"Interesting to hear Rog thinks the pro warming side is driven by economics.

From the outsiders view, the pro-keepdoingwhateverthefcukwewanttomaximizeourprofitsatallcosts side has the most arguments that are driven by the desire to preserve maximum profits."

Hi Cameron,
There are various levels in the debate. At the scientific level, the scientists marshal scientific arguments. The IPCC annual Jamboree at a (usually) warm location stopped debating science years ago. They promote the shaky science of co2 induced global warming as a given, and concentrate on economic questions.

Personally, I think getting the science right is the important precursor to making correct decision concerning economic policy. Pretending that the scientific issue is settled is not good enough when $billions of taxpayer money is at stake.

You said:
"People who consider the oceans to be the primary thing driving all other consequences of global warming seem to have won."

Well, not yet. But the reason I have been studying the correlation between solar variation and changes in ocean heat content is because all the energy in the Earth's climate system ultimately comes from the sun. The question of how much near surface air temperature is lifted by additional co2, while interesting, is in my opinion a bit of a sideshow, because the air is in general cooler than the ocean, and the second law of thermodynamics says that in general cooler things don't heat hotter things.

The enhanced greenhouse effect doesn't work by directly heating the ocean, but by raising the altitude at which the radiation of heat to space takes place at. The increase in co2, if it hasn't already been offset by the Earth's tendency to homeostasis, will theoretically have increased that altitude by a couple of hundred meters. However,one of the effects of the sun going into quiet mode since 2003 is that the thermosphere (a region of tenuous gas high above the stratosphere) has shrunk by 30%. No-one seems to know how much the height of the top of the troposphere might have been affected by this, but it looks like more heat is being radiated to space than was the case during the dizzy heights of global warming back in 1998.

This means the Earth's energy balance has gone into negative territory. The oceans, which have a big thermal capacity (the top two metres contain as much energy as the entire atmosphere) will cushion the air temperature values for a long time, and hopefully the sun will wake up and shake a leg before they have to give up too much of their heat. Could take 20-30 years before that happens though, if my calcs are on the mark.

During that time, winters could get pretty cold and a few weeks longer in the temperate regions of the northern hemisphere. Nothing to panic about, but some forethought about the effect of frost on late ripening crops and their planting times and ice on wind turbine blades is advisable.

A fascinating insight into what causes clouds to form, and how variation in levels of cosmic rays entering Earth's atmosphere might affect the Earth's albedo (reflectivity).

The question of long term changes in cloud cover is the elephant in the room for climate science. A change of a few percent in overall cloud cover, or even just a small change in the size of droplets forming clouds, could have a bigger effect on surface temperature than the changes in greenhouse gases and particulate aerosols have had in the last 50 years.

Jasper Kirkby is a true scientist, and as a particle physicist with a decade long interest in researching this little examined aspect of cloud formation, gives cutting edge knowledge in an easy to understand manner.

An hour well spent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I

"From the outsiders view, the pro-keepdoingwhateverthefcukwewanttomaximizeourprofitsatallcosts side has the most arguments that are driven by the desire to preserve maximum profits."

How can you be so cynical!? They are engaged in an altruistic effort to create jobs for the unenployed masses. ;)

"Nothing to panic about, but some forethought about the effect of frost on late ripening crops and their planting times"

Not to mention a few degrees cooler during growing season means some crops will not ripen at all, or will produce sub optimal yields.

And,yeah, it would be a gas if the temperature remained the same until 2020 and we had to declare a tie. After all these endless pages of back and forth, it would be a terrible letdown for us battled hardened flame warriors.

thanks for the Kirby link - makes me think there is a bit of hope


Rows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air

whoaaaa, is it ever hot and humid today. makes you pause and think a moment before hopping in your car and putting the AC on max.

Whether it is man caused or not, or a combination, or merely part of a very long cycle or pattern, IT IS HOT!

It was so hot...

All the corn on the stalks started popping and flying through the air. The cows thought it was snowing. And they froze to death.

It's so hot that I saw two trees fighting over a dog.

the fish aren't biting.

"It's so hot that I saw two trees fighting over a dog."

LOL.

True story: One of my cousins back in early 70s would drive around with his car windows up in summer because he wanted people who saw him to think he had AC in his car.


P.S.

Tom, I'm going to have to post another debate drawing. Will do sometime tomorrow. Wanted to hit the trail for a night or two, but Sunday is my anniversary. I've encountered adverse conditions while backpacking but never anything that would be as fierce a storm as not dedicating this weekend (all three days) to my beloved sweet potato. Love is a many splendored thing : )

"but never anything that would be as fierce a storm as not dedicating this weekend (all three days) to my beloved sweet potato"

Once on a high and windy hill....

Ah, yes, love is a many splendored thing.

I highly recommend The Four Aces rendition. It's on youtube, and I'm sure if you play it for your beloved sweet potato, the forecast for this weekend will be sunny and warm, with nary a cloud in sight. ;)

Happy Anniversary, George, and many more to come.

P.S. I'll look forward to the debate drawing, as usual.

All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Lol!
Great cartoon George.

With a grain of truth too. I'll explain...

We can see from the NCEP reanalysis of the radiosonde (weather balloon) data that the only really important (see below) greenhouse gas levels, those of water vapour, rise and fall in the upper atmosphere in line with what the Sun is up to:



So with solar activity being low, it's got pretty cold up there at the top of the atmosphere, because there's less water vapour to trap heat.

But because the opacity of the atmosphere doesn't change much in the long term, that means there is more water vapour at lower altitudes, which keeps the near surface temperatures higher. This non-trend in atmospheric optical depth was discovered by Ferenc Miskolzci, a very clever Hungarian physicist, who has also worked out why this is. Basically, the greenhouse effect is real, but it is in a saturated balance. Warming the planet up just causes more rain, and snow.



So, should we worry that we might cause another ice age by warming the planet up with co2, causing lots of snow which reflects sunlight and cools the planet down? The answer is that until the Earth's orbital parameters change in a way which facilitates the onset of an ice age, it won't happen, because the snow will melt in summer, and a cooling ocean would re-absorb the co2 anyway.

How long until the orbital/orientation cycles (Milankovitch Cycles) go that way?

About 3000-5000 years is my guess.

You and Sweet Potato can rest easy this weekend. Have a lovely time.

Edited by tallbloke on 05/29/2011 09:49:23 MDT.

Fascinating. Humans don't want to chose a climate answer that goes beyond a decade or maybe a few. I believe this is why the funding corrupts research. The money wants results now. So the researcher plays the game: satisfies the money's hunger for immediate action (i.e., just do something, hurry, even if it may not be proven, hurry, press releases, big meetings, show we're worthy of the money). Then the researcher gets to keep that fun job.

Agree - will be funny if there is no change regarding the wager. And also that that is a victory for the non-screamers, though on a short term view, because no one knows what changes lurk ahead. One thing for sure: humans do consistently get surprised.

Looking very dapper there in the new profile pic George.

My friend Stephen Wilde (fellow of royal meteorological society) sums it up well speaking about an old prediction:
Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold

"That was the way real climate science was going at the time but a group of well funded state supported astrophysicists (and other miscellaneous non climate scientists) mostly involved in the space race via an overfunded NASA decided that there was a new ice age on the way and thus impliedly did not accept that there would be a late 20th century warming spell.

They hijacked climate science, ignored all that had gone before and went on about the imminent ice age that human aerosols were to cause.

Then, when the older guys turned out right and the late 20th century warming began those very same non climate scientist types wouldn’t admit any error, continued to sideline real climate science and flip flopped to human induced global warming from CO2 emissions.

Then the older guys turned out right again as that warming trend stalled from around 2ooo so again the charlatans refused to acknowledge error and turned their attention to political influence, misinformation and social pressure to cover up their failures for as long as possible. Or at least until their pensions were secured.

That will be the epitaph for climate science in the late 20th century."

Aside from that little piece of historical interpretation, we have this factual stuff, straight from the Australian Met:


Coldest autumn in Australia since at least 1950:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20110601.shtml

"Autumn 2011 will go down in the record books as Australia's coolest autumn since at least 19501, figures released from the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre show today.

Nation-wide, autumn 2011 beats the previous record low set in 1960 (-0.95°C), with temperatures -1.15°C below the 1961-1990 average. The abnormally cool temperatures are largely the result of the strong 2010/11 La Niña event which brought heavy rainfall and cool daytime temperatures to Australia, before decaying in late autumn. Of the five coolest autumns nation-wide since 1950, four have occurred during or following La Niña events"

Of course, when the weather is cold, it's a transient event such as La Niña which is to blame. But when the weather is hot, it's caused by Manmade! Global! Warming!

Stump up your carbon tax aussies, the new PM is after your wallet.

Edited by tallbloke on 06/01/2011 04:12:47 MDT.

Australia leads world in coal exports. I can see why the the carbon tax issue will get very hot.

Edited by gmatthews on 06/01/2011 11:10:58 MDT.

Coldest autumn since 1950 ? How much have the Oceans cooled ?

Coldest autumn since 1950 ? How much have the Oceans cooled ?

Not much, yet.

Here's the southern hemisphere SST's from 1998

.

I think they'll fall another 0.2C globally by late September though.

A double La Nina is a possibility IMO.

Rog

That chart is a good example of how confusing global warming is

If you looked at 2000 to 2010 and did a linear regression you'de get the opposite result

You have to look at 100 or 1000 years

and then it's a lot more complicated than that

Jerry, apologies, I shouldn't have put a regression on it at all.

I'll fix the graph, here's something to read while you wait.

researchers at Newcastle University conclude that elevated temperatures in the Murray-Darling basin were a combination of natural factors:

Lead researcher Associate Professor Stewart Franks, from the University's Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, said the findings were based on known principles of physics.

"Senior climate change researchers have claimed that higher temperatures lead to higher moisture evaporation and that this is why the Murray Darling Basin has experienced such a harsh drought," Associate Professor Franks said.

"This is incorrect and ignores the known physics of evaporation.

"During drought, when soil moisture is low, less of the sun's radiant energy goes into evaporation and more goes into the heating of the atmosphere which causes higher temperatures.

"Most importantly, the elevated air temperatures do not increase evaporation but are actually due to the lack of evaporation and this is a natural consequence of drought.

"Therefore any statement that the drought experienced in the Murray Darling Basin is a direct result of CO2 emissions is fundamentally flawed."

Associate Professor Franks said the findings of the study highlighted the importance of getting the science right.

"A key concern is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - which advises governments around the world - has used the Murray Darling Basin and incorrect science as an example of CO2 induced climate change.