Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

Turtwig

Reading data is pointless without first attempting to understand context - and climate science isn't exactly a field you're going to grasp over a few hours. To take a very simple example. Do you know what has more influence on this planet's seasons? Its rotation? Its tilt? Its variable distance from the sun?

To help with development of physical intuition and conceptual understanding I highly recommend David Archer's free course on Coursera. The labs in this course while somewhat time consuming are well worth the investment. You even get to mess around with realworld climate models. It doesn't however deal with the larger scale analysis of data structure. For that you really need a primer on statistics. It will however help massively with the physical concepts; understanding the physical limitations, sources of error and approximations that invariably arise within physical models.

d'Oracle

dense wrote: »

What did he say about the problems caused in the Arctic by CO2 exhaled in human breath then?

Thanks.

So you didn't listen then.
Or even read a transcript.

dense

d'Oracle wrote: »

So you didn't listen then.
Or even read a transcript.

If you've read a transcript, why can't you tell everyone what the UNIPCC contributing author claimed about the problems that are being caused in the Arctic by co2 that's exhaled in human breath?

I get the impression that you know that what he claimed is pure nonsense but are just trying to erase it from the record.

What motivates you to attempt to do that?

It doesn't do the alarmists any favours to have someone now trying to distort reality.

Would you prefer if people didn't know what Ireland's foremost climate expert said?

Why?

Here's the podcast.

http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Pat_Kenny_Show/Highlights_from_The_Pat_Kenny_Show/171314/The_global_cost_of_rising_Arctic_temperatures

Where's your fake transcript?

Where does the Professor actually correct Pat Kenny about Kenny's erroneous assumption that exhaled co2 is also part of the problem?

He doesn't, he says it's part of the problem and a lot of it will cause the problems they've been discussing.

But please, post up this doctored transcript you've read, it should be good for a laugh in the midst of the current historically recurring 20 or 30 year snow event that would require "a great stretch" in order for it to be attributed to "climate change".

dense

Turtwig wrote: »

Reading data is pointless without first attempting to understand context - and climate science isn't exactly a field you're going to grasp over a few hours. To take a very simple example. Do you know what has more influence on this planet's seasons? Its rotation? Its tilt? Its variable distance from the sun?

What?????

The UNIPCC and eh, "97% of scientists" have already concluded that the sun has basically nothing to do with anything and the only thing that has the dominant influence on climate is carbon dioxide:

Turtwig

I listened to that entire podcast (mainly because it started off with David Attenborough narration).
I'm very confused, if we assume carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - it is, and if we assume green house gases alter the intensity of solar irradiance on a planet's surface - they do, then can we not assume that the exhalation of carbon dioxide from the body of a human has an impact on the climate of that planet?

I'm at a loss to understand what is so wrong with that statement. It also is glaringly obvious to me that Dense has put an unbelievably hyperbolic meaning on it. So, using their own methodology you should conclude from the fact that the human body exerts a gravitational pull on the moon, Jupiter, its moons and the suns that what they're saying is that we're all pulling the sun towards us right now. Technically we are but it a rather insignificant pull. Just like our exhalations of CO2 are compared to the vast reservoirs of GHGs on this planet.

Turtwig

dense wrote: »

What?????

The UNIPCC and eh, "97% of scientists" have already concluded that the sun has basically nothing to do with anything and the only thing that has the dominant influence on climate is carbon dioxide:



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=444614&d=1520123292]

My post was referring to the conceptual understanding of seasons. I fail to see how your post is even relevant.

dense

Turtwig wrote: »

My post was referring to the conceptual understanding of seasons. I fail to see how your post is even relevant.

I fail to see how your "conceptual understanding of seasons" and your conceptual understanding of the sun's role is relevant.

My post contextualises the sun's influence on weather, climate and ultimately seasons, and it is precious little according to the UNIPCC.

Climate change is controlled by carbon dioxide, not the sun, according to the UNIPCC.

Do you disagree with that assertion?

What is your conceptual understanding of it?

dense

Turtwig wrote: »

I'm very confused, if we assume carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - it is, and if we assume green house gases alter the intensity of solar irradiance on a planet's surface - they do, then can we not assume that the exhalation of carbon dioxide from the body of a human has an impact on the climate of that planet?

I'm at a loss to understand what is so wrong with that statement.

OK

At least you accept he said it. That's important.

I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would deny he said it.

Ever heard of the "carbon cycle"?

Our national UNIPCC climate expert threw it out the window!

https://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm

The very first time you learned about carbon dioxide was probably in grade school: We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Any eight-year-old can rattle off this fact.

It should come as no surprise that, when confronted with the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, some people angrily proclaim,

"Why should we bother? Even breathing out creates carbon emissions!"

This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Through photosynthesis, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. (They also perform some respiration, because they need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.) The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit.

These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.


Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. We are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it's a carbon cycle, not a straight line - and a good thing, too!

TLDR

He took the bait, hook line and sinker.

Pat Kenny, according to Akrasia's go-to source of expert information, SKS, (notwithstanding that John Cook and Dana 97% are involved in it) was mistaken by suggesting it, and Sweeney, given his standing as a UNIPCC Contributing Author was doubly wrong to run with it without correcting him.

Still, I'm glad you heard what I heard.

Turtwig

dense wrote: »

I fail to see how your "conceptual understanding of seasons" and your conceptual understanding of the sun's role is relevant.

My post contextualises the sun's influence on weather, climate and ultimately seasons, and it is precious little according to the UNIPCC.

Climate change is controlled by carbon dioxide, not the sun, according to the UNIPCC.

Do you disagree with that assertion?

What is your conceptual understanding of it?

So many questions. I am not obligated to answer any especially if they are rather pointless. Which I deem them to be.

So only this once:

i) I did not give my conceptual understanding of seasons - and intentionally so.
ii) Radiative forcing is not what you seemingly appear to think it is.
iii) Cannot agree or disagree with an assertion that ultimately doesn't exist.

dense

Turtwig wrote: »

So many questions. I am not obligated to answer any especially if they are rather pointless. Which I deem them to be.

So only this once:

i) I did not give my conceptual understanding of seasons - and intentionally so.
ii) Radiative forcing is not what you seemingly appear to think it is.
iii) Cannot agree or disagree with an assertion that ultimately doesn't exist.

Turtwig wrote: »

Do you know what has more influence on this planet's seasons? Its rotation? Its tilt? Its variable distance from the sun?

Do you?

Do you believe it matters, given the role that the IPCC has given carbon dioxide in controlling climate change?

Turtwig

I gotta be honest, I'm not even sure what you're asking.

Turtwig

dense wrote: »

Still, I'm glad you heard what I heard.

Apparently I did not hear what you heard or are now implying. You seemingly attributed an exaggerated meaning to 4 or 5 words in isolation.

dense

Turtwig wrote: »

Apparently I did not hear what you heard or are now implying.

Edit:

What did Professor Sweeney say in response to Pat Kenny mentioning that even as they were conversing they were emitting carbon dioxide in their breath?

Thats an open question, for anyone who'd like to take it

Lumi

I’m reposting the Mod Note in the OP because some contributors need reminding it seems!

This is a contentious subject and this thread has already been closed once due to personal attacks on contributors and the hostile atmosphere it has created.

Remember

1. Please refrain from direct personal attacks on any person whether they are members of boards.ie or not.

2. Everyone is entitled to post and has equal rights whether they are weather experts or complete newbies.

3. If you wish to challenge someone's views on the topic of climate change then please debate civilly, do not just attack poster.

Thanks

dense

Turtwig wrote: »

I gotta be honest, I'm not even sure what you're asking.

Sorry, I was asking if you disagreed with the UNIPCC's assessment there.

You asked: "Do you know what has more influence on this planet's seasons? Its rotation? Its tilt? Its variable distance from the sun?"

The UNIPCC has decided with some 95% certainty that human activities and co2 from humans burning fossil fuels (not c02 exhaled in human breath) "has more influence" and is responsible for causing the climate to change, and that the earth's rotation, tilt or variable distance from the sun isn't.

Akrasia

Turtwig wrote: »

Apparently I did not hear what you heard or are now implying. You seemingly attributed an exaggerated meaning to 4 or 5 words in isolation.

Scientists should be judged on their considered publications, not some quote mined out of context comment he made in a radio interview when asked a silly question.

Journalists should be judged on their ability to get their facts straight and report accurately to the public. When the 'skeptics' quote media or blogger articles or reports about published research they ought to be aware that many of these sources have a long history of misleading and sometimes even deliberate fabrication of stories to spread confusion and mistrust about climate science.

If Sweeney had a history of falsifying and fabricating evidence to support his claim, then he would be a discredited source, like the 'news' websites Breitbart.com, blogs like 'notrickszone' and the 'journalists' James Dellinpole, David Rose, Christopher Monckton, Christopher Booker etc who have on many separate occasions been caught red handed spreading misinformation and falsifying data on a number of occasions.
https://www.snopes.com/scientists-caught-tampering-raw-data-exaggerate-sea-level-rise/
https://www.snopes.com/scientists-caught-tampering-raw-data-exaggerate-sea-level-rise/
https://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/
https://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/
https://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/09/09/with-climate-journalism-like-this-who-needs-fiction/#.Wp0lhujFKDJ
https://www.snopes.com/2016/12/01/house-science-committees-twitter-promotes-article-mocking-climate-alarmists/

There are 'skeptics' on here who are happy to spend the entire thread trying to focus on a few out of context lines in an interview but don't seem to care when the sources they themselves quote regularly are proven to be untrustworthy.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Scientists should be judged on their considered publications, not some quote mined out of context comment he made in a radio interview when asked a silly question.

Perhaps it might be a better idea if someone could explain how C02 exhaled in human breath is causing problems in the Arctic, which is what Professor Sweeney claimed on national radio.

I think we can accept that anyone who listened to the broadcast and the podcast heard him say it.

The context was quite important too.

He wasn't at, say a football match or a play, he was in a studio speaking about his field of expertise, climate change.

If someone wishes to suggest that he was distracted, lead along by Kenny, or tricked in some way, by all means that would be reasonable, if they could explain how, however we're then still left with the fact that he did say it.

Anyone denying he said it might then be left in a compromising position.

Bit of a conundrum there for people to deal with I'd say.

Best to just move along and not consider that, eh?

dense

From 2004, and news that Climate Change will cause Siberian weather here.

"A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020."


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

By 2020. Not long to go now then.

Roll forward to 2018 and at the hint of Siberian weather, an imminent ice age is just a myth, say scientists.

Right on cue....

https://www.skepticalscience.com/mini-ice-age-myth-still-wrong.html

Shades of "heads I win, tails you lose" about that.

Or, the weather will remain much the same as it was, due to climate change.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

If Sweeney had a history of falsifying and fabricating evidence to support his claim, then he would be a discredited source, like the 'news' websites Breitbart.com, blogs like 'notrickszone' and the 'journalists' James Dellinpole, David Rose, Christopher Monckton, Christopher Booker etc who have on many separate occasions been caught red handed spreading misinformation and falsifying data on a number of occasions.

Just like Cook et al, the hockey stick guys and the Climategate gangs then!

As you've mentioned Delingpole, he has a good article here on what he calls the fake news of global warming:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/28/delingpole-the-shocking-true-story-of-how-global-warming-became-the-biggest-fakenews-scare-of-all-time-pt-1/


And he mentions Booker's new Groupthink report.

Might take a look at that later.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf

Turtwig

dense wrote: »

Sorry, I was asking if you disagreed with the UNIPCC's assessment there.

You asked: "Do you know what has more influence on this planet's seasons? Its rotation? Its tilt? Its variable distance from the sun?"

The UNIPCC has decided with some 95% certainty that human activities and co2 from humans burning fossil fuels (not c02 exhaled in human breath) "has more influence" and is responsible for causing the climate to change, and that the earth's rotation, tilt or variable distance from the sun isn't.

Again let me reiterate my confusion over how this question followed from my seasons remark. I can confidently say that the IPCC never stated that rotation, tilt, dist from the sun didn't influence the climate. You are muddling so many different concepts and definitions it's really hard to even know where to begin. If you are trying to imply the IPCC said that seasons aren't caused by tilt. (This is the only reason I can see why you would have made your original IPCC remark in response to my post mentioning seasons.) Then they most certainly did not state anything of that nature.

dense wrote: »

From 2004, and news that Climate Change will cause Siberian weather here.

"A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020."

A secret report, that none of us here presumably have the necessary clearance to
access. Therefore, we have no way of verifying the report claim you are making and its original context. Nevermind confirming whether the alleged report even existed in the first place.

dense

Turtwig wrote: »

A secret report, that none of us here presumably have the necessary clearance to
access. Therefore, we have no way of verifying the report claim you are making and its original context. Nevermind confirming whether the alleged report even existed in the first place.

Well yes, it is from the Guardian, well known for exaggerating all things climate change.

Here's the report by the way, no longer "secret".

-Courtesy of Columbia University.

https://encrypted.google.com/url?q=http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/readings/Pentagon.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiY6NyCh9bZAhXMC8AKHYI3DmkQFggZMAU&usg=AOvVaw2fvCjqMgDPwMU8SNX-ZDt4

And the US Government:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/day-yesterday-when-abrupt-climate-change-came-chesapeake-bay

Who knows, it's probably a load of codswallop!

dense

Turtwig wrote: »

Again let me reiterate my confusion over how this question followed from my seasons remark. I can confidently say that the IPCC never stated that rotation, tilt, dist from the sun didn't influence the climate. You are muddling so many different concepts and definitions it's really hard to even know where to begin. If you are trying to imply the IPCC said that seasons aren't caused by tilt. (This is the only reason I can see why you would have made your original IPCC remark in response to my post mentioning seasons.) Then they most certainly did not state anything of that nature.

What is their relevance then?

-I'm just trying to understand why they've been brought into the discussion.

Akrasia

Abrupt climate change is a much bigger risk than most people realise. We know that climates have shifted dramatically over the course of a few years in the past, we just don't know what the exact circumstances were that triggered these changes.

We have already seen big changes in the Jet Stream, the NAO has changed from mostly negative to mostly positive in recent decades, but these two climate drivers,, amongst others are severely impacted by changes in Arctic ice volumes, and there is likely to be a tipping point when the arctic ice loss causes a long term climate shift affecting global climate patterns.

I have asked multiple times in this thread what the skeptics think will happen when the arctic is ice free and they avoid the question because they know deep down that this would have profound impacts on the long established mechanisms that drive weather systems in the northern hemisphere. The arctic doesn't even need to be ice free, the rapid decline in temperature gradients between high and low latitudes is already destabilising these climate systems.

dense

Climate scientists: Global warming is making it colder because someone left the fridge door open:

December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned Arctic sea ice was declining at the fastest rate in at least 1,500 years with an impact that would be felt far outside the region and affect the lives of every single American. One of the research team, Jeremy Mathis, compared the Arctic to the planet’s refrigerator.

“But the door to that refrigerator has been left open,” he said. “And the cold is spilling out, cascading throughout the northern hemisphere.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/28/what-does-snow-mean-climate-change-beast-from-the-east-polar-vortex-freezing-temperature

Turtwig

Akrasia wrote: »

Abrupt climate change is a much bigger risk than most people realise. We know that climates have shifted dramatically over the course of a few years in the past, we just don't know what the exact circumstances were that triggered these .

The trouble with risk is humans are quite crap at assessing it.

dense

Turtwig wrote: »

The trouble with risk is humans are quite crap at assessing it.

Indeed, the human is often prone to exaggeration and the over estimation of perceived risks.

As an example, take the authors of that "secret" report about climate change in the Guardian, talking about Siberian weather as being the norm for Britain, and cities being submerged by 2020.

Or those climate scientists who were predicting Tuvalu being washed away.

Or indeed the list of failed climate predictions we saw a couple of pages back.

They were all clearly crap assessments.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Abrupt climate change is a much bigger risk than most people realise. We know that climates have shifted dramatically over the course of a few years in the past, we just don't know what the exact circumstances were that triggered these changes.

We have already seen big changes in the Jet Stream, the NAO has changed from mostly negative to mostly positive in recent decades, but these two climate drivers,, amongst others are severely impacted by changes in Arctic ice volumes, and there is likely to be a tipping point when the arctic ice loss causes a long term climate shift affecting global climate patterns.

The NAO is not a climate driver, it's merely an indicator. In any case, positive means a zonal pattern with a stronger westerly jet, not a weakened jet with a more meridional flow. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

There is no marked signal in the NAO flipping negative after the record low Arctic ice years of 2007, 2012, etc. Of course this is not a statistical test and a larger sample size is needed, but you would think thay we should be seeing some sort of indication by now. In fact, the trend is going the other way.

I have asked multiple times in this thread what the skeptics think will happen when the arctic is ice free and they avoid the question because they know deep down that this would have profound impacts on the long established mechanisms that drive weather systems in the northern hemisphere. The arctic doesn't even need to be ice free, the rapid decline in temperature gradients between high and low latitudes is already destabilising these climate systems.

I actually did answer your question by saying that I'm not sure what would happen. That's a valid answer and not an evasion. Again, you say the "rapid" decline in gradients is destabilising the climate. But yet you also say the NAO is gone more positive, which would indicate the opposite. Which is it?

Casualsingby

Any thoughts on what might happen to the North Atlantic drift in the years to come if the current predictions come true?

dense

Casualsingby wrote: »

Any thoughts on what might happen to the North Atlantic drift in the years to come if the current predictions come true?

Global warming will cause a mini ice age, which, apparently, is what we should now be experiencing if it wasnt for global warming?

A Chilling Possibility NASA:


https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic


https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Membership/Join-the-Society/~/~/link.aspx?_id=7A3775341F8B4861804751D98FADB7BA&_z=z

Casualsingby

As I said earlier in thread I'm on the fence. Are there any genuine sensible answers without attitude to my question. Thank you.