Climate Change - the big debate

[Jasandjules]

odyssey2200 said:

Any weather that happens anywhee will always be atributed to C02 by some idiot.

That's the thing, it really gets on my nerves when we are told it will be hotter and colder, with more floods and more droughts etc.. I await the day when they include cloudy, sunny, light rain, heavy rain, a bit of drizzle, some hail etc.. as being caused by Global Warming.

After all, there must be some weather they have forgotten to blame on AGW....

Of course, we did have earthquakes in the UK as blamed on AGW until someone with a brain stepped in

[MOTORVATOR]

So what is this all about then?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-new...

http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip

If true we could see some fireworks over the coming days

[deeps]

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,[e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [e-mail],[e-mail]



Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

[mybrainhurts]

Blimey...

If this is genuine, there'll be much messing in pants right now...

Which would be nice...

[deeps]

Just a bit more from the comments on that link....

> The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment
> and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the
> August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
> warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
>
> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are
> tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO.
> Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It
> surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to
> El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time
> since Sept 2007. see
> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_...
>
> Kevin
>
> Michael Mann wrote:
>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its
>> particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC
>> (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly
>> a weather person at the Met Office.
>>
>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might
>> be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might
>> ask Richard Black what’s up here?
>>

• ********************************

From: Ben Santer
To: P.Jones
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700

Dear Phil,

I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

• ********************************

Oh dear. There was not a bigger leak since Britons and Polish cracked Enigma and Americans did the same with the Japanese Purple code.


LOL, I hold any judgement, but it does all look rather interesting.

[kerplunk]

oh dear lots of fodder for fevered imaginations to go at there then. I predict lots of running a mile based on lots of very fine reading between the lines.

Might as well join in - I reckon the "Re: Diagram for WMO Statement" email possibly refers to....

[deleted - not happy with what I wrote and it's time for bed!]

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 20th November 02:01

[MOTORVATOR]

kerplunk said:

oh dear lots of fodder for fevered imaginations to go at there then. I predict lots of running a mile based on lots of very fine reading between the lines.

Might as well join in - I reckon the "Re: Diagram for WMO Statement" email possibly refers to....

[deleted - not happy with what I wrote and it's time for bed!]

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 20th November 02:01

Bugger didn't quite quote you in time, and I was just about to agree with you and say there is probably a simple explanation for all the statements made in there

[kerplunk]

MOTORVATOR said:

kerplunk said:

oh dear lots of fodder for fevered imaginations to go at there then. I predict lots of running a mile based on lots of very fine reading between the lines.

Might as well join in - I reckon the "Re: Diagram for WMO Statement" email possibly refers to....

[deleted - not happy with what I wrote and it's time for bed!]

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 20th November 02:01

Bugger didn't quite quote you in time, and I was just about to agree with you and say there is probably a simple explanation for all the statements made in there

Sorry about that, I think I pointed to the wrong report year pdf (and wrong graphs).

I think this is more likely the right one:

www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wmo913.pd...

and the 'diagram' might well be the graph on the first page (oh noo - not hockey sticks again!)

to bed! -->

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 20th November 02:31

[ludo]

mybrainhurts said:

if you are picking your nose so much your brain hurts, I'd stop if I were you!

[ludo]

Ali G said:

turbobloke said:

Water has an atmosphere residency time of ~9 days cf carbon dioxide 4 to 5 years.

Higher up, longer.

Human activity doesn't affect global atmospheric levels significantly, which vary up to about 4% cf carbon dioxide 0.038% though there are local effects.

Any positive feedback from water vapour is offset and overall negative feedback is noted.

But the good thing is - we're releasing a tiny of water, compared with what is in the oceans already! If only it could land in the right areas..

EFA

[ludo]

Guam said:

Well I for one would apply the same cautionary note about Blogs and sources I got seriously attacked for on the other thread.


Whilst these may be Genuine, they are from hackers via a blog, they may have been carefully edited and or indeed may have even been created by the hackers and placed within genuine files.

I for one will wait until some skeptic in the us uses the FOIA to get the originals using this as a base, we need some corroboration first imho.

I bet I dont get attacked by TB or others on the sceptical side for that opinion

nor from me, because this time there is no science reported in the blog article and no peer-reviewed papers referenced (or indeed anything else) that would allow the claims to be verified, so it is a complete;y different situation

[ludo]

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

Well I for one would apply the same cautionary note about Blogs and sources I got seriously attacked for on the other thread.


Whilst these may be Genuine, they are from hackers via a blog, they may have been carefully edited and or indeed may have even been created by the hackers and placed within genuine files.

I for one will wait until some skeptic in the us uses the FOIA to get the originals using this as a base, we need some corroboration first imho.

I bet I dont get attacked by TB or others on the sceptical side for that opinion

nor from me, because this time there is no science reported in the blog article and no peer-reviewed papers referenced (or indeed anything else) that would allow the claims to be verified, so it is a complete;y different situation

Wow almost an agreement from Ludo

Come on Ludo you know my view on healthy suspicion of Media for potential biase is a wholly rational and decent academic (let alone common sense) stance.

I wouldnt be a true Skeptic if I wasnt skeptical of this now would I ?

If you were a true skeptic you would follow the references in a blog article to find out of the argument it presented was an accurate representation of the science, rather than just point out that it was a blog and put a " " at the end, so you could later claim that it was in jest

There are good reasons not to believe the content of this blog article, but they have nothing to do with the source being a blog.

I think I need another sentence with a " " at the end at this point

[The Excession]

MOTORVATOR said:

http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip

That file seems to have gone, anybody maange to grab a copy?

[turbobloke]

The Excession said:

MOTORVATOR said:

http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip

That file seems to have gone, anybody maange to grab a copy?

I posted some links on the dedicated thread.

[MOTORVATOR]

I might know someone who has a copy

[turbobloke]

MOTORVATOR said:

I might know someone who has a copy

Apart from being all over the net and with links in virtually every climate science interested party's inbox this morning, there are URls in the dedicated thread. As below. HTH

[dickymint]

turbobloke said:

MOTORVATOR said:

I might know someone who has a copy

Apart from being all over the net and with links in virtually every climate science interested party's inbox this morning, there are URls in the dedicated thread. As below. HTH

Come on Turbo own up. It was you that hacked in - to get the data for your rainfall plot back

Did you use your fake Boy Scout id. to get in?

[dickymint]

Just found this video - probably allready posted in here somewhere. Well worth viewing it all if, like me, you can't quite get to grips with the complicated stuff.


http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/11/g...

[s2art]

ludo said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

s2art said:

2) Yes, but the point is that with weakened sinks the balance point is higher.

But that is rather academic as we are well above the balance point already and heading further away from it, as has been pointed out several times. The problem with only considering one variable at a time is that it doesn't give the full picture, so while we agree about what the simple model shows, it still isn't representative if the real world carbon cycle.

Wrong again Ludo. Its a dynamic balance, and if sinks are weakening continuously then the balance point is being pushed upwards continuously. Because the balance point is rising the additional CO2 from sources will not be sunk as well as it would have been.

You are missing the point, CO2 levels are already above the balance point, hence we are heading away from the equilibrium, not towards it. The fact that CO2 levels are accelerating upward rather than decelerating is a bit of a giveaway.

s2art said:

Your misunderstanding is to do with trying to view this as a static process.

no s2art, nowhere have I ever said anything about it being a static process. I know turbobloke said that and that it was the "wrong paradigm", but that doesn't make it true. I am talking about a dynamical process, why do you think I keep talking about the transient response?

s2art said:

The model is good enough to show that, it is a pretty good approximation to what is going on.

Yes, it does show that if the sink weakens then the level will rise until the added pressure means that the water will flow out of the drain fast enough for there to be a new balance. I have already explicitly agreed to that.

The fact that I have already agreed to that6 should have given you the clue that my objection to the model lies elsewhere.

The model is not representative of what is happening in the real world where the sink is taking in more and more CO2 as time passes, but not enough to keep up with the increase in emissions. While that happens, there will be no new equilibrium.

1) Wrong again. You have no idea where the equilibrium lies. The balance point is moving upwards due to increased output and weakening sinks. The rapid weakening of the N Atlantic sink coupled to increased emissions is adequate to explain any acceleration in the rise of CO2. So, not a giveaway, more of a non-sequitur, or at best an unjustified assertion.

no s2art, I have given justification several times why we are above the equilibrium level. Dynamical systems generally decelerate towards their equilibrium points, and there has not been a sufficiently large change in the climate or oceans to suggest that the equilibrium point should be greatly higher (unless you are arguing that CO2 levels have a greater effect on the climate that I am!).

s2art said:

2)Because you keep making assertions consistent with not understanding the process.

or alternatively you don't understand enough about the process to know why your model is inadequate. Your reply to 1) above demonstrates this to be the case. Of course the acceleration is explained by rising emissions and weakening sinks, however that doesn't mean that we are heading towards a new equilibrium.

The fact that it is accelerating is suggestive of divergence from equilibrium. Most reasonably stable dynamical systems decelerate towards their equilibrium point. Can you give me an example of a dynamical system that doesn't?

s2art said:

3) The model is perfectly consistent with the scenario. Dynamically weakening sinks coupled to increasing output is exactly what we are seeing.

you have steadfastly refused to look at a model with increasing output, your reply just highlights the problem with your own model.

1)Wrong. the 'smoking gun' is the very rapid decline of the N.A sink and the increased output of emissions.

Increased emissions are anthropogenic, they are not part of the dynamical system, they are an external perturbation to the dynamical system. The behaviour of the dynamical system is dominated by the transient response to this forcing. That doesn't mean that the equilibrium value has changed at all (that would be like arguing that your ride height changes as a response to going over a bump - if you scoff at that example it just demonstrates you know less about dynamical systems than you think you do.)

s2art said:

2)Wrong. See 1 regarding the rapid change to the sink. This is adequate to explain any acceleration.

Again you are missing the point. It is not a matter of explaining the acceleration, it is obvious what is causing the acceleration. The point is that the fact that the level is accelerating upwards is an indicator that it is diverging from its equilibrium, not converging towards one.

s2art said:

You keep avoiding the other processes which can cause this, an example of a static view.

s2art, I was not discussing the cause of the rise, I was pointing out that the system is diverging away from the equilibrium, not heading towards one.

Now if you think I have a static view, then I challenge you to explain why I keep pointing out that the system is currently dominated by the transient response (you might want to look up what that means first).

1) Not even wrong! Adding CO2 from any source 'perturbs' the equilibrium, it could just as easily be increased volcanism, the system doesnt know the difference. Adding CO2, even the trivial amount from anthropogenic sources, will nudge up the atmospheric CO2 level. The rest of that response from you is merely emphasising your complete lack of understanding. What on Earth are you on about?

2)Again, not even wrong. What are you smoking? Its not a case of explaining the acceleration? And then you go on to give a wrong explanation. Truly silly.
An accelerating atmospheric CO2 level can be explained by several possibilities. Rapidly weakening sinks coupled to increased emissions is the most blindingly obvious one. This is not, in itself, evidence of increasing divergence.

3)Get your head around the above, and we can debate your latter point. The system is dominated by sinks, sources and the sun.

[posterboy]

The Excession said:

MOTORVATOR said:

http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip

That file seems to have gone, anybody maange to grab a copy?

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94


http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009