Global Warming not a fluke!

[Dancing David]

More fuel for the fire:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109115047.htm

With the help of the so called „Monte-Carlo-Simulation“ the coastal researchers Dr. Eduardo Zorita and Professor Hans von Storch at the GKSS-Research Centre together with Professor Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern estimated that it is extremely unlikely that the frequency of warm record years after 1990 could be an accident and concluded that it is rather influenced by a external driver.

The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 could have accured by accident after 1990 corresponds to a likelihood of no more than 1:10,000.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not really. This says nothing about why warming occured, or how much we can expect in the future.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not really. This says nothing about why warming occured, or how much we can expect in the future.

There is a commonly repeated claim of "It's in the bounds of natural variation". This test addresses that claim.

 

[Dancing David]

Not really. This says nothing about why warming occured, or how much we can expect in the future.

Hi Ziggy, I agree, however it is more about saying that it is not a statistical fluke of the past three decades. (Which is funny because a minority of people suggest that it is, despite lake bed evidence of 800 years and further.)

However the evidence that suggests AGW might be a real trend in there , as is the evidence that suggests it is partly from the emission of CO₂ from fossil fuels that is of some concern. My concern is the level of emissions associated with certain large industrial nations, and if everyone emitted at the levels that they do, we would see even more CO₂ in the atmoshere at an even higher rate.

I am not as worried about the temperature raise as I am drought.

But a couple really dirty volcanoes could really cool the planet off.

 

[macdoc]

So could China and India and actually may be now given the pollution plumes over the Pacific.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2879

In my view the two major risks are ocean acidification and methane release positive feedback.

From a consequences standpoint both drought and extreme rain events are already occurring.

I wonder if anyone has calculated China/India pollution release against a "dirty volcano" like Pinatubo where we can easily see the signal?


I just sent an email to Gavin at realclimate.org to see if we might get an answer.

Anyone care to tackle it??

 

[a_unique_person]

So could China and India and actually may be now given the pollution plumes over the Pacific.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2879

In my view the two major risks are ocean acidification and methane release positive feedback.

From a consequences standpoint both drought and extreme rain events are already occurring.

I wonder if anyone has calculated China/India pollution release against a "dirty volcano" like Pinatubo where we can easily see the signal?





I just sent an email to Gavin at realclimate.org to see if we might get an answer.

Anyone care to tackle it??

Australia is experiencing increased rainfall in the North West, (the part closest to Asia), which is attributed to particle pollution from Asia.

 

[macdoc]

Have a link for that??

It's a bit of a pet project.
I think the pollution plumes are keeping the Pacific cooler than even the PDO is providing and perhaps contributing to a second La Nina which is unusual.

Rainfall changes may be an interesting aspect of that.
That said additional North West rainfall ( reduced rainfall in the Southwest ) is an expected consequence of AGW

http://www.grdc.com.au/director/eve...B&article_id=B87D1637AE850AD5677320FA56D00F47

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/2007JCLI1908.1&ct=1

 

[kallsop]

Warming? That's so out. Try to keep up, the rest of the class can't wait:

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

 

[Ziggurat]

There is a commonly repeated claim of "It's in the bounds of natural variation". This test addresses that claim.

Actually, it does not. All it does is indicate that it cannot be modeled as a random variation, but that's not the same thing as a "natural variation". The climate is deterministic. It's chaotic, which makes it look somewhat random, but it isn't. We just don't know or understand all the parameters, so we use models that include randomization to try to replicate what we see. This study demonstrates that there's something going on that we can't model with just randomization. It says nothing about what that something is.

 

[varwoche]

Warming? That's so out. Try to keep up, the rest of the class can't wait:

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

A crevice-derived opinion piece from Pravda? Brilliant. (note to self: add to list)

The barrel apparently has no bottom so long as it supports your ideological agenda.

 

[mhaze]

Hi Ziggy, I agree, however it is more about saying that it is not a statistical fluke of the past three decades. (Which is funny because a minority of people suggest that it is, despite lake bed evidence of 800 years and further.).....

At least six peer reviewed articles show how the ground temperature records are deeply flawed. The errors seem oddly to be all in the direction of too much recent warming. Is that what you mean by "a statistical fluke"?

If the input data is wrong, the conclusions are wrong. The article presumes the ground temperature record is reliable, so it would appear that you misunderstand the nature of the skeptical complaint concerning the ground temperature records. These complaints are valid irrespective of the study, but the study is not valid irrespective of the complaints.

...However the evidence that suggests AGW might be a real trend in there , .....

You presented a study and then leaped to a conclusion based on a personal belief. The study doesn't support your conclusion or your belief. It is quite irrespective of causation.

Actually, it does not. All it does is indicate that it cannot be modeled as a random variation, but that's not the same thing as a "natural variation". The climate is deterministic. It's chaotic, which makes it look somewhat random, but it isn't. We just don't know or understand all the parameters, so we use models that include randomization to try to replicate what we see. This study demonstrates that there's something going on that we can't model with just randomization. It says nothing about what that something is.

I am surprised that this paper, using a Monto Carlo simulation, would be published. The inappropriateness of the method should have been obvious, given such well known things as the Hurst phenomena and autocorrelation in time series climate data.

Reminds one of Hansen 1988, where he used a standard deviation measure of the previous three decades compared to the last century to show a supposed "smoking gun" of AGW.

 

[macdoc]

This is the "science" forum....yeah just had to check ...why let's have some....

Worthwile summary from Nature

News Feature

Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 18 December 2008 | Corrected online: 6 January 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.142

What we've learned in 2008

Amanda Leigh Mascarelli looks at how far our understanding of climate change has come in the past twelve months.

continues ..an informative read
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0901/full/climate.2008.142.html

 

[mhaze]

Warming? That's so out. Try to keep up, the rest of the class can't wait:

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

The safe bet's the Climate Change racket , it's a double ended money machine.

 

[bobrayner]

Warming? That's so out. Try to keep up, the rest of the class can't wait:

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

Do you really take that seriously?

The same source gave us this:
Is Hussein Owner of Crashed UFO?
“... Saddam gave the aliens sanctuary, so that they couldn’t be captured by Americans. Nobody can reach the citadel Qalaat-e-Julundi at night. They say that the aliens created “watchdogs” for Saddam. The aliens took ordinary desert scorpions and used their bio-engineering to grow the scorpions to giant size. Scorpions of a cow-size! ..."

 

[a_unique_person]

Saddam had a UFO? How come CNN didn't have that story. Huh?

 

[Slimething]

Actually, it does not. All it does is indicate that it cannot be modeled as a random variation, but that's not the same thing as a "natural variation". The climate is deterministic. It's chaotic, which makes it look somewhat random, but it isn't. We just don't know or understand all the parameters, so we use models that include randomization to try to replicate what we see. This study demonstrates that there's something going on that we can't model with just randomization. It says nothing about what that something is.

I can't put it any better than that, Ziggurat. I work with Monte-Carlo models and sometimes they spit out the wildest approximations. One of them is a risk program that occassionally says that a scenario with reduced toxicant is riskier than the alternative. These models are thumbnails, at best, so we accept their results with many grains of salt.

 

[CapelDodger]

Actually, it does not. All it does is indicate that it cannot be modeled as a random variation, but that's not the same thing as a "natural variation". The climate is deterministic. It's chaotic, which makes it look somewhat random, but it isn't. We just don't know or understand all the parameters, so we use models that include randomization to try to replicate what we see. This study demonstrates that there's something going on that we can't model with just randomization. It says nothing about what that something is.

We do have a perfectly good candidate, though.

I'm not persuaded that climate is chaotic. Weather is (all those fluids), perhaps the Sun is (fluids again), perhaps vulcanism is (again with the fluids). Milankovich cycles are not chaotic (whatever kallsop may be capable of believing). Industrial activity somewhat chaotic. But climate is a great lumbering beast that rides right over the chaos.

 

[DogB]

We do have a perfectly good candidate, though.

I'm not persuaded that climate is chaotic. Weather is (all those fluids), perhaps the Sun is (fluids again), perhaps vulcanism is (again with the fluids). Milankovich cycles are not chaotic (whatever kallsop may be capable of believing). Industrial activity somewhat chaotic. But climate is a great lumbering beast that rides right over the chaos.

Surely if you suspect the sun's behaviour is chaotic and vulcanism is also, then you must suspect the same of climate?

 

[CapelDodger]

Surely if you suspect the sun's behaviour is chaotic and vulcanism is also, then you must suspect the same of climate?

No, because climate has a great deal more inertia. It is determined by the average behaviour of the Sun, the mantle, oceans, atmosphere, and so on. Those averages vary slowly.

For that reason I don't regard glaciations and inter-glacials as distinct climates, they are different phases of a glaciated climate, which is determined by the current arrangement of continents. Nor do I regard (for instance) the Little Ice Age as a different climate from today's because it was well within the normal variation of an interglacial phase.

 

[arthwollipot]

Australia is experiencing increased rainfall in the North West, (the part closest to Asia), which is attributed to particle pollution from Asia.

Really? I haven't seen any indication of this. The tropical north always gets a fair bit of rain because it's in the monsoon zone, even when the southeast is parching in the longest drought on record. I've not seen anything to suggest that rainfall is increasing anywhere. But then again, I haven't looked...