CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

M.T. Cranium

Readers will perhaps know that I have been doing weather and climate research for perhaps half a century now.

I was never a strong proponent of climate change in the fashion of the orthodox or IPCC approach. I tended towards the skeptical camp and thought that the warming trends evident in recent times were largely natural in origin. This implied that they might reverse and the problems would be resolved (or new problems would arise).

More recently, I have come around to the belief that the current warming is probably about two-thirds natural and one-third anthropogenic in origins. That ratio is perhaps going to change over time but will remain the complex foundation for further climate change in the near to mid-range future.

Therefore I am proposing a third option which is neither the orthodox IPCC position nor the typical climate skeptic position. CC3 is the term I hope to make widely known for a position which says, basically:

** Warming is probably going to continue at a moderate pace, perhaps muted for a decade or two by the solar downturn, but apparently robust enough to keep temperature trends moving upward, and with the possibility of a larger increase to come when the Sun resumes a more active phase (which could be delayed to 2050 or beyond).

** There is perhaps a 25% chance that natural cooling will intervene and return the climate to something approximating the mid-20th century. As long as human activity sustains higher greenhouse gas levels, it seems unlikely that we would cool off as much as the mid-19th century, and levels similar to the Dalton or Maunder minima are probably not achievable until well on into the future when Milankovitch cycles, currently flat-lining, resume their path towards the next glacial interval.

** Therefore it seems prudent to plan around the near-inevitability of at least some sea level rise, and current IPCC-driven political programs which seem unlikely to gain full acceptance anyway would have little or no impact on this inevitable outcome.

I would foresee three stages of sea level rises if natural plus anthropogenic warming continues at any pace greater than 50% of the pace set from 1890 to 1960 and resumed around 1987.

In the first stage, considerable marginal melting in Greenland and widespread deglaciation of lesser ice sheets and mountain glaciers might promote a 1.0 to 1.5 metre sea level rise. This would have large impacts in a few coastal areas that are low-lying inland (such as Miami, FL) and would remove large areas of current ocean-beach habitats. It would be a manageable problem in many other cases, especially if protective dykes were built up in the next 20-30 years (as is already underway in some cases). I foresee this stage occurring around 2040 to 2070 and I don't think any political action curtailing fossil fuel production or usage will change the situation more than marginally.

In a second stage, larger parts of Greenland may start to melt and there could also be significant melting around margins of Antarctica (less certain). This stage might raise sea levels a further 3 to 6 metres. This would be most likely to occur around 2070 to 2150.

A third stage might see a catastrophic meltdown of all remaining polar ice but that seems less than 50% likely and would be well off into the 23rd or 24th centuries. Our technological capability by then might be a game changer (we might have planetary weather control for example).

Since the other two positions (IPCC, skeptics) have well known political positions (carbon taxing and ignoring the problem), CC3 should have its own distinct political position (action required). I believe this is the most logical political response:

** Monitor for sea level rises and other actionable outcomes, and develop strategies for mitigation of these outcomes. The main weakness of the IPCC science may be its inaccurate assessment of the proportionality of natural and anthropogenic warming (a recent discussion I had with self-identified IPCC experts establishes that they think the warming is a blend of 1.5 times current warming of human sources and -0.5 times from natural trends which "ought to be" cooling as they were over much of the previous 5,000 years). That leads the political side of their movement to suggest rather frantic interventions in the economy of western nations in particular to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. They clearly think that if successful these interventions will return the climate to its predestined cooling trend.

If that cooling trend is supposed to be heading (courtesy of Milankovitch cycles) towards the next glacial period, then I don't really see the point of trying to speed that up, do you? Another "ice age" in popular parlance would be a much greater disaster than any sea level rises or other warming phenomena. It would displace far more people and impact agriculture in much worse ways. But that's a debate for people in the distant future perhaps. Most researchers who agree that Milankovitch holds the key to the timing of the next glacial period think it could be 25 to 50 thousand years into the future.

This current human activity spike in greenhouse gases will likely be ancient history to those people who we might imagine will be living in a very high-tech environment that might even include sophisticated weather control schemes.

So to return to the more logical political response, I would say we need to be planning the following initiatives:

** upgrading coastal defences and drawing up plans for larger defences that could be constructed over 10-20 years if future governments become convinced that sea levels are rising (there is no need to go too quickly into this, the sea level rises are not likely to be catastrophically rapid).

** making the most logical decisions about fossil fuel production and exporting, for example at the moment the green movement in Canada wants to curtail a lot of that including even LNG shipments to China which would replace coal burning energy there. That makes no sense to me. The net change in greenhouse gas emission (and sooty deposition) brought about by those exports would be a positive. At the same time, it might make more sense to refine petroleum closer to source of production so that what is being shipped can go by road and rail more easily than pipelines. Perhaps stockpiling incentives so that production could continue to stimulate the economy but a larger market share for electric vehicles would extend the operational life of the fossil fuel component, making for lower annual outputs of fossil fuel emissions.

** desalination can reduce ocean levels slightly and on a massive scale in key areas (southwest U.S., Mexico, west Africa, Middle East, Australia, Namibia, Chile and Peru) there are large areas that could be successfully irrigated and brought into agricultural production. In some cases (notably west Africa, southern California) there are options for extending ocean cover into inland basins that are already below sea level (thus only connecting excavations required) and those basins could be used to store the desalinated water created or to increase the total volume of the global ocean (perhaps offsetting some of the sea level rises).

** technologies should be stimulated in such areas as large-scale carbon scrubbing or sinks, and a new area opened up, to increase ocean volume. In Canada, we have a lot of waste land, so much so that it doesn't even hold any sort of significance to native peoples for hunting. This waste land is often not very far above sea level. I wonder if expanding the area of Hudson Bay or the Beaufort Sea (Banks Island is almost the size of Ireland and is almost totally uninhabited) might provide a restraint on sea level rises and at the same time the climate change underway in those regions might go through useful changes such as increased snow cover around the subarctic margins. There might also be areas of northern Russia that could be engineered to become part of the ocean (this would take massive engineering to remove land and place the sediments in useful positions). I don't think we are stuck with sea level rises if we can engineer solutions. But if we get to "phase two" larger rises then I think we run out of options like these.

Basically then, what I plan to promote is a more common sense approach to the same problems that the IPCC identifies. I don't think their political agenda is very popular in most western countries and if they try to over-extend their hand with coercive approaches, who is going to do the coercion? The UN peacekeeping forces were mentioned by one IPCC zealot, apparently they were to be deployed near U.S. oilfields to ensure compliance with the Paris accords. Anyone who thinks that would actually work is not very familiar with American politics.

My belief is that the warming has enough of a natural component that it will almost inevitably continue anyway, even if the green movement somehow had a complete success over 20-30 years. I will be releasing a massive study of the past 180 years of weather data at Toronto, comparing that to the CET records which are twice as long (and 247 years of daily data). What this will show is that natural warming was almost certainly the main cause of warming from about 1890 to 1960 (in North America more certainly than in Europe). That natural warming might have had some anthropogenic input but the massive rises in greenhouse gases did not really begin until after 1930. What I see after that is a slight cooling phase (1978 to 1982 particularly cool) then with the large El nino event of 1982-83 a sort of phase change back to the previous trend of natural warming, which has slowed to a crawl since about 2012.

I can't accept the IPCC arguments and I don't think they have a true "proven science." They bang on about some 99% consensus which they can only attain by excluding all dissidents in the profession (and they are numerous). This is the old communist approach of putting two candidates on a ballot, one from the party, and one who you knew was not a real candidate and if you were spotted voting for that person, you would end up in Siberia for twenty years. But that had the advantage of reducing the communist vote from 100% to 99.7% or whatever, which duped a few really stupid people in the west into thinking that the people actually wanted communism (100% would sound rigged to those few idiots).

If you raise valid concerns about the IPCC theories, you just get a torrent of abuse and hostility (how dare you squared).

And the use of psychological manipulation on vulnerable school-aged children to sell this half-baked unproven theory is a major scandal and an egregious case of child abuse. If this is "science" then I want no part of it. By calm and rational persuasion, I think this CC3 approach can be shown to be an improvement on both that politically tinged IPCC agenda and the see-no-warming approach of many skeptics (who may be proved right in the long run, but my approach overlaps to the extent that if careful observation and monitoring reveal no impending problems, then fine, do nothing).

One person acting alone can probably have very little impact on the global conversation. So I am going to do whatever I can to promote this CC3 approach as a better alternative until it gains some traction and becomes part of that conversation. I hope you'll consider giving it your support. To give further evidence that natural warming is a real issue, and to provide some hard data for the discussion, I will soon be publishing a website and associated excel file to be entitled "Toronto-180" which documents all of the data collected at this one location (downtown Toronto) for the longest known period in North America (March 1, 1840 to end of Feb 2020). There is also a daily climate record for the years 1831 to 1860 partially overlapping, from Providence RI southwest of Boston. My CET studies are extensive and documented over on Net-weather in their historic weather section.

This Toronto-180 study will show the associated rises in temperature at that location relative to the CET. That helps to identify how much of the warming at Toronto is due to the urban heat island (another human influence, but separate from the AGW climate change sort of warming although I've often wondered, if all urban heat islands are summed up, what's their net contribution to the overall warming since when it gets windy, those heat island effects are spread out into the larger circulation). The size of the urban heat island at Toronto is evidently about 2 C deg since the large city now has brought temperatures up to very similar levels to the CET whereas in the mid-19th century when Toronto was only a small town the size of perhaps Athlone or Mullingar today, and the station at the edge of that town, the average temperature was running closer to 2 degrees lower than the CET.

This data set will be a treasure trove for researchers in general. I have shown in graphical format the changes in all aspects of the climate at Toronto, and compared them to the CET. The various El Nino warmings that are stronger in North America create interesting differentials but the trends are usually similar. There were pronounced temperature spikes in both data sets in 1921, 1948 and 1953. There were however years out of phase. When North America was experiencing widespread record heat in 1936, nothing similar occurred in Britain. Heat waves of 1911 and 1955 were similar in both places.

Anyway, what was a linear debate (warming that we caused, or no problem) is now perhaps a three-cornered discussion with this new addition. I see some problems in adequately resolving the two components of warming, but I feel quite sure that the warming is likely to continue no matter what governments do in the short term. The idea that we can easily change the trends is probably a fallacy even if the IPCC science is sound. It is more of a fallacy if their science is unsound. So it's complicated. Unlike the IPCC scientists, I have faith in the general public to choose the right path and I don't think 99% of the people who read weather forums are stupid and need to be educated or lectured. So I value your opinion. With an attitude like that, is it any wonder I have been blacklisted by our rather lamentable science for most of my adult life?

To me, it's a sign of weakness when a scientific body quickly resorts to options like censorship, blacklisting, ostracism, ad hominem arguments, I don't recall Albert Einstein using any of those to gain acceptance for his ideas.

M.T. Cranium

This is one example of what the study has shown --

ANNUAL AVERAGE TEMP (Toronto vs CET) 1841 to 2019

Larbre34

My brother, you are singing my tune. I hope this common sense approach eventually gains acceptance and humankind can moderate its behaviour over a natural cycle of innovation and obviate the need for non-renewables, if not for climate change reasons, then purely for economic ones as supplies eventually exhaust.

To my mind this should always have been the approach, rather than flinging red herrings all over the place and irritating everyone and more importantly making lots of people shrug and say "we're already f*****, why bother doing anything".

The way the planet is going we will likely have annihilated ourselves through global conflict before any climate changes get a chance to, but if we make it through this political era, I think we'll be alright. Just the small matter of feeding 10 billion souls.....

mikeecho

Can anyone give me a synopsis of the op.?

Coles

mikeecho wrote: »

Can anyone give me a synopsis of the op.?

Climate change denier realises he was wrong, tries to propose a new reality where technology allows developed countries to have minimal economic impact, ignoring the impact on biodiversity loss, food security, migration and resource conflict.

Naggdefy

Coles wrote: »

Climate change denier realises he was wrong, tries to propose a new reality where technology allows developed countries to have minimal economic impact, ignoring the impact on biodiversity loss, food security, migration and resource conflict.

MT states.. 'about two-thirds natural and one-third anthropogenic in origins'. So your synopsis is incorrect. Also very disingenuous to throw around cheap trite labels like 'climate change denier' to someone with as distinguished and scholarly a background as the OP.

SeaBreezes

Coles wrote: »

Climate change denier realises he was wrong, tries to propose a new reality where technology allows developed countries to have minimal economic impact, ignoring the impact on biodiversity loss, food security, migration and resource conflict.

And Coles proves MTs point: ,

"it's a sign of weakness when a scientific body quickly resorts to options like censorship, blacklisting, ostracism, ad hominem arguments, I don't recall Albert Einstein using any of those to gain acceptance for his ideas...."

I'm sure Galileo would agree.

I cannot understand how anyone could dismiss MTs work when it hasn't even been released yet. At least examine the evidence before you dismiss it out of hand..

SeaBreezes

Also a pet hate of mine is the term 'Climate Change denier' firstly, no one is arguing the climate is changing, what is being questioned is what is causing it.

Second, it's science, not a religion. You are SUPPOSED to question science, challenge it, test it, prove and disprove it. science is neither a religion or team based sport. It has no sides just differing theories to be examined and proved or disproved.

_Brian

There is a major power play ongoing and climate is merely the vehicle that is being used to achieve it.

We have a group who are propelling the notion that climate change is 100% a human problem and only by letting them control every aspect of our lives can we be saved. I have never been sold on this ethos.

Without doubt the climate is changing, I’m merely a half century old and I can see it.
Without doubt humans have an effect on climate change.

I have always thought along the lines of what MT is saying that climate has never ever been a static measurement. The planet has always changed as it aged, we can mitigate our effect, and we should, but as for the portion that is natural change we are mere passengers and need to develop our lifestyles to live with it.

Someone above curtly criticised MT for changing his position. If scientists can’t change their position they may as well be religious fanatics holding a point no matter what information is before them. I commend anyone who can study the science and say they have changed their viewpoint.

nthclare

David Bellamy had his own theories too and look how that worked out.

It seems anyone who's sceptical about the new stance on climate change or has other ideas are shunned or scoffed at.

Im a botanist/horticulturist myself and have a good idea about plants and how they're intrinsically connected with the climate and how the topography of the land effects rain fall and drought.

Maybe man can reverse the change by giving back what they've taken away.

An example of stupidly from the elite is the planting of American pine trees in our peat areas, while we could plant them up with heaters and other native plants.

In this country they've destroyed eco systems, poisoning the land and water ways with foreign plants, our grass in agricultural areas should be managed better too and allowed to grow higher in places.
That would offset things for the better.

Mr Bumble

Coles wrote: »

Climate change denier realises he was wrong, tries to propose a new reality where technology allows developed countries to have minimal economic impact, ignoring the impact on biodiversity loss, food security, migration and resource conflict.

Would genuinely be interested to know your credentials on this subject. Your response is typical of someone pumping an ideology and unwilling to contemplate any solutions other than the removal of CO2 from our lives.
Debate encourages solutions. Virtue signalling doesn't. Read the proposal made above and offer a critique. Throwing out slogans helps nobody.

You will note that all the 'sceptics' so far in this thread have underlined their belief that climate change is happening and far from denying it, are trying to understand it while others preach the ideology.
There's another thread here on climate change and the lad making the case against CO2 repeatedly said when asked about his own contribution to saving the planet and with no obvious sense of irony, that there was nothing he as an individual could do practically to impact on the issue, that it was only at corporate and governmental level that real change could take place.
I'm seeing beaches in India being cleared of ten feet of plastic because one man decided to start cleaning himself and now it's a movement.
Whatever you feel about Greta, she;s one person and is changing the world.

CLimb down off the high ground and start talking instead of preaching and people might take you seriously.

blanch152

In some ways, MT's analysis is more worrying that the IPCC's.

His conclusion is that climate change happens anyway, which is obvious, and that it is currently in a warming phase and that we don't yet have the technology to mitigate it, but are exacerbating and adding to it through CO2 emissions.

The IPCC think that just by stopping emitting CO2 that we can halt and mitigate climate change. However, if an element of warming is natural and happening anyway, we do need to look more urgently at the types of mitigating options put forward by MT, as the CO2 preventive measures suggested by the IPCC won't be sufficient.

Larbre34

Coles wrote: »

impact on biodiversity loss, food security, migration and resource conflict.

This is as much a function of the following as it is any climate cycle.

Coles

blanch152 wrote: »

In some ways, MT's analysis is more worrying that the IPCC's.

His conclusion is that climate change happens anyway, which is obvious, and that it is currently in a warming phase and that we don't yet have the technology to mitigate it, but are exacerbating and adding to it through CO2 emissions.

The IPCC think that just by stopping emitting CO2 that we can halt and mitigate climate change. However, if an element of warming is natural and happening anyway, we do need to look more urgently at the types of mitigating options put forward by MT, as the CO2 preventive measures suggested by the IPCC won't be sufficient.

It's called Stage 5 Climate Change Denial.
"Oh dear, too late, there's nothing we can do. Let's just carry on as we were."

It's not going to work. Biodiversity collapse. Food security. Ocean acidification. Famine. Resource conflict. Climate migration.

The science is absolutely crystal clear. I don't really care about the personal contortions that anyone else puts themselves through as the penny drops.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial

Coles

Larbre34 wrote: »

This is as much a function of the following as it is any climate cycle.

No. It's not population. It's consumption.

1% of the World's population has more CO2e emmissions than half of the World's population.

loyatemu

Naggdefy wrote: »

MT states.. 'about two-thirds natural and one-third anthropogenic in origins'. So your synopsis is incorrect. Also very disingenuous to throw around cheap trite labels like 'climate change denier' to someone with as distinguished and scholarly a background as the OP.

I enjoy MT's weather forecasts. Can someone point me towards his climatology credentials (a genuine question)?

Reckless Abandonment

Coles wrote: »

No. It's not population. It's consumption.

1% of the World's population has more CO2e emmissions than half of the World's population.

If humans are responsible for all or any part of climate change. Population grown has to be a huge factor in it. 1% might be massively over polluting but the other 99% are catching up fast.

Naggdefy

loyatemu wrote: »

I enjoy MT's weather forecasts. Can someone point me towards his climatology credentials (a genuine question)?

If you study weather and observe and measure meteorological data for half a century as MT said surely that's a pretty good start.

Larbre34

Coles wrote: »

No. It's not population. It's consumption.

1% of the World's population has more CO2e emmissions than half of the World's population.

CO2 emissions are not proportional with all of biodiversity loss, food security, migration and resource conflict. I recognise the disproportionate impact of a profligate western hemisphere on resource consumption, but rising standards and expectation of similar consumption appetites amongst many billions in the developing world are the real elephant in the room. Yes, in terms of CO2 production, fossil fuelled energy generation in these same areas are what are causing the main increase in global emissions, but once they mature out of that (if for no other reason than it becomes uneconomic) the other issues all remain.

Gaoth Laidir

loyatemu wrote: »

I enjoy MT's weather forecasts. Can someone point me towards his climatology credentials (a genuine question)?

I'm sure he can give you the details, but I know he qualified in climatology back in the early days and then worked as a professional weather forecaster in the US. He's more qualified than most commentators when it comes to this subject.

Coles

Naggdefy wrote: »

If you study weather and observe and measure meteorological data for half a century as MT said surely that's a pretty good start.

It's a start, but it doesn't qualify you to propose a serious alternative to the IPCC.

Gaoth Laidir

Coles wrote: »

It's a start, but it doesn't qualify you to propose a serious alternative to the IPCC.

Yes it does. Anyone can propose a theory. As long as they can back it up with credible data then it is a serious alternative.

Hooter23

Records show the world was even warmer in the past...even when there was no CO2 from cars industry etc...

Naggdefy

Coles wrote: »

It's a start, but it doesn't qualify you to propose a serious alternative to the IPCC.

They're just a group of individuals. MT is as entitled to give his views.

Gaoth Laidir

Coles wrote: »

It's a start, but it doesn't qualify you to propose a serious alternative to the IPCC.

Did you ever question Al Gore's credentials?

Tuisceanch

I can't accept the IPCC arguments and I don't think they have a true "proven science." They bang on about some 99% consensus which they can only attain by excluding all dissidents in the profession (and they are numerous).

It would be helpful if the OP could list some of the most credible dissidents,in his opinion, to provide further support for some of his opinions and viewpoints.

Coles

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes it does. Anyone can propose a theory. As long as they can back it up with credible data then it is a serious alternative.

Are you suggesting that we ignore the IPCC and wait for the credible data that will support this "serious alternative" theory?

The IPCC has done a lot of work on this. It seems silly to try to create a middle ground between the conclusions of the best scientific minds in the world and a bunch of fossil fuel funded rightwing crazies.

Coles

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Did you ever question Al Gore's credentials?

This is silly too.

Hooter23

The whole climate change scam is very profitable it made Al Gore a billionaire after all...its all about the money as usual in this corrupt joke of a world where everything is a lie

Oneiric 3

Coles wrote: »

This is silly too.

Is it? What about Greta Thunberg's credentials also? Surely there must be more to her than those cute pigtails she commonly sports?

Coles

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Is it? What about Greta Thunberg's credentials also? Surely there must be more to her than those cute pigtails she commonly sports?

She doesn't need credentials to ask people to listen to the scientists.

Oneiric 3

Coles wrote: »

Climate change denier realises he was wrong

M.T has never been a 'climate denier', but he is what I call 'old school', in that he questions everything and does not take everything told to him at face-value without first researching the facts (or lack of them) himself.

Oneiric 3

Coles wrote: »

She doesn't need credentials to ask people to listen to the scientists.

She is nothing but a media created figure. Ample media coverage and privileged to speak to the world leaders on a regular basis. Also, why do 'scientists' need a young, uneducated and obviously terrified teenage girl to speak for them? Are their own pigtails not appealing enough for the cameras?

loyatemu

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'm sure he can give you the details, but I know he qualified in climatology back in the early days and then worked as a professional weather forecaster in the US. He's more qualified than most commentators when it comes to this subject.

fair enough, I don't claim any great expertise in this area. But AFAIK 99% of scientists working in this and related fields accept the hypothesis; and even MTC now seems to be backtracking on his previous dismissal of it.

blanch152

Coles wrote: »

It's called Stage 5 Climate Change Denial.
"Oh dear, too late, there's nothing we can do. Let's just carry on as we were."

It's not going to work. Biodiversity collapse. Food security. Ocean acidification. Famine. Resource conflict. Climate migration.

The science is absolutely crystal clear. I don't really care about the personal contortions that anyone else puts themselves through as the penny drops.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial

Biodiversity collapse and food security issues are being caused by overpopulation, not the burning of fossil fuels.

Famine has a number of causes, including climate change, overpopulation, poor agricultural practices. After all, the Great Famine in Ireland had nothing to do with climate change.

I support higher carbon taxes in Ireland, I support the banning of diesel cars, I support the phasing out of single-use plastic, I support subsidies for solar panels, I support investment in making homes energy-efficient etc. etc. I vote Green because more needs to be done on these issues.

To me, M.T's post isn't saying these aren't needed, it is saying that they aren't sufficient, and that other larger engineering solutions will be needed, as the sea-level will rise even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow.

Like all zealots, you dismiss any opposing argument without even thinking about it.

Larbre34

loyatemu wrote: »

fair enough, I don't claim any great expertise in this area. But AFAIK 99% of scientists working in this and related fields accept the hypothesis; and even MTC now seems to be backtracking on his previous dismissal of it.

Detailed analysis of the acceptance in the field of the IPCC anthropogenic climate change position, concludes 80%

Coles

Zealot? Lol.

If you feel the IPCC is wrong then write them a strongly worded letter. And well done for cutting out single use plastic.

marathon19

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

More recently, I have come around to the belief that the current warming is probably about two-thirds natural and one-third anthropogenic in origins. That ratio is perhaps going to change over time but will remain the complex foundation for further climate change in the near to mid-range future.

This bit interests me no end.

How did you come to the belief that current warming is probably 33% anthropogenic in origin?

Coles

marathon19 wrote: »

This bit interests me no end.

How did you come to the belief that current warming is probably 33% anthropogenic in origin?

The actual scientific evidence shows that without anthropogenic warming the world would be cooling. Anthropogenic warming is 100%, not 33%.

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Contrib25-30.png

Gaoth Laidir

Coles wrote: »

Are you suggesting that we ignore the IPCC and wait for the credible data that will support this "serious alternative" theory?

The IPCC has done a lot of work on this. It seems silly to try to create a middle ground between the conclusions of the best scientific minds in the world and a bunch of fossil fuel funded rightwing crazies.

No, I'm not suggesting we ignore the IPCC. I didn't say that. Nor should we ignore any science on the subject. You seem to be doing just that and dismissinf his researchnwithout having looked at it.

MT's original post seems to be now lost in a haze of the usual attempts at discrediting the author by the usual individuals. I was wondering who would be the first to mention oil-funded, and it was you. Congrats.

MT has a vast body of work done on many areas of climatology, including the effect of astronomical forces on energy timelines on Earth. He's not quite novice or a charlatan. His very presence with his forecast every day is due to his interest in researching weather and climate of different regions in his model. I'd suggest you and a few others first hear the man out before going on the personal attack.

Coles

Astrological forces influencing climate? Interesting. I doubt if the IPCC has considered that possibility. I'm a Leo.

Nabber

Such a shame....

Exclude the fact it's MT and add in any other poster. Their thoughts and ideas are presented well and posted on a public forum to be read and challenged. Instead of digesting and dissecting the post, some people have decided to attack the poster and not the content.


The toxicity from some people when alternatives to AGW is more alarming than the climate.

Gaoth Laidir

Coles wrote: »

Astrological forces influencing climate? Interesting. I doubt if the IPCC has considered that possibility. I'm a Leo.

I meant astronomical!

blanch152

Nabber wrote: »

Such a shame....

Exclude the fact it's MT and add in any other poster. Their thoughts and ideas are presented well and posted on a public forum to be read and challenged. Instead of digesting and dissecting the post, some people have decided to attack the poster and not the content.


The toxicity from some people when alternatives to AGW is more alarming than the climate.

What is worse is that they are missing the point completely. He is not saying that AGW isn't happening, he is saying that because AGW is augmenting natural warming, we need to do more than stop burning fossil fuels.

Tuisceanch

More recently, I have come around to the belief that the current warming is probably about two-thirds natural and one-third anthropogenic in origins. That ratio is perhaps going to change over time but will remain the complex foundation for further climate change in the near to mid-range future.

marathon19 wrote: »

This bit interests me no end.

How did you come to the belief that current warming is probably 33% anthropogenic in origin?

Yes I'm also interested to know what evidence this is based on and also who else supports this view. Why is so difficult to get answers to such basic questions? Surely the OP would be able to help out.

Gaoth Laidir

The OP is 8 timezones away so I'd wait for him to explain all, which I'm sure he will.

Harry Palmr

The OP wasn't intending to create a personality cult on this forum but that's what's going to happen.

Gaoth Laidir

Meanwhile I've taken his data and added 10-yr running means to the Toronto and C.E.T. series.

It's notable how there is no runaway rise in temperature in recent decades in either series (and indeed in the whole Global dataset). The old hockeystick of yesteryore seems to have had a chunk broken off its tip. Whatever the reason for the warming dragging its heels, it is something that is not accounted for in the projections of doom. Globally, the dataset is not even rising in line with the RCP4.5 Business-as-usual scenario.

Anyway, it's only fair that MT be allowed time to expand on this idea here before the smash-and-grab looting continues.

bfa1509

I saw an interesting theory presented a few years back on the reasons dinosaurs migrated such long distances across continents. The scientist (who I can't remember) claimed that the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere at the time was much higher than it is today. Because of this, forest fires were rampant so the dinosaurs had to migrate to find unburnt vegetation (+ presumably to flee the fires).

I thought this was very interesting. But it would make you think about the demonising of CO2 in the media of late. If the CO2 levels increase then maybe the instances of natural forest fires may decrease in future and things will likely balance out in time. The earth is very good at harmonising everything, we just need to give it a chance.

SeaBreezes

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Yes I'm also interested to know what evidence this is based on and also who else supports this view. Why is so difficult to get answers to such basic questions? Surely the OP would be able to help out.

Google Valentina zharkova. It was her science (and she was only one of 2 people world wide who predicted the last solar cycle being half the strength of previous ones, even NASA got it wrong, now they are following her lead)

Then check if the IPCC takes solar forcing into account in their models.

Then google the medieval and roman warming phases.

That's what got me interested in natural warming/cooling cycles. Valentina had been spot on so far.

Also, if we are the only culprit, and CO2 levels are at record highs. Why have global temps been dropping since 2016?
Unless something else is influencing temps? Like the sun?

But I'm with MT on this. Why does it have to be either/or? Why not both?

And his reasoning is sound. What if we can't stop it? What are we doing to mitigate it?

Valentina is warning of food shortages by 2028 due to shorter growing seasons.
It's happening already. The hunger stones were seen in Central Europe in 2018. They are inscribed with dates as far back as the 12th century. What caused the warming/weather pattern
Change then?

We are grasping at the edge of it all. But I do feel zharkova has forced the IPCC to include solar forcing in their models from 2020. Incidentally, they tried to stop the publishing of her work in Nature magazine with a sly email to the publishers. She found out when she was cc'ed on the magazines reply.

That's just nasty. What are they afraid of?

Coles

blanch152 wrote: »

What is worse is that they are missing the point completely. He is not saying that AGW isn't happening, he is saying that because AGW is augmenting natural warming, we need to do more than stop burning fossil fuels.

AGW is not "augmenting natural warming". Over the last 25-30 years the World should have been naturally cooling. That's an important point, and yes, we do need to do more to reverse the process, and no, we don't really need an alternative theory about it. The IPCC has the best minds in the World working on it.

I have the greatest respect for MT's weather forecasts, but I'm sick to the back teeth of people trying to undermine the genuine scientific consensus on Climate Change because "communists", or whatever.