage of those who doubt AGW is that they keep being called Skeptics. They are not. There is a huge gulf between skepticism of unproven claims at odds with scientific understanding and rejecting scientific understanding because it is politically incorrect.
 
BenBurch said:
Trouble I have with the media coverage of those who doubt AGW is that they keep being called Skeptics. They are not. There is a huge gulf between skepticism of unproven claims at odds with scientific understanding and rejecting scientific understanding because it is politically incorrect.
Click to expand...

That is a problem, but I don't agree that scientists should engage in the political PR rhetoric. Stick to the facts and when called to it, adjudge the political options presented ("this is in accord with scientific understandings and observations, that is not"). But, if anything, science needs to be further removed from politics rather than more closely wedded to politics. Part of the problem now, is that one party has adopted part of the science, in order to shape and push a larger governance agenda, and the other party has countered by rejecting science in order to attack their rival's agenda. This problem isn't going to be resolved by making science more political and removing the conditional phrasing which actually makes scientific statements more accurate. I wouldn't be opposed Dr Chu taking on a more public stance and advocacy role, nor to the heads of the various national and international scientific organizations, at least as far as properly quantifying and qualifying the changes, causes of change, and the risks and dangers associated with those changes. I just think that we have to be careful about politicizing and polarizing the issue any further, and see this as a big part of the problem now.
 
La Nina....

It's not a balanced system within the same period.....it's an opposing system to El Nino so it's not moved in space but rather in time..

For instance a couple years back there was back to back to La Nina's

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/la-nina-story.html

Bottom line tho it does not impact the global energy budget in any significant way but sure as hell impacts the weather in various regions.

Do recall the atmosphere is transient compared to the ocean and in a strong El Nino a lot of heat is released into the atmosphere..

The End of an El Nino and the Start of La Niña

An El Niño can last from 12 to 18 months and in some years the end of an El Niño can lead into a La Niña, which is the opposite of an El Niño. It is cooler than average sea surface temperature of the Pacific Ocean along the equator. La Niña also affects the weather in the Unites States and globally.
Click to expand...

this is from this article which is pretty decent short explanation
http://factoidz.com/all-about-el-nio/
 
macdoc said:
from the same article

snip

If you want to discuss the article then put it in the Climate Science thread which is moderated..instead of > :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There's nothing to discuss. Of the 7 or 8 articles that all appear on the same page when you go to Science Daily, this is the one you over looked. Pointing this out should suffice.
 
Preaching to the choir:

Increased Knowledge About Global Warming Leads To Apathy, Study Shows

The more you know the less you care -- at least that seems to be the case with global warming. A telephone survey of 1,093 Americans by two Texas A&M University political scientists and a former colleague indicates that trend, as explained in their recent article in the peer-reviewed journal Risk Analysis.
Click to expand...

We can only hypothesize why this is. Perhaps the constant stream of contradictory information? :rolleyes:
 
A revisit on my earlier observation in another thread:

WHY HASN'T EARTH WARMED AS MUCH AS EXPECTED?

The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that
expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate
sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (snip) Current uncertainty in climate sensitivity is shown to preclude determining the amount of future fossil fuel CO2 emissions that would be compatible with any chosen maximum allowable increase in GMST; even the sign of such allowable future emissions is unconstrained. Resolving this situation by empirical determination of Earth’s climate sensitivity from the historical record over the industrial period or through use of climate models whose accuracy is evaluated by their performance over this period is shown to require substantial reduction in the uncertainty of aerosol forcing over this period.
Click to expand...

Article here.

Sounds interesting. Why indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom