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

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

On an increasing long-term background trend it's no surprise that recent years have been warmer than earlier ones. I think MT was referring to the flat line from the start of this century.

But that increasing long term background trend is the global warming, it is the greenhouse effect, and the 'flat line' since the start of the century is not flat anymore (it never really was if you also include ocean heat content), when you include the last 4 years, it is definitely going up. Also, it is incredibly unusual for there to be a 20 year period where there haven't been any years below the long term average temperature. Solar changes are minute on a year on year basis, there is no known mechanism for this additional heat other than radiative forcing caused by changes to concentrations of GHGs in our atmosphere.

Shedbebreezy

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

By the way, if you want to say that evidence of climate change is irrefutable, then why are all of the following things true?

-- the worst hurricane season on record in the North Atlantic was 1780.

-- the most severe outbreak of tornadoes in the U.S. (by numbers of F-4 or F-5, not by death toll, although that was the highest) was in 1925.

-- the most severe heat waves were in 1934 and 1936. 1911 ranks third.

-- in Britain, over 360 years, the warmest January was 1916 and the warmest February was 1779. The warmest winter was 1868-69. It is only the December warmth in 2015 that comes from the modern winter period.

None of these fairly significant indicators can be used to support the most frequently heard argument for climate change, namely, that "we" are causing severe or unusual weather events. It doesn't stand up to analysis. Apparently, our unsuspecting grandparents or further back generations were doing this, or perhaps it's just natural variability.

As to 97% of climate scientists agreeing with the notion of climate change, first of all we need to break that down by what kind of climate change. I might not qualify as part of the sample, or maybe I do, but I would agree that there is climate change simply on the basis that there is always climate change. Our climates have long-term variability. They always have had, and sometimes much larger variations than we've seen. This isn't even the warmest time since the last glacial, that came about five thousand years ago. So I would like to know, is that 97% like 90% who are concerned about human caused variation and 7% only natural, or is it 40-47 or what is it? And who are these 3% that don't believe in climate change, they must believe in a steady-state climate, but I suspect the 3% is like what the Russians used to report as opposition to the party in state elections, it sounded worse if you said 0%.

Now if it's maybe 60% who are concerned about human modification and 37% only natural (I don't think there are any other horses in this race) then okay, how many of those 60% feel no peer or workplace pressure and have no reservations?

The reason I doubt these numbers apply to human-induced change is simple, on weather forums where meteorologists participate, the discussion quite often seems more balanced than 97-3, more like 50-50. I know for a fact that a lot of AMS members whose jobs are in local forecasting are skeptics. One reason why a local forecaster is more likely to be a skeptic is that today's record highs (and lows) flash before your eyes once a day, and it's sobering to notice after five minutes of the news guy waffling on about "extreme weather" that today's warmish high fell five degrees short of 1890 or even 1942.

I hope there will be a more flexible poll taken with more than two options, to some extent the question asked now is a "do you beat your wife?" question, especially if your boss at the institute happens to be listening in.

Very disingenuous to state 97/3 isn't accurate and its more 50/50. Completely wrong, the question asked is do you believe human activity regarding pollution of the Earths atmosphere is causing climate change. Over 97% believe so. And to imply they were under pressure to answer yes, is once again disingenuous. And some forums are 50/50? Not very Scientific, you don't know who's behind the keyboard, can't verify if they are climate Scientists,at best a hearsay claim.

16 of the last 17 years have been the warmest on record GLOBALLY, you completely dismiss that, then use examples of short periods of time in localised spots of the globe like the UK as a reference to why it isn't happening, globally 16 of the last 17 years have been the warmest on record. More C02 in the atmosphere, means a warmer world, that's basic Science.

Every government in the world bar the USA and Syria have singed up to the Paris accord, One central american didn't because it didn't go far enough. The only real man made climate change deniers(government wise) are elements of the Right in America, many of whom believe the world is a couple of k years old.

I'll go with Science, the vast majority of Scientists tell us Global warming is real, Man made global warming at that.

Longing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

Dr Easterbrook on Global warming Hoax and facts.

Akrasia

Longing wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

Dr Easterbrook on Global warming Hoax and facts.

It's easy to 'disprove' anything if you are prepared to make up and distort the facts.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

Longing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVdcWHxPhIg

Evidence of the climate fraud is real.

Oneiric 3

This guy pretty much sums up my view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sc8X5M17n0

I think we can all accept that global warming is happening, but the whole 'climate debate' is very much the preserve of the pampered and the privileged and the politically detached, who, in reality, probably contribute more the global 'carbon footprint' by living the cosmopolitan lifestyle, whilst pontificating to those they see as their ignorant lessers about the evils of mass consumption.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

But that increasing long term background trend is the global warming, it is the greenhouse effect...

Since the late 1800s the temperature has shown a rising trend. The population then was around 1.5 billion.

The population today is 5 times that, yet the rate of warming is similar to that of 100 years ago. Certainly not proportional to the increased emissions from a population almost 5 times as big. There is no runaway warming like there should be, like the famous hockeystick graph, which has now been hung up for good till we sort out what's going on and why the climate sensitivity's not what we thought. Yes, ocean heat-uptake accounts for some flattening, but that in itself increases atmospheric CO2. Temperature has preceded CO2 going back in historic records.

Regarding the temperatures, it's good that you acknowledged that the graph is out of date. What do you think it would show if the previous 4 years of data were included? The last 4 years have shown a staggering surge in temperatures so that unless there is a dramatic cooling in the next few years, we may have already arrived at the 1 degrees above pre-industrial levels that weren't projected to be reached until around 2030 under the RCP 4.5 scenario, and we're well ahead of even the RCP 8.5 scenario, which would indicate that climate sensitivity is higher than we have modelled to.

Being the nice guy I am :rolleyes: I plotted the latest annual anomalies on the chart I quoted below and it's not quite the "staggering" surge relative to RPC4.5. In fact, it's still running along the lowest of the 42 members. So that's five more years of evidence that temperature observations are not tracking 4.5 and further suggests that climate sensitivity is less than you make out.

Meteorite58

Mod Note : There is a forum charter that needs to be upheld. Read it and abide by it.

Goading, trolling, attacking posters and pulling the thread off topic is not acceptable and will be dealt with accordingly.

Oneiric 3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Since the late 1800s the temperature has shown a rising trend. The population then was around 1.5 billion.

The population today is 5 times that, yet the rate of warming is similar to that of 100 years ago. Certainly not proportional to the increased emissions from a population almost 5 times as big. There is no runaway warming like there

No running away warming, but isn't warming still warming at the end of the day? Is the rate of warming of greater interest/concern than the overall trend that indicates a steady and unrelenting warming? Genuine question.

Meteorite58

Mod Note: mickmackey1 , Shedbebreezy and Oneric3 have received warnings for being uncivil.

Lets get back on track and on topic and cut out the snide remarks.

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

No running away warming, but isn't warming still warming at the end of the day? Is the rate of warming of greater interest/concern than the overall trend that indicates a steady and unrelenting warming? Genuine question.

Yes, warming is warming, but the rate of warming is the primary area of concern and the one that gets quoted the most. Quotes such as:

“In the last 30 years we’ve really moved into exceptional territory,” Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said. “It’s unprecedented in 1,000 years. There’s no period that has the trend seen in the 20th century in terms of the inclination (of temperatures).”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-warning-earth-temperature-warming

ABC101

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes, warming is warming, but the rate of warming is the primary area of concern and the one that gets quoted the most. Quotes such as:



https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-warning-earth-temperature-warming

Well, just one observation I have to offer. Is there not a phenomenon of Latent Heat of Vaporisation?

Take 1 lt of water, heat it to 100 degrees by adding heat. Despite continuing to add more heat, the temperature does not increase, until all the water is converted to steam. After this point is reached, the addition of more heat will raise the temperature.

So I wonder... could the same phenomenon be happening with Planet Earth. Heat is being added all the time, but temperature is not raising much.

There are reports of ice melting at the N.Pole, Greenland ice sheets receding, Swiss glaciers and so on, not sure what is going on in Argentina etc

So IMO.... we do require to be careful, that just because the temperature is not rising much (or not as fast as one would expect) it could be because there is this phenomenon at work?

Gaoth Laidir

ABC101 wrote: »

Well, just one observation I have to offer. Is there not a phenomenon of Latent Heat of Vaporisation?

Take 1 lt of water, heat it to 100 degrees by adding heat. Despite continuing to add more heat, the temperature does not increase, until all the water is converted to steam. After this point is reached, the addition of more heat will raise the temperature.

So I wonder... could the same phenomenon be happening with Planet Earth. Heat is being added all the time, but temperature is not raising much.

There are reports of ice melting at the N.Pole, Greenland ice sheets receding, Swiss glaciers and so on, not sure what is going on in Argentina etc

So IMO.... we do require to be careful, that just because the temperature is not rising much (or not as fast as one would expect) it could be because there is this phenomenon at work?

Water has a very high heat capacity so a lot of energy goes into raising its temperature. As such it can act as a heat sink and store excess heat, like what you say. This is a known factor in the global climate energy budget.

As water warms it releases stored CO2, just like a bottle of coke loses its CO2 as it goes flat over time. This leads to a positive feedback, with temperature further increasing, releasing more CO2, and so on.

It's been modelled over and over but the atmospheric response in the form of global atmospheric temperatures doesn't seem to be keeping pace with the less pessimistic forecasts (RPC4.5).

M.T. Cranium

I wasn't just making up facts when I said that in the U.S., a lot of operational mets are at least mildly skeptical, I think this is an accepted fact in American weather circles, certainly not something I made up. I've noticed it myself, the people posting give enough information that you can tell who they are in the real world and the non-pro weather enthusiast members know who they are too, their local TV mets.

Most of them think this is over-hyped.

I never meant to imply that there is no warming, I just don't think the warming is even half down to human activity or presence, there could very plausibly be natural warming going on, let's face it, the chances are at least one in three if you accept that the three most likely signals at random are warming, cooling or steady-state.

Natural warming would be expected given the long interval of steady high-solar activity cycles from the 1917 peak to the 2001 peak. The period 1947 to 1989 had almost nothing but higher than normal peaks of solar activity. It correlates very well with temperature trends. The same thing happened after the Maunder minimum, with several quite active cycles in the 18th century and temperatures rose almost as high then as they are now.

The word "disingenuous" implies a deliberate distortion of facts. I am not the one doing that. I am quite sure that the 97-3 ratio is contrived and based on poorly worded survey questions combined with peer pressure. But whatever the real ratio is, we should be more concerned with the facts of this important subject. And the facts are that we simply cannot easily separate out human and natural factors in observed climate change. There are also problems with data sets, one reason why the public distrusts the "science" is that their experience is not ever-increasing warming, they think back to warmer years in the past and find the years offered up as "warmest yet" as rather average. For example, there has only been one reasonably warm summer in Britain and Ireland since the very hot ones in 2003 and 2006 (namely 2013), most of the rest have been very average by any standard. Even somebody teleported forward from the Maunder would have found 2016 or 2017 bog standard.

I guess the problem is that two groups start out with wildly different political assumptions and are willing to see the same set of evidence in two very different ways. To my mind, it would be more productive to reach a compromise, say what most would accept (recent warming may be up to half human caused and is not quite the apocalypse that some would have us believe), and then design a response if in fact a response is necessary.

And in all this back and forth, very little has been said about the fact that the southern hemisphere is not warming in higher latitudes there, in fact the evidence seems to suggest a slight cooling trend and expansion of sea ice. As 80% of the potential problems of sea level rises are related to that hemisphere, much of the discussion seems to be disproportionately focused on Greenland. The data from Greenland are not as disturbing as some seem to portray them. And sea levels have only risen incrementally since 1950.

I am wondering if the climate change lobby will define any outcomes that would cause them to rethink their position. We skeptics are always being challenged to rethink based on "the facts" which turn out to be their opinions. But what about some facts between now and 2025, what if there is no further warming even in the data sets they have designed? What if there's even a bit of cooling? Why should we recant our position when the actual data seem to support our point of view more than theirs? How many of their forecasts from 1990 to 2005 have materialized? No ice left in the north, an end to winter as we knew it, constant heat and drought (when they realized that was not happening it turned into more extremes, a very disingenuous concept in itself, because it is so easily serviceable with the help of a willing media partner, but is it true? As I showed with some fairly significant statistics, not true, almost false, at best a draw (same now as ever)... if there was ever a period of weather extremes it was the 19th century which was generally a cold period and untouched so we are led to believe by the hand of mankind). So which is it, warming causes more disruption, or cooling? You be the judge.

I will finish by saying this -- I have met persons who are presented as eminent climate experts and they are nothing of the sort, some of the non-professionals from politics, the media or other sciences know zero about climate, they are in this for the political benefits. And as for the professionals who are at the heart of this movement, I think some of them are sincere enough but I am not impressed with their body of work. Of course that cuts both ways. I wish there would be real "climate justice" to borrow their phrase, because it might be a lot different from what they imagine. But it seems odd, don't you think, that so many weather enthusiasts are skeptics. Why would that be, if the science was as sound as claimed? Would there be a lot of evolution sketpics on a biology forum? Probably not, and that's because evolution, while perhaps controversial too, is a well researched and documented science. You have to be very, very determined to hold a contrary position there. But climate science is almost junk science, and a lot of intelligent people know this. I am always surprised to find that people who are moderately left-wing in many of their other positions are drawn to the skeptical position. This is by no means some backwater of the alt-right, as the climate change people try to insinuate at times. And I think if there were less peer pressure, more people in the mainstream would openly rebel. This "science" didn't jump the fence, the horse missed and a lot of people know this. Time for politics and the media to catch on and demand accountability.

piuswal

I've only just come on this thread and read the last post by M T Cranium, so I have a lot to catch up on.

In the meantime could I ask on what evidence is the statement,


"But it seems odd, don't you think, that so many weather enthusiasts are skeptics."

based?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Water has a very high heat capacity so a lot of energy goes into raising its temperature. As such it can act as a heat sink and store excess heat, like what you say. This is a known factor in the global climate energy budget.

It is known, but widely overlooked when the vast majority of people refer almost exclusively to atmospheric heat content and talk of the 'pause' and 'hiatus' demonstrate this well. All the talk of global temperatures not rising completely ignored the rise in ocean heat content, and as you yourself say below, warmer water can hold less co2 so rising ocean temperatures now could just be a stop gap before we see a large increase in the rate of atmospheric warming.

As water warms it releases stored CO2, just like a bottle of coke loses its CO2 as it goes flat over time. This leads to a positive feedback, with temperature further increasing, releasing more CO2, and so on.

It's been modelled over and over but the atmospheric response in the form of global atmospheric temperatures doesn't seem to be keeping pace with the less pessimistic forecasts (RPC4.5).

Again, at this point, the RCP 4.5 scenario is barely distinguishable from RCP 8.5, they start to diverge in the middle of the next decade so your claims that we're on track for an optimistic outcome is a bit disingenuous.

And regarding the accuracy of the models, there have always been uncertainties so the models are never expected to be 100% accurate, but when the various models are analysed carefully with observed measurements of both land and ocean heat content, they have proven to be pretty accurate over all. [img]https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Screen-Shot-2017-10-05-at-16.49.21.png[/mg] The observed temperature increases have been slightly lower than the predictions in AR5 but the differences can be accounted for by elements that were not modeled like the declining solar output and a number of small volcanic eruptions. There are lots of potential positive feedbacks that are not included in the climate models at all, and there is cause for concern over historical evidence showing that climate shifts can happen over the course of a few decades once a tipping point is reached. While these are by no means certain, and there is an awful lot of debate about how likely this is, these are relatively low probability High impact events and it would be very irresponsible to ignore the risk on the basis of optimism rather than a proper analysis of the dangers.[/img]https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-well-have-models-predicted-gw.html

We need to support the scientific community to improve their modelling. They require resources to allow them to increase the resolution of their modelling systems, and to include things like ice sheet collapse, better precipitation models, better cloud models etc
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

It is known, but widely overlooked when the vast majority of people refer almost exclusively to atmospheric heat content and talk of the 'pause' and 'hiatus' demonstrate this well. All the talk of global temperatures not rising completely ignored the rise in ocean heat content, and as you yourself say below, warmer water can hold less co2 so rising ocean temperatures now could just be a stop gap before we see a large increase in the rate of atmospheric warming.

Again, at this point, the RCP 4.5 scenario is barely distinguishable from RCP 8.5, they start to diverge in the middle of the next decade so your claims that we're on track for an optimistic outcome is a bit disingenuous.

Whatever, 4.5, 8.5, the fact is that observations are running on the low end of all RCPs, which makes the likelihood of them recovering to follow 8.5 even lower.

And regarding the accuracy of the models, there have always been uncertainties so the models are never expected to be 100% accurate, but when the various models are analysed carefully with observed measurements of both land and ocean heat content, they have proven to be pretty accurate over all.
The observed temperature increases have been slightly lower than the predictions in AR5 but the differences can be accounted for by elements that were not modeled like the declining solar output and a number of small volcanic eruptions.

Exactly. And these elements are likely to continue into the future, which is why I made the point a while back that the temperature is likely to show a flatter rising trend than the projections that disregard these elements. This is happening for now anyway. These elements never get a mention in general discussion of warming, which invariably only focuses on the positive feedbacks.

There are lots of potential positive feedbacks that are not included in the climate models at all, and there is cause for concern over historical evidence showing that climate shifts can happen over the course of a few decades once a tipping point is reached. While these are by no means certain, and there is an awful lot of debate about how likely this is, these are relatively low probability High impact events and it would be very irresponsible to ignore the risk on the basis of optimism rather than a proper analysis of the dangers.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-well-have-models-predicted-gw.html

We need to support the scientific community to improve their modelling. They require resources to allow them to increase the resolution of their modelling systems, and to include things like ice sheet collapse, better precipitation models, better cloud models etc
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

There are way more pressing issues in the world that need tending to.

dense

Roger_007 wrote: »

I am no expert on climate but I often worry about the claims that 97% of climate scientists are of one mind on the subject. Some of these people have made silly predictions in the past which have proved very wide of the mark.
Example: article published in 2007, which made big headlines at the time, predicting that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

There was also the prime minister of the Maldives who made a speech to the UN in 2012 that he had been advised by his climate experts that the Maldives would be under water in 5 years, i.e. 2017.

None of the above predictions came to pass but I assume those scaremongers responsible for those predictions are part of the 97%. This is what worries me.

I think Manhattan was supposed to have been under 20 feet of water by now too.

And the Olympics are to be held in cyberspace in 2030 because it's too hot.

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/environment/productdesign/climatefutures.html


Sensitivity to co2 has been clearly exaggerated by eco activist political scientists banging the UN political drum at the UN funded and created IPCC.

dense

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

The word "disingenuous" implies a deliberate distortion of facts.

I am not the one doing that. I am quite sure that the 97-3 ratio is contrived and based on poorly worded survey questions combined with peer pressure.

It is contrived.

Cook et al, in a remarkable contribution to modern climate science, and reviewed by their peers, openly cooked the books.

http://use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/home/climate-change/the-97-con-sensus/

If science relies on this level of open contrivance to demonstrate it's understanding of climate change, it's claimed understanding of the science of climate change leaves a lot to be desired.

But it also begs the question as to why this particular field of science feels it so necessary and so acceptable to openly contrive these constructs.

This brings the bona fides and the motivation of anyone still advocating this 97:3 ratio into question.

Let's not forget that this whole area has been mired in a lot of dubious "science".

Someone else mentioned the highly fictional but effective hockey stick chart "which has been hung out to dry" earlier, but let's not forget the climategate affairs either and the routine creation of and retrospective adjustment of data, based on hitherto unnoticed "calibration errors" etc.

These embarrasments are all strenuously defended by advocates who then expect to be taken credibly on other aspects of the science.


It isn't working terribly well if public attitudes are to be believed, where worrying about climate change consistently comes in at the bottom of global surveys:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/image99.png


Or corporate attitudes, in spite of the "our green credentials" commitments carefully bolted on to every corporate web page to please policy makers.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jan/20/global-warming-business-risks-government-regulation-taxes

The science of climate change needs to stand back and take stock of itself and start taking some responsibility for the sheer lack of interest in its endeavours.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

All the talk of global temperatures not rising completely ignored the rise in ocean heat content, and as you yourself say below, warmer water can hold less co2 so rising ocean temperatures now could just be a stop gap before we see a large increase in the rate of atmospheric warming.

The sea is hiding the heat has taken a bit of battering lately.

So what "rise in ocean heat content" is being claimed?

The whopping big 0.1° rise over 50 years mentioned at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography the other day, in connection with a new study it's promoting?

“Our precision is about 0.2 ºC (0.4 ºF) now, and the warming of the past 50 years is only about 0.1 ºC,” he said, adding that advanced equipment can provide more precise measurements, allowing scientists to use this technique to track the current warming trend in the world’s oceans.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/new-study-identifies-thermometer-past-global-ocean

Or the big fat zero degree rise in ocean temperatures NASA was touting a few years ago?

NEWS | OCTOBER 6, 2014
NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321

Seven years earlier and it was saying the oceans had warmed, then cooled then warmed, you get the picture:

Update as of 5/30/07: Recent analyses have revealed that results from some of the ocean float and shipboard sensor data used in this study were incorrect.

As a result, the study's conclusion that the oceans cooled between 2003 and 2005 can not be substantiated at this time.

The study authors are currently working to correct* these data errors and recompute ocean temperature changes.

*;)


https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=1181



Or was the much required "rise" in ocean temperatures created by simply adjusting the figures, conveniently jolting the oceans into "remembering" that they are storing all this lost heat?

This accrued heat is "really the memory of past climate change," said Kevin Trenberth, the head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and co-author of a new paper on ocean warming.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03102017/infographic-ocean-heat-powerful-climate-change-evidence-global-warming

Circular reasoning at it's best, employed to best effect when all else fails.

There is no plausible evidence of a rise in global ocean temperatures consistent with any catastrophic anthropgenically induced climate change theory.

Funny how the claimed authoritative settled science of climate change is built on the constantly shifting sands of contradictory scientific research.

gabeeg

Well you'll be delighted to hear that those mad fools at NASA have declared 2017 the second hottest year ever, after 2016.

But sure what have NASA ever done? Bunch of jokers

Longing

Tony Heller. In this video he discusses the fundamental deception behind the global warming.

dense

gabeeg wrote: »

Well you'll be delighted to hear that those mad fools at NASA have declared 2017 the second hottest year ever, after 2016.

But sure what have NASA ever done? Bunch of jokers

Ever?? I doubt they've made such a claim tbh.

It seems like a pretty wild claim.

But hey, yes, maybe they're playing a joke with their readers, or maybe they're playing with words, using loose language to try to make a point.


If accuracy was important to them, then they surely would not have said "ever" but, "since records began".


Because, there's quite a difference in the two, a difference that may not be apparent to some of their readers.

gabeeg

See, I happen to think that accuracy is important to Nasa.
But then I also believe in the moon landings.

It was likely my omission. Sorry.

piuswal

What do you think of this;

https://www.facebook.com/climatecentral/videos/1551677264919326/?hc_ref=ARSN12y6j75LrYbuSE6ZOlHEx3R_SIQfBKGRpRFfbJxJU6oCI-5dN9EvEBQKVDgKoP4

dense

piuswal wrote: »

What do you think of this;

https://www.facebook.com/climatecentral/videos/1551677264919326/?hc_ref=ARSN12y6j75LrYbuSE6ZOlHEx3R_SIQfBKGRpRFfbJxJU6oCI-5dN9EvEBQKVDgKoP4

Not much to be honest. Here's why:

The title mentions 97% of climate scientists.

It shouldn't mean anything to anyone actually, because no one has ever surveyed 100% of climate scientists.

Therefore no one can claim to have elicited the opinion of 97% of them.

If one accepts the above, and one must, one must then also reject the "9 out of ten cats prefer Whiskas" type false construct of "97% of climate scientists" which is deliberately designed to appeal to those who lack the ability to critically analyse such porous claims.

I'll just leave this here:

dense

gabeeg wrote: »

See, I happen to think that accuracy is important to Nasa.
But then I also believe in the moon landings.

It was likely my omission. Sorry.

Not a problem

Quick question to the floor, anyone want to estimate how much of the earth has no temperature data being recorded?

The grey parts on these official graphics?






Or precipitation data





Any guesses?

Considering the inherent difficulties in trying to ascertain the ocean temperatures, and acknowledging the Scripps report which I linked to earlier, which stated a 0.1°c rise in ocean temperatures over the past fifty years (compared to NASA's previous 0% rise), the sheer lack of global data on temperatures and precipitation must be taken into consideration when discussing global warming or claims of hottest years ever recorded.

dense

I've had a rather interesting experience online with a high profile Irish environmental blogger (and taken screenshots, for accuracy and posterity).

I posed a couple of basic questions.

I'm still waiting on a reply, so it would be unfair to say exactly what it's about here.

I'll leave it a while yet, because I do appreciate that replies have to be moderated and answers formulated etc.

It's going to be interesting, one way or another!

I'll keep y'all posted in due course.

piuswal

dense wrote: »

Not much to be honest. Here's why:

The title mentions 97% of climate scientists.

It shouldn't mean anything to anyone actually, because no one has ever surveyed 100% of climate scientists.

Therefore no one can claim to have elicited the opinion of 97% of them.

If one accepts the above, and one must, one must then also reject the "9 out of ten cats prefer Whiskas" type false construct of "97% of climate scientists" which is deliberately designed to appeal to those who lack the ability to critically analyse such porous claims.

I'll just leave this here:

Interesting that you only deal with the 97% claim! What are your views on their conclusions regarding the 38 papers they examined?

Would it be unfair to claim that you were selective in your comments, ignoring the points that would seem to be contrary to your case?

M.T. Cranium

piuswal wrote: »

I've only just come on this thread and read the last post by M T Cranium, so I have a lot to catch up on.

In the meantime could I ask on what evidence is the statement,


"But it seems odd, don't you think, that so many weather enthusiasts are skeptics."

based?

It's no secret that I am quite active on a number of weather forums, to name just three, this one, Net-weather, and American Weather.

I have read countless discussions of this same subject and can say that this thread is more easily predictable than the weather, each viewpoint here is one that I've heard many times before.

So my evidence for the statement made about "many weather enthusiasts are skeptics" is based on all of this interaction with many of them over a number of similar threads to this one.

However, as I am concerned with accuracy of statements, I would amend to say that a considerable number, which I believe to be more than half, of weather enthusiasts are skeptics, and by skeptics, I take the least strident definition which would be those who do not accept that (a) human activity is the main component of any postulated climate change, or (b) that extreme weather events are increasing, whether as a result of human activity or not.

We have to be aware that this is not an either-or debate. There are three camps in this controversy, one which holds that climate change is a serious problem caused by human activity, a second one that holds that human activity may be part of climate change but not any greater than half responsible, and a third camp which maintains that there is no human contribution to climate change (and a sub-set of that group claim there is no climate change).

This is why the 97:3 claim is misleading, because it is not properly linked to this three-option debate, it assumes a two-option debate like flat earth or curved spherical earth,

Anyway, for the time being, we have the freedom to debate this issue. There are various other issues where debate has been severely curtailed by the application of legal tactics. I fear for the future of free inquiry if this issue gets handled that same way (it may be different from country to country on these issues).

If you polled weather enthusiasts about their opinions on this subject, I think they would scatter all over that spectrum I described, it's not as simple as saying almost all weather enthusiasts are dead set opposed to the scientific consensus, but I am certain that the opposite position is not true either.

This is an interesting thought experiment that I would challenge any fair-minded person to take. Look at the weather map for 8 Dec 1886. Read the accounts of what happened on that date. Ask yourself what caused this weather event, and what would be said today if the exact same weather event happened yesterday. Or familiarize yourself with the topic of the 1936 heat waves in North America, read over the details, look at the weather charts. Once again, ask yourself what would happen today (or in six months, it can't happen today).

Now as I was reading about the 1936 heat wave, I noticed a statement in the wikipedia account which implied that many records set in 1936 were broken in 2012. Yet for locations that had records in 1936, I can't find any examples. Yes it was quite hot in 2012, but not as hot as in 1936. But somebody was clearly either consciously or subconsciously trying to square the article with a body of opinion that all previous extremes are being blown away by recent events. It would be interesting to see if anyone can substantiate any case where an all-time station or state temperature record set in 1936 (and there are many) was broken in 2012. Of course some daily records were broken in 2012. This is not the point that the article was making, a casual reader would come away thinking, wow, it must have been incredibly hot in 2012 if it was warmer than those numbers. And that would be a false conclusion.

This is the sort of thing that weather enthusiasts notice, who else would?

M.T. Cranium

There is also a related question of exposure of populations to climate stress, where it's not the climate stress that is changing but the amount of exposure to the stress.

For example, the "exurban" lifestyle is very appealing in western North America and I would imagine in Australia and other places subject to forest fires. Large numbers of people now live in areas that were formerly sparsely populated, and a preferred setting is "parkland" meaning wide open spaces that have some of the former forest cover still maintained.

In recent years it has become increasingly obvious that these are high-risk fire zones. When fires that burn in large tracts of forest come up to the boundaries of these exurban zones, they find an ideal environment for rapid spread. Strong winds are likely to develop both because of the fires and because many of these exurban zones are built on scenic ridges for the view.

Thus it may be easy for some to conclude that forest fires are getting worse in a changing climate. What is closer to the truth is that human penetration of fire zones is increasing, and by the very nature of how we settle along these interface zones, we are exacerbating the problem.

It's another area where perhaps the first conclusion is not the right one, but just the easiest or most convenient one.

dense

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

There is also a related question of exposure of populations to climate stress, where it's not the climate stress that is changing but the amount of exposure to the stress.

For example, the "exurban" lifestyle is very appealing in western North America and I would imagine in Australia and other places subject to forest fires. Large numbers of people now live in areas that were formerly sparsely populated, and a preferred setting is "parkland" meaning wide open spaces that have some of the former forest cover still maintained.

In recent years it has become increasingly obvious that these are high-risk fire zones. When fires that burn in large tracts of forest come up to the boundaries of these exurban zones, they find an ideal environment for rapid spread. Strong winds are likely to develop both because of the fires and because many of these exurban zones are built on scenic ridges for the view.

Thus it may be easy for some to conclude that forest fires are getting worse in a changing climate. What is closer to the truth is that human penetration of fire zones is increasing, and by the very nature of how we settle along these interface zones, we are exacerbating the problem.

It's another area where perhaps the first conclusion is not the right one, but just the easiest or most convenient one.

Correct.

Ask anyone if they think global warming is responsible for more wild fires and they'll invariably say yes, because they have been conditioned to believe that fires are now out of control because of global warming and it is getting worse.


The global reality however is the opposite.

NASA tells us that trends are going in the opposite direction, downwards.

Anyone claiming that wildfires are more damaging than ever before because of global warming needs to be checked.





Researchers Detect a Global Drop in Fires
June 30, 2017

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=90493

I'm not sure what NASA is playing at, first claiming that there's been no rise in ocean temperatures, then claiming that theres been a reduction in global fires.


It's a similar story with hurricanes and tropical storms, with no increasing trend evident.

Akrasia

MT,

Can I just ask you about your interpretation of the underlying physics behind global warming?

While there is uncertainty about climate sensitivity, (within a likely range of outcomes between 2 degrees nd 4.5 degrees for a doubling of atmospheric CO2) this is entirely because of uncertainty surrounding climate feedbacks, the radiative forcing attached to human emissions of greenhouse gasses is not uncertain at all, it is extremely well understood.

There's a great lecture posted on Youtube from Oxford university that explains the basic physics underlying the radiative forcing and why we are certain that it is anthoprogenic.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

MT,

Can I just ask you about your interpretation of the underlying physics behind global warming?

While there is uncertainty about climate sensitivity, (within a likely range of outcomes between 2 degrees nd 4.5 degrees for a doubling of atmospheric CO2) this is entirely because of uncertainty surrounding climate feedbacks, the radiative forcing attached to human emissions of greenhouse gasses is not uncertain at all, it is extremely well understood.

There's a great lecture posted on Youtube from Oxford university that explains the basic physics underlying the radiative forcing and why we are certain that it is anthoprogenic.

The comments on these videos are informative.
I'm not sure if David usually shares videos that look and sound like they were recorded in someones's basement, but maybe he does!!

Great lecture guys. I've shared it and used it to help debate against climate skeptics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoyS3om7Gr0

Now, Akrasia, I'd like to ask why you've chosen the 2 degrees and 4.5 degrees sensitivity for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, a figure which according to Dana Nucitelli is derived from the following mix of inexact sciences:

There are three main categories of studies estimating climate sensitivity, which are based on:

1) very detailed climate models.
2) combining recent climate measurements with simpler climate models.
3) measurements of past climate changes.

Most studies have been very consistent in estimating that surface temperatures will warm between 2 and 4.5°C (3.6 to 8.1°F) in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, most likely 3°C (5.4°F).

"Most" there, without any citation, should of course read as "some".
But, of course, it is written by Dana, who is not behind the door where telling white lies about figures is concerned, see Cook et al.

(It is no harm for anyone to be aware of Dana's previous peer-reviewed fiddling with numbers.)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/10/climate-change-warming-sensitivity

The problem is that the estimate above is derived from the decades old Charney Report of 1979, and is a figure which the politically motivated scientists who are members of the UN created and funded IPCC are keen to keep to using to this day, as it plays into the catastrophe mantra and is useful for likes of the UN's Mary Robinson's Climate Justice charities whose moral appeals for fund transfers to developing countries depend on a high co2 sensitivity.

The reason that it is a problem is that an accumulating number of contemporary studies and research from independent scientists are showing a much lower sensitivity.

And the reason that is a problem for the UNIPCC should be very obvious.


Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero

http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#sthash.B8s7o2vg.dpbs

75 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/#sthash.wa8FzM6Q.dpbs

If anyone wants to learn just how little is understood about climate science, just take a look at this page on the blog founded by Gavin Schmidt of nasa

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/why-does-the-stratosphere-cool-when-the-troposphere-warms/

Akrasia

Dense, I have absolutely zero interest in debating this with you after the train wreck of that after hours thread in which you were ultimately banned for trolling.

The fact that your first instinct is to ignore the science presented by Oxford university because the sound sounds exactly like it would if it was recorded in a lecture theater gives me no reason to believe that you have changed.

I am interested in what the serious posters on this forum think about the underlying physics behind global warming. It seems pretty clear to me, that if we increase radiative forcing by changing the balance of the atmosphere, that this inevitably leads to warming of the biosphere. The underlying fact that AGW is real is hard to argue against from a pure physics perspective.

piuswal

Just for information:

Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature.

Scientists answer


In short, from a practical standpoint, "as little additional warming as possible"



Civilization developed in a stable climate


Texas Tech’s Katharine Hayhoe agreed, noting that human civilization has developed in the relatively stable climate of the past 10,000 years.

There is no one perfect temperature for the earth, but there is for us humans, and that’s the temperature we’ve had over the last few thousands of years when we built our civilization, agriculture, economy, and infrastructure. Global average temperature over the last few millennia has fluctuated by a few tenths of degrees; today, it’s risen by nearly 1°C and counting.
Why do we care? Because we are perfectly adapted to our current conditions. Two-thirds of the world’s largest cities are located within a metre of sea level. What happens when sea level rises a metre or more, as it’s likely to this century? We can’t pick up Shanghai or London or New York and move them. Most of our arable land is already carefully allocated and farmed.

What happens when we can no longer grow the crops we used to, as climate shifts and water becomes more scarce in many subtropical areas? We can’t just take over new land: someone else already owns it. What happens when our water resources diminish or even run out? We can’t take over someone else’s water rights without a war.
We care about a changing climate because it exacerbates the risks we face today, and threatens the resources we depend on for our future.

dense

piuswal wrote: »

Just for information:

Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature.

Scientists answer


In short, from a practical standpoint, "as little additional warming as possible"



Civilization developed in a stable climate


Texas Tech’s Katharine Hayhoe agreed, noting that human civilization has developed in the relatively stable climate of the past 10,000 years.

There is no one perfect temperature for the earth, but there is for us humans, and that’s the temperature we’ve had over the last few thousands of years when we built our civilization, agriculture, economy, and infrastructure. Global average temperature over the last few millennia has fluctuated by a few tenths of degrees; today, it’s risen by nearly 1°C and counting.
Why do we care? Because we are perfectly adapted to our current conditions. Two-thirds of the world’s largest cities are located within a metre of sea level. What happens when sea level rises a metre or more, as it’s likely to this century? We can’t pick up Shanghai or London or New York and move them. Most of our arable land is already carefully allocated and farmed.

What happens when we can no longer grow the crops we used to, as climate shifts and water becomes more scarce in many subtropical areas? We can’t just take over new land: someone else already owns it. What happens when our water resources diminish or even run out? We can’t take over someone else’s water rights without a war.
We care about a changing climate because it exacerbates the risks we face today, and threatens the resources we depend on for our future.

Why is Katherine Hayhoe talking about picking up Shanghai or London or New York and moving them?

Better question maybe is, who is Katherine Hayhoe and why in Ireland are we listening to her talking about moving cities when there is no evidence of accelerating sea rises or sea temperatures in spite of co2 rising from 280ppm to over 400ppm?

Nor is there evidence of wildfires getting out of control.

What about all the supposed heat?

Where on the planet are the temperature records coming from, given that there is no data for the grey areas on the map?

f

And if global climate catastrophe is just around the corner, why is the UN predicting better than ever life expectancy rates?

Why are some Americans, who have actually been told by NASA that NASA has added half a degree to the 20th century US temperature by adjusting the record, trying to promote global catastrophe on the back of it when there is no evidence of it?

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

Because Katherine Hayhoe is a Christian scientist, an evangelical who believes that God created the earth:

Katharine Hayhoe: God’s Creation Is Running a Fever

https://www.guernicamag.com/gods-creation-is-running-a-fever/

Repent. Repent...

And we're all so "down with that kind of thing" here, aren't we????


The answer is in the amount of "we"s in the statements you've posted, considering that "we" have been told that we in the NH will be least affected by "climate change" as opposed to those in the SH.

It is of course why Ms. Robinson of "Climate Justice" and Ms. Figueres of the UN openly advocate for a collapse of the economic system that has prevailed for the last 150 years in favour of a new global world order of a transfer of wealth from the richer nations of the NH to the less fortunate in the SH in order that we may mitigate against climate change for them by us building them new cities and villages running on solar power.

http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

That is also the experimental socialist dream of local eco activists who conveniently forget that Ireland in spite of having the awfully embarrasing title of being Europes third highest emitter per capita, yet whose contribution to or ability to avert "climate change" is so negligible it can't be measured, is, according to the OECD, in it's last 4 year review published in 2016, an example in focusing development aid on neediest countries.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ireland-is-a-world-leader-in-foreign-aid-to-countries-most-in-need-1.2021843

Apparently, it is not enough, and they will only be sated when the UN brotherhood of man full socialist agenda is forcefully implemented here.

I say forcefully, because if anyone questions the "science" behind all of it or asks about the gaps in the circular reasoning they're branded as a "denier", and "deniers" (reminds me of Holocaust for some reason....) need to silenced, for the good of the planet.

And only scientists that are toeing the UNIPCC line are to be listened to, respected, encouraged and supported in their sainted endeavours.

What is made of Ray Bates here I'd love to know. Needs to be silenced too probably.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/warning-of-over-alarmist-stance-on-climate-risk-1.1792370
https://cliscep.com/2016/05/12/new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-supports-low-%E2%89%881c-estimates/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/full

Actually, I already know...given that Ireland's environmental policy looks like it's being single handedly steered by a lead author of the UNIPCC, a retired geography professor, who isn't Ray Bates.

It is of course just my opinion, one that I am entitled to hold and one that appears to me to make the most sense of everything, given the amount of tripe the UNIPCCWMO, NASA and NOAA, the UK Met office, and the climategate affairs and others have put in front of me.

Gaoth Laidir

dense wrote: »

And only scientists that are toeing the UNIPCC line are to be listened to, respected, encouraged and supported in their sainted endeavours.

What is made of Ray Bates here I'd love to know. Needs to be silenced too probably.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/warning-of-over-alarmist-stance-on-climate-risk-1.1792370
https://cliscep.com/2016/05/12/new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-supports-low-%E2%89%881c-estimates/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/full

Actually, I already know...given that Ireland's environmental policy looks like it's being single handedly steered by a lead author of the UNIPCC, a retired geography professor, who isn't Ray Bates.

Good luck with that. Look a few months back and you'll see that the Bates paper was ignored here and instead a character-assassination took place. One or two current posters refused to discuss his findings.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Good luck with that. Look a few months back and you'll see that the Bates paper was ignored here and instead a character-assassination took place. One or two current posters refused to discuss his findings.

I don't know if you're referring to me, but i did put forward criticisms of his '2 zone energy model' He bases his model on a Lindzen and Choi paper which has been shown to have severe methodological issues.

Gaoth Ladir, I'd be interested in your views on the basic physics of climate change. Do you not believe the figures for the radiative forcing given in the lecture I linked to above (i appreciate it's an hour long, but most of that is covered at the start)

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Good luck with that. Look a few months back and you'll see that the Bates paper was ignored here and instead a character-assassination took place. One or two current posters refused to discuss his findings.

I'm not surprised in the slightest tbh.

He was probably accused of being in the pay of "big oil" too.

piuswal

dense wrote: »

Why is Katherine Hayhoe talking about picking up Shanghai or London or New York and moving them?

Better question maybe is, who is Katherine Hayhoe and why in Ireland are we listening to her talking about moving cities when there is no evidence of accelerating sea rises or sea temperatures in spite of co2 rising from 280ppm to over 400ppm?

Nor is there evidence of wildfires getting out of control.

What about all the supposed heat?

Where on the planet are the temperature records coming from, given that there is no data for the grey areas on the map?

f

And if global climate catastrophe is just around the corner, why is the UN predicting better than ever life expectancy rates?

Why are some Americans, who have actually been told by NASA that NASA has added half a degree to the 20th century US temperature by adjusting the record, trying to promote global catastrophe on the back of it when there is no evidence of it?

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

Because Katherine Hayhoe is a Christian scientist, an evangelical who believes that God created the earth:

Katharine Hayhoe: God’s Creation Is Running a Fever

https://www.guernicamag.com/gods-creation-is-running-a-fever/

Repent. Repent...

And we're all so "down with that kind of thing" here, aren't we????


The answer is in the amount of "we"s in the statements you've posted, considering that "we" have been told that we in the NH will be least affected by "climate change" as opposed to those in the SH.

It is of course why Ms. Robinson of "Climate Justice" and Ms. Figueres of the UN openly advocate for a collapse of the economic system that has prevailed for the last 150 years in favour of a new global world order of a transfer of wealth from the richer nations of the NH to the less fortunate in the SH in order that we may mitigate against climate change for them by us building them new cities and villages running on solar power.

http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

That is also the experimental socialist dream of local eco activists who conveniently forget that Ireland in spite of having the awfully embarrasing title of being Europes third highest emitter per capita, yet whose contribution to or ability to avert "climate change" is so negligible it can't be measured, is, according to the OECD, in it's last 4 year review published in 2016, an example in focusing development aid on neediest countries.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ireland-is-a-world-leader-in-foreign-aid-to-countries-most-in-need-1.2021843

Apparently, it is not enough, and they will only be sated when the UN brotherhood of man full socialist agenda is forcefully implemented here.

I say forcefully, because if anyone questions the "science" behind all of it or asks about the gaps in the circular reasoning they're branded as a "denier", and "deniers" (reminds me of Holocaust for some reason....) need to silenced, for the good of the planet.

And only scientists that are toeing the UNIPCC line are to be listened to, respected, encouraged and supported in their sainted endeavours.

What is made of Ray Bates here I'd love to know. Needs to be silenced too probably.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/warning-of-over-alarmist-stance-on-climate-risk-1.1792370
https://cliscep.com/2016/05/12/new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-supports-low-%E2%89%881c-estimates/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/full

Actually, I already know...given that Ireland's environmental policy looks like it's being single handedly steered by a lead author of the UNIPCC, a retired geography professor, who isn't Ray Bates.

It is of course just my opinion, one that I am entitled to hold and one that appears to me to make the most sense of everything, given the amount of tripe the UNIPCCWMO, NASA and NOAA, the UK Met office, and the climategate affairs and others have put in front of me.

WOW, a lot of reading there. Will take me some time to read.

In the meantime, any chance you wold deal with;

"Interesting that you only deal with the 97% claim! What are your views on their conclusions regarding the 38 papers they examined?

Would it be unfair to claim that you were selective in your comments, ignoring the points that would seem to be contrary to your case?"

M.T. Cranium

Just watching the video, general comment is that I accept the physics as being valid but some of the assumptions about how the atmosphere actually works are perhaps not valid, the main objection being that all of these theoretical considerations seem to assume a steady-state atmosphere gaining only in carbon dioxide, methane and a few other greenhouse gases, but not seeing any overall change in water vapour (which is presented as a greenhouse gas in this lecture). This is perhaps where the entire debate should be centered because this is the main problem with the theory -- if cloudiness increases, the planet is likely to cool even though the assumption being made here is that any given greenhouse gas will prevent outgoing radiation in sync with its change in abundance relative to atmosphere as a whole.

So right there, with water vapour, you have an enormous uncertainty since much will depend on the distribution of cloudiness, if cloud increases more in cold climates than warm climates, one result may occur, if it's the other way around, a different outcome may occur.

Another problem I see is that while carbon dioxide may well be increasing entirely because of human activity, its contribution relative to water vapour may be fractional and therefore it returns the debate essentially to water vapour. So what if there are complex feedback mechanisms between the man-made greenhouse gas increases and water vapour? What if (as one example) the denser greenhouse gases create more stable air masses that can retain cloud cover in marginal situations where decades earlier they might have cleared out? (of course not all water vapour is in cloud but the cloud portion is important in determining incoming solar radiation in particular).

These are the sorts of complexities that these simplistic models do not seem to handle very well, if they did, predictions made around 1990 would be coming true in full rather than in part. And we are left with the ongoing uncertainty about what the climate should be doing, this entire field sometimes seems to have given itself an unwarranted right to shoo all other factors off the stage. If there were no human race or increasing greenhouse gases, what would the climate be doing over the period 1990-2020? Where should storm Georgina have been, or the earlier storm that hit Holland? Are they exactly the same as they would have been, albeit moving around air masses warmed up by 0.7 C, or are they running at higher latitudes, arriving earlier, later, with what intensity? Nobody really knows the answers to any of these questions and therefore the entire theoretical foundation is suspect (until we do know).

So this gets me back to my original base, which is to suggest that recent warming (which has flattened out since about 2006) could be partly anthropogenic, and is plausibly partly natural since solar activity was very high 1940 to 2000.

It's not so much that I dispute the physics, I just suspect that we are not anywhere near skilled enough in our understanding of how the complex machine works to say that our contribution has had all or most of the effects seen, and even if that's the case, these effects are not generally running at a rate equal to what the theory's own proponents were forecasting.

So it's mainly a question of scale, rather than yes or no do I accept the physics? The problem with saying I must accept the physics is that I apparently must accept the forecasts which are made by those who ask the question, and I definitely don't accept the higher two-thirds of those, because I suspect that at some point the atmosphere will fix itself, I don't think the planet can sustain a runaway greenhouse effect unless we are talking about massive increases in carbon dioxide that nobody is postulating. The most likely outcome is that these levels will flatten out later this century and slowly fall in the 22nd century given that we may then have much cleaner technologies (or 1% of our current population, a near extinction of the human race seems like a good bet on any number of fronts).

dense

piuswal wrote: »

WOW, a lot of reading there. Will take me some time to read.

In the meantime, any chance you wold deal with;

"Interesting that you only deal with the 97% claim! What are your views on their conclusions regarding the 38 papers they examined?

Would it be unfair to claim that you were selective in your comments, ignoring the points that would seem to be contrary to your case?"

Yes it would.

Here's why. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

You incorrectly assumed that I watched the video you posted.

I didn't, because when I tried to play it I was asked to log in to Facebook, which I can't do as I don't do Facebook.

So therefore yes, it is unfair to say that I ignored something "that is contrary to my case".

I should add that I do usually bin anything that starts out with the 97% waffle, as should most people, unless they have an abiding desire to be openly duped by certain elements desperate to push acceptance of the cAGW theory.

Oneiric 3

dense wrote: »

That is also the experimental socialist dream of local eco activists

.

Trust me, the last thing these bourgeoisie, pseudo 'socialists' want to see is the Socialistic dream, as envisaged by Marx, becoming a reality.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't know if you're referring to me, but i did put forward criticisms of his '2 zone energy model' He bases his model on a Lindzen and Choi paper which has been shown to have severe methodological issues.

Gaoth Ladir, I'd be interested in your views on the basic physics of climate change. Do you not believe the figures for the radiative forcing given in the lecture I linked to above (i appreciate it's an hour long, but most of that is covered at the start)

Your criticism of it based on an earlier Choice Lindzen paper was dealt with in his paper. We've been over this before.

I agree with the basic physics of climate change but I don't agree with the extent of the AGW part as the observations are not following the forecasts. It looks like climate sensitivity is less than previously thought.

The rest is all politics.

gabeeg

Here's the thing, lads, you need to explain how and why there is a global conspiracy amongst scientists of all stripes to push this agenda.
How did they manage to pull this amazing con off, and how do they continue to further indoctrinate students entering the field on an ongoing basis.

Without that, you don't have a leg to stand on

Dakota Dan

gabeeg wrote: »

If there's no such thing as man-made climate change, then how come you don't use a space between your commas and the subsequent letters?

The thing is science has thousands of years of accurate data on climate and temperature change. You just haven't bothered your hole reading about it.

Thousands of years of accurate data, really :rolleyes:

Dakota Dan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I find it upsetting that some people still question the existence of climate change and our involvement in its development, we have to change our ways now, or this could exterminate our species and others. We can be a truly ignorant and selfish species at times

You must be living a very modest lifestyle.

dense

I find this very interesting.

We wanted to learn about how Ireland could avert climate change and to learn how much global warming and climate change has been caused by Ireland.

Everyone seems to agree that they are interesting questions.

So after tea one evening we drew lots to decide who to ask, and the questions were submitted to the following activist blog post which was heralding the latest noise from the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change.

http://www.thinkorswim.ie/when-our-leaders-wont-lead-can-citizens-assembly-step-up/


Question:

Hello, what percentage of “climate change/global warming” is attributable to Ireland?

And, what percentage of “climate change/global warming” can Ireland avert if your policies are implemented?

Response

Hello Dave. Two interesting questions. Answers as follows:

Ireland is, per capita, the 3rd highest carbon emitter in the EU. Each Irish citizen accounts for 12-15 tonnes of GHGs per capita, per annum. This is more than 10 times higher than per capita emissions in the ‘developing world’. So, Ireland contributes vastly more carbon pollution per capita than the world average. Assuming you agree that every human being is equal, then our contribution to climate change is grossly unequal, and imposes huge costs on people living in the Global South, the people who did least to create this crisis. Is that fair?

Assuming you accept that climate change is (a) real; (b) deadly serious and (c) must be reined in at all cost before it triggers a global calamity, then the question is slightly different: who should NOT act to do their full and fair share, to prevent this disaster? BTW, I don’t personally have any “policies” but there are plenty of expert online resources from reputable sources to assist you in calculating just how big a problem we face, and just how radical the global response is going to have to be if catastrophe is to be averted.

In saying this, that doesn’t mean I necessarily think we will be successful. Every effort may well be in vain. The die may already be cast. But, as long as there is even a remote chance of reducing devastating harms to future generations, as well as to our fellow creatures and the wider natural world (all of which have every bit as much right to continued existence as we do), then I’ll keep plugging away.

What is your Plan B: is it to either just give up, or to deny the extent and nature of the predicament we face? Everyone has to live with their own conscience. I choose to keep on fighting, no matter how poor the prospects of success. And you?

Note the wordy effort to change the subject and the inability to answer basic questions.

Kinda sums up the whole climate change movement.


(A further reply was submitted which centred on the questions of attribution in the hypothetical context of the possibility of Ireland being brought to court for allegedly "failing to avert climate change", and the need for Ireland to be successful in any such case, but presumably that was even more awkward to deal with, and never saw the light of day.)


They appeared to be highly relevant questions given that the blogger's own view is that Ireland can indeed avert "climate catastrophe".
All of it, apparently.

What better place than their own blog to clarify the matter, if it had been picked up wrongly by anyone?

So what exactly might radical decarbonisation sufficient to avert climate catastrophe look like in Ireland?

From here: http://www.thinkorswim.ie/unmasking-irelands-real-climate-radicals/

They're not fans of Ray Bates on that blog either, he gets a good roasting whenever possible.

He must be bang on target with his research so.

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Just watching the video, general comment is that I accept the physics as being valid but some of the assumptions about how the atmosphere actually works are perhaps not valid, the main objection being that all of these theoretical considerations seem to assume a steady-state atmosphere gaining only in carbon dioxide, methane and a few other greenhouse gases, but not seeing any overall change in water vapour (which is presented as a greenhouse gas in this lecture). This is perhaps where the entire debate should be centered because this is the main problem with the theory -- if cloudiness increases, the planet is likely to cool even though the assumption being made here is that any given greenhouse gas will prevent outgoing radiation in sync with its change in abundance relative to atmosphere as a whole.

So right there, with water vapour, you have an enormous uncertainty since much will depend on the distribution of cloudiness, if cloud increases more in cold climates than warm climates, one result may occur, if it's the other way around, a different outcome may occur.

You're right that there is some uncertainty about how clouds affect climate sensitivity, but among climate scientists, water vapour is almost always considered to be the most powerful positive feedback driving climate change, while clouds are considered to be likely positive, but very unlikely to be a strongly negative feedback. (ie, there there is still debate but there is no well evidenced theory that suggests that clouds are a powerful negative feedback)

First of all, all the water vapour in the atmosphere that hasn't condensed into clouds is always a greenhouse gas, and warmer air can hold more water vapour before it condenses into clouds

Secondly clouds themselves have both positive and negative feedbacks, during the day, they increase albido and reflect some of the sunlight. At night, they are a powerful positive feedback, trapping a lot of heat that would otherwise escape to space. Even at night, water vapour that is not condensed into clouds remains a positive feedback.

Another problem I see is that while carbon dioxide may well be increasing entirely because of human activity, its contribution relative to water vapour may be fractional and therefore it returns the debate essentially to water vapour. So what if there are complex feedback mechanisms between the man-made greenhouse gas increases and water vapour? What if (as one example) the denser greenhouse gases create more stable air masses that can retain cloud cover in marginal situations where decades earlier they might have cleared out? (of course not all water vapour is in cloud but the cloud portion is important in determining incoming solar radiation in particular).

The point is that CO2 causes enough warming to allow the air to hold more water vapour which in turn causes more warming.

These are the sorts of complexities that these simplistic models do not seem to handle very well, if they did, predictions made around 1990 would be coming true in full rather than in part.

Hold on now MT, Are you saying that because the 1990s climate models haven't been fully accurate (100%) that they haven't got predictive value? You know as well as anyone that weather is chaotic and models work on probability and can be thrown by unexpected or unaccounted for variations on a short term basis. The

The models have been accurate within their margin of error. Clouds are not modelled at a high resolution in the models due to restrictions in computing power, but they are accounted for using simpler algorithms that give a reasonable account of our current understanding of how clouds affect global average climate.

It is possible that some future study will prove that overall, when we account for every different type of cloud in every different location, that clouds might mitigate global warming but there is no good reason to believe that this will happen, and it's just as likely that as we understand more that clouds will be an overall positive feedback.

And we are left with the ongoing uncertainty about what the climate should be doing, this entire field sometimes seems to have given itself an unwarranted right to shoo all other factors off the stage. If there were no human race or increasing greenhouse gases, what would the climate be doing over the period 1990-2020? Where should storm Georgina have been, or the earlier storm that hit Holland? Are they exactly the same as they would have been, albeit moving around air masses warmed up by 0.7 C, or are they running at higher latitudes, arriving earlier, later, with what intensity? Nobody really knows the answers to any of these questions and therefore the entire theoretical foundation is suspect (until we do know).

It seems to be obvious that if we change any of the factors that feed into weather that any individual weather event would be different. Talking about individual weather events is a distraction. What climatologists say is that the dice are being loaded in favour of higher energy weather events.

So this gets me back to my original base, which is to suggest that recent warming (which has flattened out since about 2006) could be partly anthropogenic, and is plausibly partly natural since solar activity was very high 1940 to 2000.

Here's the solar output compared with global average temperatures. I really don't see how solar output correlates with the rising temperatures.

https://skepticalscience.com//pics/TvsTSI.png
(the image is too big, it ruins the formatting of the post so here's the link instead)

Here's the global average temperature up to 2017. (Note, if you took this graph in 2013, there would be a flat line, but the past 4 years a surge in warming has surged past the 2006 level)
I don't see any flattening since 2006.[img]Http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/TimeSeries2017.png[/img]
or http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20180118_Temperature2017.pdf

It's not so much that I dispute the physics, I just suspect that we are not anywhere near skilled enough in our understanding of how the complex machine works to say that our contribution has had all or most of the effects seen, and even if that's the case, these effects are not generally running at a rate equal to what the theory's own proponents were forecasting.

The rate of change is within the margin of error for the models, which is basically all scientists expect from predictive models. There are natural factors that affect variability on short to medium term and at individual locations, but the models predictions are accurate. Contrast this with the predictions made by the climate skeptics which are a hodge podge ranging from a looming mini ice age (which is what the weather forum's own long running climate change thread was called when it was started a few years ago) up to the perennial skeptic argument that climate change has peaked and it's about to start falling back any year now.

So it's mainly a question of scale, rather than yes or no do I accept the physics? The problem with saying I must accept the physics is that I apparently must accept the forecasts which are made by those who ask the question, and I definitely don't accept the higher two-thirds of those, because I suspect that at some point the atmosphere will fix itself, I don't think the planet can sustain a runaway greenhouse effect unless we are talking about massive increases in carbon dioxide that nobody is postulating. The most likely outcome is that these levels will flatten out later this century and slowly fall in the 22nd century given that we may then have much cleaner technologies (or 1% of our current population, a near extinction of the human race seems like a good bet on any number of fronts).

The physics are not based on forecasts, they're based on fundamental calculations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Radiative forcing is about as certain as any other scientific principle. Climate sensitivity is much less certain because it depends on assumptions that we have good reasons to believe are true within a range, but cannot say for sure.

Hoping that the climate will stabilize at some point in the future seems to me to be a tad unscientific, especially when you consider the tipping points that we could reach whereby we cause natural carbon sinks to begin emitting greenhouse gasses which could dwarf human emissions once it gets beyond that point. (what would happen if the rainforests started to die off for example)