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

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

This sentence is the reason why there is no debate. People who write this are brainwashed into thinking that the science is settled and want no part in discussing anything that may progress the science further.

Scientific debate happens in the literature not on a podium.

Most scientists do not want to engage in public or media debates with contrarians and cranks. It is of no benefit to them or to the public understanding of science

Jimmy Garlic

SeaBreezes wrote: »

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.

Science is also not beyond interference from corruption and coercion... and as you say it is not a religion, or at least it shouldn't be. Unquestionable dogma is a hallmark of religious belief.

Pa ElGrande

Drumpot wrote: »

. . .Are there any good links to educated scientists on both sides having a meaningful, respectable debate on this topic? Seems very hard to find a balanced discussion on this.

Global warming began as politicised science and it remains that way several decades later. There are several debates going on, the scientific debates take place through the various papers, and research that is published, questioned and rebutted. If you want to find many of those papers for free use Library Genesis and search under sci-tech or scientific articles. Much of the research contains caveats and various weasel words (especially meta studies) and does not come anywhere near the certainty that you see in the alarmist headlines, in fact if you take the time to research the subject matter for yourself you will find yourself becoming less certain of the pre-conceptions you may have started with.

Rather than wade in to the debates start with a problem statement and take your research from that point, as near as I can find that problem statement being that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is based on the fundamental assumption that disturbances in the Earth’s energy budget driven by changes in downward longwave radiation from CO2 are what cause climate change.

Once you have deciphered that you can start asking questions for yourself like how is this measured and do the results match the hypothesis and then you will eventually discover the answers are way more complex than that presented in the media or general public discourse and what you observe does not fit neatly into a single cause.

Hooter23

They dont want a debate because they wont be able to answer common sense questions from people that are not hand picked...thats why these "sciencetists" are hiding behind a child:rolleyes:

Pa ElGrande

Hooter23 wrote: »

They dont want a debate because they wont be able to answer common sense questions from people that are not hand picked...thats why these "sciencetists" are hiding behind a child:rolleyes:

The political and financial end of the spectrum does not want any debate, and they have been pushing this same mantra since the early 90s, political activists like Al Gore said in 1992 that "only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."



If one side were right there would be no need to mix a whole load of different claims (CO2, plastic pollution and vegans) together and conflate the issue , there would be no need for Ad Hominen attacks against dissenters, there would be no pressure bough on scientists to toe the party line, and there would be no need to marginalise dissenters by refusing to publish them not because their data or arguments are wrong but because they don't fit the consensus. When people start using an abstract noun like science as in "listen to the science" to imply a consensus exists you are entitled to ask what articles are you referring to and do they support the conclusions you derived from them? In particular the 16 year old young adult who grossly misrepresents the scientific literature, and if you call her on it you need to be able to take the flack from those who have like her not read or understood the documents she points to. Consensus is not itself the evidence, nobody talks in terms of scientific consensus that the planets orbit the sun, there is no consensus that Sodium Chloride (NACL) is salt so why do people keep referring to the consensus when talking about climate change? When you’ve got solid scientific evidence on your side, you argue the evidence. When you’ve got great arguments, you make the arguments. When you don’t have solid evidence or great arguments, you claim consensus.

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Global warming began as politicised science and it remains that way several decades later. There are several debates going on, the scientific debates take place through the various papers, and research that is published, questioned and rebutted. If you want to find many of those papers for free use Library Genesis and search under sci-tech or scientific articles. Much of the research contains caveats and various weasel words (especially meta studies) and does not come anywhere near the certainty that you see in the alarmist headlines, in fact if you take the time to research the subject matter for yourself you will find yourself becoming less certain of the pre-conceptions you may have started with.

Global warming did not 'begin as politicised science' it began with Arrhenius in the 1890s calculating the implications for global temperature from the greenhouse effect of CO2 in our atmosphere, and then in physicists and atmospheric scientists researching the implications of increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This was investigated and verified over the 1st half of the 20th century with many scientists realising the implications of what could happen with increasing industrialisation and pollution of our atmosphere with greenhouse gasses

Then Keeling began measuring the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and recorded that the levels were increasing. The Keeling Curve turned the warnings of atmospheric science into the reality that we were fundamentally altering the composition of our atmosphere, and since then, we have had scientists researching the effects of these changes and the reactions of the biosphere to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and we have had polluting industry and governments doing everything to dismiss the findings of the scientists because the implications were that the era of cheap energy, on which their economies depended, was unsustainable.

Anyone who thinks governments have promoted climate change has got it 100% backwards. Politicians from all of the wealthy industrialised countries have resisted strenuously any need to act to reduce climate change for decades, while scientists have been mounting more and more evidence to make the denial of said evidence more transparently ill advised that politicians moved from downplaying the importance of Climate change/global warming, to promising action (with little intention of actually delivering on it if it meant costing them economic growth or elections)

Even the IPCC, which is a political creation trying to do objective science, has been crippled by decades of political interference, not to try to hype up climate change, but to minimise the certainty of the science and to downplay the need to act. The IPCC reports are actually on the conservative end of the science rather than the 'alarmist' side of things.

Regarding your link, I looked at this, typed in climate change and searched for scientific articles. I found a hundred results, all from 20 years ago and older, and most of which did not have a proper journal citation attached. when I clicked on a link, it brought me to a russian search page...

I prefer to use a chrome extension called 'Unpaywall'
If you click on any scientific paper, if there is a free version of that paper somewhere online, the extension will give you a link to it.

Rather than wade in to the debates start with a problem statement and take your research from that point, as near as I can find that problem statement being that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is based on the fundamental assumption that disturbances in the Earth’s energy budget driven by changes in downward longwave radiation from CO2 are what cause climate change.

Once you have deciphered that you can start asking questions for yourself like how is this measured and do the results match the hypothesis and then you will eventually discover the answers are way more complex than that presented in the media or general public discourse and what you observe does not fit neatly into a single cause.

This is a good way to build your knowledge. Ask the right questions, find the right sources who are best qualified to answer those questions.


When you read something in a newspaper or a blog, particularly anything conspiratorial or claiming that scientists have been dis-proven or found to have lied, check the sources, if the sources aren't given, google the claim, if that claim comes from another blog or paper, check if they give their sources until you eventually track down where the claim originated from. Very often, it's someone either distorting a claim, inventing it, or misunderstanding the paper.

Akrasia

Hooter23 wrote: »

They dont want a debate because they wont be able to answer common sense questions from people that are not hand picked...thats why these "sciencetists" are hiding behind a child:rolleyes:

Can you give me an example of a 'common sense question' that scientists are afraid they won't be able to answer?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You seem to have no problem finding the sentences you want to find...:pac: But in case you missed it, in September the IPCC said that

None of this is inconsistent with what I said. Under RCP 2.5 we have a chance of avoiding ice free summers by the end of the century, under the Business as usual scenario, this chance is virtually eliminated.
Note, they say that the chances are for any given summer to be ice free, not the chance for any summer to be ice free by the end of the century. You're comparing different predictions that do not contradict each other.

This comes after previous reports from the "settled science" that projected ice-free in a few decades. Now you introduce the idea of Greenland actually helping preserve sea ice. Where did that one come from? It seems to be grasping at straws. If this was indeed a real thing then I reckon we'd have been reading about it and the polar bears would be rejoicing about it by now.

These predictions were not that every summer would be ice free, it was that we would see our first ice free summers by this time.

There are still natural variations on top of the global warming trend that I have already talked about that will make some summers more favourable to ice than others

Theres actually a good paper on how the IPO could be a big decider for whether arctic is ice free on any given year

Manmade climate change is causing a rapid loss of Arctic sea ice.
Summer Arctic sea ice is predicted to disappear almost completely by the middle of this century, unless emissions of greenhouse gases are rapidly reduced. The speed of sea‐ice loss is not constant over time, however. Natural climate variability can add to the manmade decline, leading to faster sea‐ice loss, or can subtract from the manmade decline, leading to slower sea‐ice loss. In this study, we looked at how natural climate variability affects the timing of an ice‐free Arctic. We found that a natural cycle called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, or IPO for short, is particularly important. Arctic sea‐ice loss is faster when the IPO is moving from its cold to warm phase and slower when the IPO is moving from its warm to cold phase. This is because variations in the IPO cause changes in atmospheric wind patterns, which alter the amount of heat that is transported into the Arctic. Observations show that the IPO started to shift from its cold to warm phase in the past few years. If this shift continues, our results suggest that there is an
increased chance of accelerated sea‐ice loss over the coming decades.

https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/35729/Screen_et_al-2019-Geophysical_Research_Letters.pdf;jsessionid=3BD85A43EF282CF1EACDC688D6923F29?sequence=3

regarding the possible negative feedback on ice extent from greenland melting, this is a well understood but not often talked about feedback, one amongst many that are factors to consider when projecting ice loss in the Arctic
Ice cover is a powerful driver of local climate due to its albedo, anything that can preserve ice for longer will slow down the relentless decline of Arctic sea ice.
Melting ice from Greenland increases the freezing point of the ice around Greenland by reducing the waters salinity
Saltier water is heavier than fresh water so the greenland run off will allow water to freeze closer to 0 C
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171013113012.htm

coolbeans

Hooter23 wrote: »

They dont want a debate because they wont be able to answer common sense questions from people that are not hand picked...thats why these "sciencetists" are hiding behind a child:rolleyes:

I've read this entire thread with interest and I have to say that you're right up there with Coles with your childish comments.

oriel36

Copernicus was faced with a very difficult problem when he first proposed the cause and effect which link planetary motions to Earth sciences. In his original work he proposed that the North and South poles turned parallel to the orbital plane annually -

"The third is the motion in declination. For, the axis of the daily rotation is not parallel to the Grand Orb's axis, but is inclined [to it at an angle that intercepts] a portion of a circumference, in our time about 23 1/2°. Therefore, while the earth's center always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of a circle of the Grand Orb, the earth's poles rotate, both of them describing small circles about centers [lying on a line that moves] parallel to the Grand Orb's axis. The period of this motion also is a year, but not quite, being nearly equal to the Grand Orb's [revolution]." Copernicus, 1514

http://copernicus.torun.pl/en/archives/astronomical/1/?view=transkrypcja&

This is how the motion looks like as a graphic description -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#/media/File:Earth_precession.svg

So why did Copernicus change his description by the time he wrote De Revolutionibus ?. The answer exists in the deficiencies in the framework of Ptolemy rather than the older and more productive framework of the Egyptians where they used the seasonal change in position of the stars rather than the motion of the Sun directly through the constellations as per Ptolemy -

http://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/sun_ecliptic.gif

To make all this current - what causes the single day/night cycle at the North and South poles with a single sunrise/sunset on the equinoxes and one polar noon on the Solstice ? -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM

The Sun is either constantly in view or out of sight at these North/South pole locations for 6 months.

SeaBreezes

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg&feature=youtu.be

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Originally broadcasted March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4.

A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be "the biggest scam of modern times."

M.T. Cranium

I wouldn't rule out anything with regard to cause and effect of that magnetic pole movement and acceleration, but I notice an error crept into one quote that I've heard quite a few times, and that is

..."the pole is moving more rapidly eastward" ...

which is understandable (although wrong, it's moving more rapidly westward) because pretty soon it will be in the eastern hemisphere.

I don't mean to be too abrasive here, but the claim that the NMP is shifting due to climate change or loss of ice in Greenland sounds like a case of "blame anything on climate change" without very much evidence, and I would have to ask, why was the pole already drifting in that general direction during the stable climate of 1840 to 1920 (just picking numbers that might satisfy even the earliest of warm signal seekers)?

The acceleration may be related to the weakening of the field, perhaps a weaker field can shift its orientation faster.

I have long suspected there is some external cause (and the internal changes follow the external cause rather than producing it). However, if that cause is in the solar system it would have to be well out there towards the trans-Neptunian realm because the period of rotation around a fixed point even if distorted away by second-order effects is clearly longer than Neptune's orbital period and probably longer than Pluto's (which leaves unanswered the obvious question, how could objects so far away and presumably very minor influencers of inner solar system magnetic field variations take on this role?).

Let me switch over to one other topic that has come up -- back and forth about climate change the settled science relying on publications, vs totally made up scam. I take a middle position on this. I don't believe climate change is either a mature, settled science nor is it a scam, hoax or deliberately falsified set of postulates. Not that my opinion matters but I suspect I share it with many, climate change is not quite the polished, finished science resounding with many QEDs and worthy of Nobel prizes etc etc, but rather, a theory that has emerged ahead of its rivals and with the rather disturbing (and obvious) habit of defining dissidents to be cranks and crack-pots, as though they were only in the league of flat earthers. So there's one question that the experts might be a little afraid to tackle, how did they really come up with their "99%" consensus that we hear about? I think it's maybe closer to 70% and then you have to factor in that many of those 70% have done no real investigation of the material themselves, they just went along to get along.

I've said elsewhere that I find it quite startling to imagine, let alone be told flat out, that people have looked at weather data from North America in the period of 1890 to 1950 (the early part of AGW according to the theory) and have seen what they believe to be a human warming over-taking natural cooling. This is nowhere near what any examination of air mass frequency would tell us about that period. However, the debating technique in use by the climate change people is "somebody did a research study, that is what they found, you are therefore an idiot and a crank." So okay, then how could it possibly be the case that summer heat suddenly increased in a dramatic and obvious way after 1895? I am 99% sure (to use the dreaded fraction) that this shows natural variation at work. There may have been some additional component of human activity but I flat out don't believe what I was told about this and find it ridiculous. There is a story about the emperor's new coat that seems to apply here.

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg&feature=youtu.be

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Originally broadcasted March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4.

A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be "the biggest scam of modern times."

Does it matter to you that Martin Durkin systematically misrepresented the science and edited his interviews to give the false impression that scientists agreed with him?

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I have long suspected there is some external cause (and the internal changes follow the external cause rather than producing it). However, if that cause is in the solar system it would have to be well out there towards the trans-Neptunian realm because the period of rotation around a fixed point even if distorted away by second-order effects is clearly longer than Neptune's orbital period and probably longer than Pluto's (which leaves unanswered the obvious question, how could objects so far away and presumably very minor influencers of inner solar system magnetic field variations take on this role?).

The 'universal theory of gravity' is an opinion on universal attraction minus magnetism - the Earth attracts an apple, the moon attracts the tides, the Earth attracts the moon and finally the Sun attracts the Earth leading to the so-called 'scientific method' where astronomical predictions disappear into experimental predictions -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/newton-principia-rules-reasoning.pdf

In other words your question is self-defeating as Sir Isaac attempted to make astronomical predictions (eclipses, transits, ect) look like experimental predictions and bundled it up as 'laws of nature/motion/physics/gravity/ect.

The original proposals for the motions of smaller objects around larger did contain some sort of electromagnetic influence but this was lost to the overreaching notion of the 'clockwork solar system', for instance Kepler presented his notion -

"The Sun and the Earth rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this
motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the
six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case
of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of
its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

Considering Venus has no appreciable rotation and no moon, this idea should be revisited and has merit within a larger framework with magnetic signatures.

It is unlikely that anyone is going to ask what exactly Sir Isaac and the 'scientific method' tries to do, however, it should not be lost when considering how conditions found in a greenhouse (experiment) were scaled up to the Earth's atmosphere (universal qualities) as an outrigger of the original 'Rule III'

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I wouldn't rule out anything with regard to cause and effect of that magnetic pole movement and acceleration, but I notice an error crept into one quote that I've heard quite a few times, and that is

..."the pole is moving more rapidly eastward" ...

which is understandable (although wrong, it's moving more rapidly westward) because pretty soon it will be in the eastern hemisphere.

I don't mean to be too abrasive here, but the claim that the NMP is shifting due to climate change or loss of ice in Greenland sounds like a case of "blame anything on climate change" without very much evidence, and I would have to ask, why was the pole already drifting in that general direction during the stable climate of 1840 to 1920 (just picking numbers that might satisfy even the earliest of warm signal seekers)?

The acceleration may be related to the weakening of the field, perhaps a weaker field can shift its orientation faster.

I have long suspected there is some external cause (and the internal changes follow the external cause rather than producing it). However, if that cause is in the solar system it would have to be well out there towards the trans-Neptunian realm because the period of rotation around a fixed point even if distorted away by second-order effects is clearly longer than Neptune's orbital period and probably longer than Pluto's (which leaves unanswered the obvious question, how could objects so far away and presumably very minor influencers of inner solar system magnetic field variations take on this role?).

Let me switch over to one other topic that has come up -- back and forth about climate change the settled science relying on publications, vs totally made up scam. I take a middle position on this. I don't believe climate change is either a mature, settled science nor is it a scam, hoax or deliberately falsified set of postulates. Not that my opinion matters but I suspect I share it with many, climate change is not quite the polished, finished science resounding with many QEDs and worthy of Nobel prizes etc etc, but rather, a theory that has emerged ahead of its rivals and with the rather disturbing (and obvious) habit of defining dissidents to be cranks and crack-pots, as though they were only in the league of flat earthers. So there's one question that the experts might be a little afraid to tackle, how did they really come up with their "99%" consensus that we hear about? I think it's maybe closer to 70% and then you have to factor in that many of those 70% have done no real investigation of the material themselves, they just went along to get along.

I've said elsewhere that I find it quite startling to imagine, let alone be told flat out, that people have looked at weather data from North America in the period of 1890 to 1950 (the early part of AGW according to the theory) and have seen what they believe to be a human warming over-taking natural cooling. This is nowhere near what any examination of air mass frequency would tell us about that period. However, the debating technique in use by the climate change people is "somebody did a research study, that is what they found, you are therefore an idiot and a crank." So okay, then how could it possibly be the case that summer heat suddenly increased in a dramatic and obvious way after 1895? I am 99% sure (to use the dreaded fraction) that this shows natural variation at work. There may have been some additional component of human activity but I flat out don't believe what I was told about this and find it ridiculous. There is a story about the emperor's new coat that seems to apply here.

The consensus on climate change is found both in surveys of qualified scientists. and in analysis of the published research.

When skeptics put forward competing theories, they go through the peer review process and get published if they have merit. These theories then get scrutinized by the scientific community and are almost always found to be unproven or disproven, or insufficient to justify the position that climate change is either natural or self limiting.

Richard lindzen is probably the best qualified scientist who is a skeptic on climate change

The iris effect, for example has been given plenty of outings in the literature but the vast majority of. climate scientists disagree that Lindzen has done enough to justify his scepticism and attempts to independently verify Lindzens theory have failed. Never the less, lindzen is convinced that he is right and all of the other data is wrong and blames other scientists for being part of a conspiracy against him. This, and the fact that he often repeats known falsehoods and misrepresents basic climate science in a way that has to be intentional given his level of education and training, turns him from being a reputable scientist into a contrarian

Anyone who spent years saying global warming can’t be real ‘because it stopped in 1998’ and then completely ignores this position given that 1998 is not even in the top 10 hottest years on record anymore. If you can be proven so wrong and never reconsider your position, you are not a true scientist

Hooter23

1934 was just as hot or even hotter than most recent years in the US... if we only have to go back less than 100 years to find extreme temperatures even when there was no excuse for "climate change" ...now just imagine if we had reliable weather records going back hundreds of years there would be no proof of climate change as we already have had temperatures just as extreme in the recent past...

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

Does it matter to you that Martin Durkin systematically misrepresented the science and edited his interviews to give the false impression that scientists agreed with him?

Which piece of science is wrong?

Yes. Systematically mis representing science is a terrible thing to do, by the way does it matter to you that the The IPCC process to create the SPM released to governments,:

is the Summary for Policy Makers. To devise the SPMs the IPCC selects a number of politically approved scientists, who, along with some 270+ politicians and bureaucrats from 115 different countries form a Working Group, who then assemble to haggle over the information contained in Technical Reports line by line until they reach an agreement that is politically acceptable to all – in other words, reach a consensus. If this isn’t science subordinated to politics then there is no such thing. This process of bureaucrats picking through the science line by line is the origin of the highly publicized consensus, it is a creature of politics pure and simple.

I do have a personal question for you. You are entirely sure global warming is all human driven. You are obviously passionate about Climate as you are here in this debate, and use phrases like 'Does it matter to you' and you acted very promote carbon tax laws. Yet you drive a 04 1.8 litre Petrol car?(from your post in boards previously) I don't understand the disconnect between talking the talk and not walking the walk?
forgive me if this is too personal I just can't understand.

Akrasia

Hooter23 wrote: »

1934 was just as hot or even hotter than most recent years in the US... if we only have to go back less than 100 years to find extreme temperatures even when there was no excuse for "climate change" ...now just imagine if we had reliable weather records going back hundreds of years there would be no proof of climate change as we already have had temperatures just as extreme in the recent past...

It was 180c in my oven when cooking the christmas dinner this week. That's a local temperature variation. Global average temperatures are different to local temperature extremes.

It was 30c warmer in the arctic than normal recently. If this happened in France in summer, the temperature would be 60c and everyone in France would be dead.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/27/arctic-warming-scientists-alarmed-by-crazy-temperature-rises

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Which piece of science is wrong?

Yes. Systematically mis representing science is a terrible thing to do, by the way does it matter to you that the The IPCC process to create the SPM released to governments,:

is the Summary for Policy Makers. To devise the SPMs the IPCC selects a number of politically approved scientists, who, along with some 270+ politicians and bureaucrats from 115 different countries form a Working Group, who then assemble to haggle over the information contained in Technical Reports line by line until they reach an agreement that is politically acceptable to all – in other words, reach a consensus. If this isn’t science subordinated to politics then there is no such thing. This process of bureaucrats picking through the science line by line is the origin of the highly publicized consensus, it is a creature of politics pure and simple.

I do have a personal question for you. You are entirely sure global warming is all human driven. You are obviously passionate about Climate as you are here in this debate, and use phrases like 'Does it matter to you' and you acted very promote carbon tax laws. Yet you drive a 04 1.8 litre Petrol car?(from your post in boards previously) I don't understand the disconnect between talking the talk and not walking the walk?
forgive me if this is too personal I just can't understand.

Ive watched that piece of propaganda several times already. I really dont feel like watching it again just to answer your question
Why don't you tell me which piece of 'science' in his documentary you found most convincing and I'll tell you if it was an honest representation of the science

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

It was 180c in my oven when cooking the christmas dinner this week. That's a local temperature variation. Global average temperatures are different to local temperature extremes.

It was 30c warmer in the arctic than normal recently. If this happened in France in summer, the temperature would be 60c and everyone in France would be dead.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/27/arctic-warming-scientists-alarmed-by-crazy-temperature-rises

From that article:

“The current excursions of 20C or more above average experienced in the Arctic are almost certainly mostly due to natural variability,” said Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth.

emphasis mine.

By the way, that rally in arctic temperatures was caused by SSW and gave rise to storm Emma that year.

Also, temperatures returned to below normal shortly afterwards in the arctic:

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

From that article:

emphasis mine.

By the way, that rally in arctic temperatures was caused by SSW and gave rise to storm Emma that year.

Also, temperatures returned to below normal shortly afterwards in the arctic:

My point was that regional climate can experience extremes much worse than the global average for that year, pointing at local records to argue against global average temperature anomaly is not a good argument

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

My point was that regional climate can experience extremes much worse than the global average for that year, pointing at local records to argue for global average temperature anomaly is not a good argument

Fixed your post, you're the one linking the article arguing that a heat event in the arctic is proof of Global Warming.

You can't have it both ways.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

None of this is inconsistent with what I said. Under RCP 2.5 we have a chance of avoiding ice free summers by the end of the century, under the Business as usual scenario, this chance is virtually eliminated.
Note, they say that the chances are for any given summer to be ice free, not the chance for any summer to be ice free by the end of the century. You're comparing different predictions that do not contradict each other.

These predictions were not that every summer would be ice free, it was that we would see our first ice free summers by this time. .

The IPCC have always defined "ice-free" to be 5 consecutive September minimum extents of <1 million km². If the chance of a given September being ice-free could be low, then the chance of any 5 in a row being ice-free is even lower.

There are still natural variations on top of the global warming trend that I have already talked about that will make some summers more favourable to ice than others

.

Yes, the contribution of anthro-ghgs to ice-loss is at most up to 50%. The way it's being portrayed, anthro-ghgs is widely believed by all - including the general population - to be 100%.

Theres actually a good paper on how the IPO could be a big decider for whether arctic is ice free on any given year



https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/35729/Screen_et_al-2019-Geophysical_Research_Letters.pdf;jsessionid=3BD85A43EF282CF1EACDC688D6923F29?sequence=3

Except if you look at the correlation between observed IPO (below, source Met Office) and observed ice-loss (including the years 2016-19 not included in their paper), their conclusion

"Faster sea‐ice loss during the shift from the negative to the positive phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation leads to earlier ice‐free Arctic"

doesn't really stand up. The fastest loss occured from 1990-2007, when the IPO was going in the opposite direction, from positive to negative. It's remained stable as the IPO has quickly started going back positive in the last few years, so the link doesn't seem to be that strong.

regarding the possible negative feedback on ice extent from greenland melting, this is a well understood but not often talked about feedback, one amongst many that are factors to consider when projecting ice loss in the Arctic
Ice cover is a powerful driver of local climate due to its albedo, anything that can preserve ice for longer will slow down the relentless decline of Arctic sea ice.
Melting ice from Greenland increases the freezing point of the ice around Greenland by reducing the waters salinity
Saltier water is heavier than fresh water so the greenland run off will allow water to freeze closer to 0 C
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171013113012.htm

That paper deals with seas immediately around the Greenland coast, therefore cannot be linked to the Arctic as a whole. The area under the influence of the East Greenland current has not seen appreciable ice-loss compared to some other areas of the Arctic.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Anyone who spent years saying global warming can’t be real ‘because it stopped in 1998’ and then completely ignores this position given that 1998 is not even in the top 10 hottest years on record anymore. If you can be proven so wrong and never reconsider your position, you are not a true scientist

I don't think anyone here, not least MT, is claiming that it's not warmer now than 1998, so I don't quite know where you're going with that.

Akrasia wrote: »

It was 180c in my oven when cooking the christmas dinner this week. That's a local temperature variation. Global average temperatures are different to local temperature extremes.

This was in response to the US 1934 comment. Most of the global warming has been occuring in the northern hemisphere, where almost 70 percent of the total landmass is. Of that landmass, North America makes up about 30%. To discount this as "local" is not a sound argument.

It was 30c warmer in the arctic than normal recently. If this happened in France in summer, the temperature would be 60c and everyone in France would be dead.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/27/arctic-warming-scientists-alarmed-by-crazy-temperature-rises

That and the oven analogy are ridiculous and are typical of the hyperbole being spewed out. Sure enough you backed it up with the Guardian link, which must be doing really well out of all the clicks it's been getting from its climate crusade, given that each article comes with a begging bowl at the bottom of the page.

To even associate a 30-degree spike in the Arctic with the same in a French summer, however unlikely, says a lot about the desperate measures required to try to rebutt some points being made. It is infinitely easier (and much more common) for a cold region like the Arctic to warm to still a cold temperature than it is for France to do so.

Hooter23

coolbeans wrote: »

I've read this entire thread with interest and I have to say that you're right up there with Coles with your childish comments.

If you have nothing to add to the discussion...then dont say anything...this forum is here for us to give our own opinion on a topic..

SeaBreezes

The medieval warming period..

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/

SeaBreezes

Interesting study showing abrupt climate change every 1470
Years (ish) in paeleo climate mapping. They have no idea what the cause is, but can see a time pattern...

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003GL017115

Gaoth Laidir

Danno wrote: »

Fixed your post, you're the one linking the article arguing that a heat event in the arctic is proof of Global Warming.

You can't have it both ways.

Just to highlight that the Arctic area makes up a tiny percentage of the Earth's total global surface area. North of the Arctic circle 66.5N (northern Iceland) is only 4% of the total surface area, while north of 80N (Svalbard) is just 0.76%. The Mercator maps typically shown in general information gives the false impression that it is much bigger, but the map below shows the true size.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Most scientists do not want to engage in public or media debates with contrarians and cranks. It is of no benefit to them or to the public understanding of science

Engaging with 'contrarians and cranks' is part and parcel of debate. Public debate is what engages the public (hence the term) and helps greatly with the public's understanding of whatever topic is being debated.

What is it about 'scientists', and particularly 'climate scientists' that they set themselves apart from common discourse? If they do wish (as they clearly do) to enter into the political arena as a lobby group, then they'll have to wise up a bit and stop hiding behind 'the scientific literature' and troubled teenage girls in the obvious effort to avoid any serious public scrutiny.

Oneiric 3

Hooter23 wrote: »

1934 was just as hot or even hotter than most recent years in the US... if we only have to go back less than 100 years to find extreme temperatures even when there was no excuse for "climate change" ...now just imagine if we had reliable weather records going back hundreds of years there would be no proof of climate change as we already have had temperatures just as extreme in the recent past...

One thing we must keep in mind is that global ocean temperatures are pretty high in the present age, which naturally increases global humidity values. This can actually help suppress high summer maxima even in this 'warmer age'. That heat back in '34 could well be down to low RH values which, in the great order of things, can lead to higher temperatures by day and lower temperatures by night (which is why, for example, that temperatures here in Ireland in late-April and May - a period of the year that typically has the lowest RH values - can have a daily 'Diurnal range' of 15c or more.

I don't know much about US temperatures, but I wager that night time minima over there would be rising faster than day time maxima over the last 50 years or so.