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

Gaoth Laidir

The Dust Bowl conditions of the 1930s is widely accepted to be linked to the positive AMO of the time. The same thing is occuring in the current positive AMO, with similar conditions leading to the California fire weather.

sosndt

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

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.

Another way to look at it is.
Would I as a qualified person in my field take advice from a moron on the internet? No I wouldn't.
Or would I as a qualified person allow myself to be instructed on how to do my job by someone with less knowledge than me? No I wouldn't.
Or would I even enter a debate with someone just plain talking out their hole while learning from YouTube videos?
No I wouldn't.

Wanderer78

sosndt wrote:

Another way to look at it is. Would I as a qualified person in my field take advice from a moron on the internet? No I wouldn't. Or would I as a qualified person allow myself to be instructed on how to do my job by someone with less knowledge than me? No I wouldn't. Or would I even enter a debate with someone just plain talking out their hole while learning from YouTube videos? No I wouldn't.

To be fair, YouTube can be a great source of information, a lot of nonsense on it to though, like anything though

Gaoth Laidir

sosndt wrote: »

Another way to look at it is.
Would I as a qualified person in my field take advice from a moron on the internet? No I wouldn't.
Or would I as a qualified person allow myself to be instructed on how to do my job by someone with less knowledge than me? No I wouldn't.
Or would I even enter a debate with someone just plain talking out their hole while learning from YouTube videos?
No I wouldn't.

And still MT chooses to debate with us.

SeaBreezes

sosndt wrote: »

Another way to look at it is.
Would I as a qualified person in my field take advice from a moron on the internet? No I wouldn't.
Or would I as a qualified person allow myself to be instructed on how to do my job by someone with less knowledge than me? No I wouldn't.
Or would I even enter a debate with someone just plain talking out their hole while learning from YouTube videos?
No I wouldn't.

And yet here we are.

I'm grateful someone like MT as a qualified person (and it seems the ONLY qualified person in this chat) does take the time to engage with us randomers on the internet.

oriel36

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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.

One of the nicest facts out there is that when daily rotation and all its effects are subtracted, the entire surface of the planet experiences a single day/night cycle as a function of our orbital motion. For whatever reason, people understand this because at the North and South poles where net daily rotational velocity is zero (as opposed to a maximum rotational velocity at the Equator), they still experience a single day/night cycle with sunrise/sunset on the equinoxes at the North/South polar latitudes.

The Arctic and Antarctic circles represent the maximum surface area, with the North/South poles as their centre, where the Sun is constantly in view or out of sight on the Solstice with those areas shrinking after the Solstice until the roles are reversed on the equinox with the one and only sunrise or sunset at the respective poles -

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

A notable feature of the polar regions is that the Sun tracks in opposite directions as a consequence of the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCCSegL8ic&t=61s

A few weeks ago up to the December Solstice, the surface area where the Sun is constantly in view with the South pole at the centre was expanding while the area where the Sun is constantly out of sight at the North pole was also expanding. Presently a week after the solstice, the distance between the North and South poles to the circle of illumination is shrinking and with it the decrease in surface area where the Sun is constantly in view or out of sight.

In short, it takes two distinct types of surface rotations to explain the seasonal and cyclical appearance and disappearance of Arctic sea ice or indeed the seasons at lower latitudes.

Gaoth Laidir

This is the sort of chart I was referring to above. The Arctic warming looks a large proportion of the total area but it's actually just a few percent. The red area north of Russia is tiny in reality.



https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1210789517713502208?s=19

Hooter23

sosndt wrote: »

Another way to look at it is.
Would I as a qualified person in my field take advice from a moron on the internet? No I wouldn't.
Or would I as a qualified person allow myself to be instructed on how to do my job by someone with less knowledge than me? No I wouldn't.
Or would I even enter a debate with someone just plain talking out their hole while learning from YouTube videos?
No I wouldn't.

If there is no doubt that climate change is happening as they say it is...then they should have no problem answering ALL questions thrown at them...but they are not willing to do this...and why is that...why are they afraid to have a debate...im sure they are getting well paid for their "research" and they think it should not be questioned at all...Absolutely ridiculous

pantomine2020

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Ryan Maue

I'm sure you know who he is, the equivalent of posting scientific data provided by Andrew Wakefield on a Vaccination thread.

As this is a new profile I cant post links but a simple search will show this ex Cato institute "scientist" has misrepresented the science continuously to further his career and get into the Trump show.

Danno

sosndt wrote: »

Another way to look at it is.
Would I as a qualified person in my field take advice from a moron on the internet? No I wouldn't.
Or would I as a qualified person allow myself to be instructed on how to do my job by someone with less knowledge than me? No I wouldn't.
Or would I even enter a debate with someone just plain talking out their hole while learning from YouTube videos?
No I wouldn't.

Classic. Typical of the current generation that I see coming up. Accept everything, challenge nothing, but yet continually lose. Lambs for the slaughter.

Gaoth Laidir

pantomine2020 wrote: »

I'm sure you know who he is, the equivalent of posting scientific data provided by Andrew Wakefield on a Vaccination thread.

As this is a new profile I cant post links but a simple search will show this ex Cato institute "scientist" has misrepresented the science continuously to further his career and get into the Trump show.

Again it's who posted it rather than what was posted. Did you find something wrong with the data? That's all that matters. I'm guessing we won't see from you again after this.

Oneiric 3

sosndt wrote: »

Another way to look at it is.
Would I as a qualified person in my field take advice from a moron on the internet? No I wouldn't.
Or would I as a qualified person allow myself to be instructed on how to do my job by someone with less knowledge than me? No I wouldn't.
Or would I even enter a debate with someone just plain talking out their hole while learning from YouTube videos?
No I wouldn't.

Well, if this is a reflection of the attitude of climate scientists, then they fully deserve not to be listened too.

"Cherish those who seek the truth.
Beware of those who find it..."

-Some guy who I can't think of the name of right now.

Oneiric 3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The Dust Bowl conditions of the 1930s is widely accepted to be linked to the positive AMO of the time. The same thing is occuring in the current positive AMO, with similar conditions leading to the California fire weather.

SSTs on a more global scale were overall generally cooler than the present though.



with the central Pacific in a possible 'La Nina' phase. (I am not to be quoted on that!)

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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.

You’re wrong. The IPCC define ‘nearly ice free’ as 5 years of less than 10 million km2, but ‘ice free’ can be any single given year with less than 1million KM2 of sea ice in the arctic

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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.

I was talking about Lindzen who banged on about ‘no warming for a decade’ because 1998 was an exceptional year at the time(strong El Niño until it warmed again and now even La Niña years are warmer than 1998 and he has never acknowledged that he was wrong, nor has he revised his opinion when the data came in to refute his low climate sensitivity argument’

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.

Its certainly not global now is it Gaoth Laidir

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.

I posted it and mentioned France to show how extreme this event was for the region. The extreme heat in the arctic was offset by extreme cold in Europe which balanced out the temperature anomalies for that year. When looking at global temperature anomalies, it is disingenuous to point to regional or local extremes to compare against global average temperature anomalies. In 1934 the US was much hotter than average was it colder than average in Siberia, or China, or Europe that year to balance it out?

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

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

Even assuming that this paper is accurate ( and it’s 17 years old without much impact on the literature)
The timing does nothing to explain the current warming

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

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.

Climate scientists deliver lectures and speak to the public about the science all of the time. Debating on a podium with an opponent is not how science is debated, the format does not suit honest rigorous debate because a liar or a fool can throw out more lies than an honest person can debunk in the allotted rebuttal time and when dealing with esoteric topics the general public can not easily tell which facts are true and which are false

Scientific debate happens in the scientific literature

Non scientists debate climate change all of the time and it usually generates more heat than light

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

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.

It doesn’t naturally Increase humidity values. 90% of the heat from global warming is going into heating up the oceans. In fact the sea level rises are mostly due to thermal expansion of the water as it heats up because of AGU

Akrasia

Hooter23 wrote: »

If there is no doubt that climate change is happening as they say it is...then they should have no problem answering ALL questions thrown at them...but they are not willing to do this...and why is that...why are they afraid to have a debate...im sure they are getting well paid for their "research" and they think it should not be questioned at all...Absolutely ridiculous

If you want a video the late Stephen Schneider talked to a room full of skeptics a few weeks before his death.

https://youtu.be/MWgLJrkK8NY
This is from almost 10 years ago and the science has only gotten more robust since then (yet these same ‘skeptic’ arguments keep on getting recycled over and over again

Scientists are not afraid of honest questions about the science

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

You’re wrong. The IPCC define ‘nearly ice free’ as 5 years of less than 10 million km2, but ‘ice free’ can be any single given year with less than 1million KM2 of sea ice in the arctic

OK, fair enough, being pedantic, the IPCC use the word "nearly" for the 5 years. However, they still have it ranging from 1 in 100 to 1 in 3 chance of a single September being ice-free by the end of the century for a 1.5-2-degree stabilised warming. Match that with what some of the leading scientists have projected. Ice-free by 2019-2020 (and even 2016 in some cases). Are these scientists "contrarians", as the IPCC seems to be ignoring them (and rightly so)?

From Wikipedia:

Many scientists have attempted to estimate when the Arctic will be "ice-free". Professor Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge is among these scientists;[23] Wadhams in 2014 predicted that by 2020 "summer sea ice to disappear,"[24][25] Wadhams and several others have noted that climate model predictions have been overly conservative regarding sea ice decline.[1][26]

A 2013 paper suggested that models commonly underestimate the solar radiation absorption characteristics of wildfire soot.[27]

In 2007, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski from the Naval Postgraduate School, California, predicted removal of summer ice by 2013;[28] subsequently, in 2013, Maslowski predicted 2016 ±3 years.[29]

A 2006 paper predicted "near ice-free September conditions by 2040".[30]

Overland and Wang (2013) investigated three different ways of predicting future sea ice levels. From sea ice models and recent satellite images it can be expected that a sea ice free summer will come before 2020.[31]

The IPCC AR5 (for at least one scenario) estimates an ice-free summer might occur around 2050.[4]

The Third U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA), released May 6, 2014, reports that the Arctic Ocean is expected to be ice free in summer before mid-century. Models that best match historical trends project a nearly ice-free Arctic in the summer by the 2030s.[32][33] However, these models do tend to underestimate the rate of sea ice loss since 2007. Based on the outcomes of several different models, Overland and Wang (2013) put the early limit for a sea ice free summer Arctic near 2040.[31]

Professor James Anderson of Harvard University envisions the Arctic Ice gone by the early 2020s. "The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," he said in June of 2019.[34]

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

OK, fair enough, being pedantic, the IPCC use the word "nearly" for the 5 years. However, they still have it ranging from 1 in 100 to 1 in 3 chance of a single September being ice-free by the end of the century for a 1.5-2-degree stabilised warming. Match that with what some of the leading scientists have projected. Ice-free by 2019-2020 (and even 2016 in some cases). Are these scientists "contrarians", as the IPCC seems to be ignoring them (and rightly so)?

From Wikipedia:

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

OK, fair enough, being pedantic, the IPCC use the word "nearly" for the 5 years. However, they still have it ranging from 1 in 100 to 1 in 3 chance of a single September being ice-free by the end of the century for a 1.5-2-degree stabilised warming. Match that with what some of the leading scientists have projected. Ice-free by 2019-2020 (and even 2016 in some cases). Are these scientists "contrarians", as the IPCC seems to be ignoring them (and rightly so)?

From Wikipedia:

it’s not pedantic to point out that you’re comparing apples with oranges. The odds of any given year being ice free is not the same as the first ice free year.

It’s also not pedantic to point out that the 1 in a hundred odds relates to a scenario where we limit warming to 1.5c or below, not the range between 1.5 and 2c

Peter Wadhams is one of the leading experts on arctic sea ice. He thinks the IPCC are being too conservative on their projections and thinks it is a case of sooner rather than later even with the current levels of warming mainly due to a difference of opinion on methane releases and other feedbacks
On the methane issue Wadhams is a contrarian because I don’t think he is following the best available evidence to inform his view, but even so, his error is on the timescale, not the fundamental science, and his error is likely to be measured in decades rather than centuries, so for the medium term consequences for humanity, we’d be a hell of a lot better off by heeding Wadhams advice than ignoring it

Nabber

No denying Wadhams credentials, but he is purely an alarmist and a sensationalist. At this stage his predictions on ice free Arctic basin are to be ignored, much like his claims of assassination.
Each time his prediction fails, he is not challenged on this but rather encouraged to make another prediction. At what point does he discredit himself?

It's like tabloid science.

oriel36

Arctic sea ice develops with the North pole at its centre as the surface area (where the Sun and its radiation are absent) expands from the September equinox to the December Solstice until it reaches a maximum circumference known as the Arctic circle at Northern latitudes and the Antarctic circle at it's Southern equivalent where the Sun and it's radiation is constantly in view. Post Solstice that circumference begins to shrink until the area disappears altogether and the roles are reversed.

The one and only sunrise at the Northern polar latitudes is on the March Equinox where radiation and the Sun stay constantly in view for 6 months with an expanding surface area where the Sun is constantly present thereby causing the seasonal disappearance of sea ice.

It doesn't make me an 'expert' , in fact it doesn't make me anything other than appreciate how the entire surface turns once each year parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the Earth's orbital motion where the North and South Poles ( where net daily rotational velocity is zero) act like beacons for this surface rotation.

The relationship between the polar latitudes to the circle of illumination is the most important as this dictates the surface area in constant solar radiation or where it is absent, again, with the North/South Poles at the centre of expansion and contraction. The distance between the poles increases and decreases when they are at a maximum distance on the Solstice and exist on the circle of illumination of the Equinoxes -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OgLCH7jYp8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory#/media/File:EpicEarth-Globespin-tilt-23.4.gif

Far from being simple, the reasons why Copernicus changed his views from Commentariolus to De Revolutionibus are complicated and involve distinguishing cyclical dynamics as they apply to Earth sciences as opposed to the same dynamics as they apply to a close proximity to timekeeping and into predictive astronomy (eclipses, transits, ect).

First things first - what causes Arctic sea ice to appear and disappear with the North pole at the centre of that development ?. The answer means stepping outside the current topic as it is presented to observers and readers.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

It doesn’t naturally Increase humidity values. 90% of the heat from global warming is going into heating up the oceans. In fact the sea level rises are mostly due to thermal expansion of the water as it heats up because of AGU

I'll take your word for it, but here is a small example of the effect cooler SST has on Valentia in the SW regarding RH values. Data is based on hourly RH values which are then averaged out over a running mean of 365 days.


(Met Eireann)

As we all know, the North Atlantic SSTs fell unusually low in 2015, peaking (or should that read 'troughing'?) in late summer 2015 before rising back to the normal modern era warmer state. Quite clearly, this intense but brief cooler state in 2015 had a marked effect on Valentia's RH values.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Climate scientists deliver lectures and speak to the public about the science all of the time. Debating on a podium with an opponent is not how science is debated, the format does not suit honest rigorous debate because a liar or a fool can throw out more lies than an honest person can debunk in the allotted rebuttal time and when dealing with esoteric topics the general public can not easily tell which facts are true and which are false

In other words, climate scientists are of an authoritarian bent. The guardians of an 'esoteric' truth of which the public are to dumb to understand, yet are ordered to accept.

Climate scientists place themselves on too high a horse. They look at numbers, that is all, and numbers that do not matter to the vast majority of people in the world.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I'll take your word for it, but here is a small example of the effect cooler SST has on Valentia in the SW regarding RH values. Data is based on hourly RH values which are then averaged out over a running mean of 365 days.


(Met Eireann)

As we all know, the North Atlantic SSTs fell unusually low in 2015, peaking (or should that read 'troughing'?) in late summer 2015 before rising back to the normal modern era warmer state. Quite clearly, this intense but brief cooler state in 2015 had a marked effect on Valentia's RH values.

Sorry Oneric, I wasn’t disputing the link between SST and RH, I was pointing out that the warmer SSTs are not natural, they are one of the main consequences of global warming

sosndt

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Well, if this is a reflection of the attitude of climate scientists, then they fully deserve not to be listened too.

"Cherish those who seek the truth.
Beware of those who find it..."

-Some guy who I can't think of the name of right now.

It's my attitude....not climatologists

sosndt

Danno wrote: »

Classic. Typical of the current generation that I see coming up. Accept everything, challenge nothing, but yet continually lose. Lambs for the slaughter.

Thanks.
Never thought I'd be referred to as up and coming at 40.

Maybe my point is just a little uncomfortable for you.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

it’s not pedantic to point out that you’re comparing apples with oranges. The odds of any given year being ice free is not the same as the first ice free year.

It’s also not pedantic to point out that the 1 in a hundred odds relates to a scenario where we limit warming to 1.5c or below, not the range between 1.5 and 2c

I already pointed out that the two probabilities each referred to each temperature rise.

Peter Wadhams is one of the leading experts on arctic sea ice. He thinks the IPCC are being too conservative on their projections and thinks it is a case of sooner rather than later even with the current levels of warming mainly due to a difference of opinion on methane releases and other feedbacks
On the methane issue Wadhams is a contrarian because I don’t think he is following the best available evidence to inform his view, but even so, his error is on the timescale, not the fundamental science, and his error is likely to be measured in decades rather than centuries, so for the medium term consequences for humanity, we’d be a hell of a lot better off by heeding Wadhams advice than ignoring it

So you think we should listen to Wadhams? Have you actually seen what he's said in 2014? He just extrapolated the curve and came up with 2020.

"No models here...this is data." This data shows ice volume "is accelerating downward," Wadhams said. "There doesn't seem to be anything to stop it from going down to zero.

"By 2020, one would expect the summer sea ice to disappear. By summer, we mean September. ... (but) not many years after, the neighboring months would also become ice-free."

But he added that it's hard to deny the actual data. He had plotted the ice decline as a graph curving steadily and increasingly downward since the 1970s and hitting zero in 2020.

Wadhams -- who has spent much of his life working in, on or under the Arctic ice -- said he is not suggesting the Arctic is on its way to becoming the new Mediterranean. He is only suggesting the polar ice cap that has locked the region under ice year-round for centuries is going to go away, at least in summer.

"In fact, it (the Arctic) could become nastier" because of that, he added, citing the weather conditions that can develop as rain, wind and snow whip over vast expanses of broken ice.


Wadhams has previously made predictions that Arctic melt would occur faster than most models estimate; in 2012, he said that the Arctic could be ice-free by the summer of 2015 or 2016.

I think instead of listening to Chief Wadhams we should instead listen to Chief Wiggam.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Its certainly not global now is it Gaoth Laidir

No, and neither is the Arctic. Or Australia.

I posted it and mentioned France to show how extreme this event was for the region. The extreme heat in the arctic was offset by extreme cold in Europe which balanced out the temperature anomalies for that year. When looking at global temperature anomalies, it is disingenuous to point to regional or local extremes to compare against global average temperature anomalies. In 1934 the US was much hotter than average was it colder than average in Siberia, or China, or Europe that year to balance it out?

I don't know if it was or not, but Siberia/China/Europe are larger than the Arctic anomaly area.

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.

Here you go. As you asked for a debate presumably outside this forum. This is from March 2007 and is 1 hour 40 minutes. The transcript is also available

https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/global-warming-not-crisis

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I'll take your word for it, but here is a small example of the effect cooler SST has on Valentia in the SW regarding RH values. Data is based on hourly RH values which are then averaged out over a running mean of 365 days.


(Met Eireann)

As we all know, the North Atlantic SSTs fell unusually low in 2015, peaking (or should that read 'troughing'?) in late summer 2015 before rising back to the normal modern era warmer state. Quite clearly, this intense but brief cooler state in 2015 had a marked effect on Valentia's RH values.

I think looking at relative humidity is not the best metric to use. Specific humidity or vapour pressure are better as they directly indicate the amount of water vapour in the air, taking air temperature out of the equation. With warmer seas we should see higher vapour pressure (content).

Below is the Water vapour curve for Valentia. It follows the annual sst curve, with highest vapour pressure July/August, the months of warmest sst. Note, though, there is no real longterm trend, up to 2010 at least.

M.T. Cranium

Now here's a rather depressing thought ... there may be no way for this debate (or the more general debate that already existed) to be resolved.

Let's say it continues to warm at a steady rate without much political action. The IPCC will claim this verifies their prediction, I might say it would have happened anyway except for 0.5 C of the warming. Not sure what other skeptics might say.

Then let's say it continues to warm even after a successful carbon limiting program by the international community (setting aside the political ramifications). Then the IPCC will no doubt claim we acted too late, set into motion an inevitable warming, while I would no doubt be saying this shifts the balance of probability to my view of natural variability driven warming. Skeptics of other kinds would still be treading water.

Then let's say it stops warming and goes into random fluctuation mode. In the absence of human activity modification, this would look very bad for the IPCC but I suspect they would claim a huge natural cooling effect finally large enough to do what we would not do, in other words, saved by nature. If this happened near the end of a more robust intervention in the carbon cycle, then the IPCC would no doubt claim both victory and credit. In either case, while my primary thesis would be defeated (by cooling and not warming) I would likely be saying this shows the dominant role of natural variability. Other skeptics would be most favoured by this outcome, saying they had been essentially proven right.

So in other words, it is difficult for me to foresee any situation between now and the end of the century that would end the debates going on, or to prove to some impartial observer that one side had things right and others were wrong.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I already pointed out that the two probabilities each referred to each temperature rise.



So you think we should listen to Wadhams? Have you actually seen what he's said in 2014? He just extrapolated the curve and came up with 2020.




I think instead of listening to Chief Wadhams we should instead listen to Chief Wiggam.

Why did you call him Chief Wadhams, is he in the police or something?

Wadhams jumped the gun on predicting the decline of sea ice but at least he’s arguing in the right direction. You have been downplaying the decline of the arctic sea ice as if it is not something to be concerned about. Whether the arctic is ice free in 2020, 2050 or 2100, at the end of the day, the problem is the collapsing sea ice and we’ll suffer the consequences sooner or later

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Why did you call him Chief Wadhams, is he in the police or something?

Wadhams jumped the gun on predicting the decline of sea ice but at least he’s arguing in the right direction. You have been downplaying the decline of the arctic sea ice as if it is not something to be concerned about. Whether the arctic is ice free in 2020, 2050 or 20100, at the end of the day, the problem is the collapsing sea ice and we’ll suffer the consequences sooner or later

You missed the (bad) joke.

He didn't just jump the gun, he shot himself in the foot with it. He got it spectacularly wrong. You talk about Lindzen. Well this guy is no better. 2013 he says ice-free in 2016. No joy, so a year later he changes to 2020. There is absolutely no merit to what he's said on this issue up to this point. He's been as alarmist as they come, and even ridiculed by other experts. Yet you see nothing wrong and think he's worth listening to.

I've not been downplaying the melt without at least putting forward some factual reasons based not just on extrapolating the curve of the previous decade (2000-10) downwards but highlighting a flattening that neither Wadhams or many other "experts" of the consensus either predicted or are currently communicating.

M.T. Cranium

Is there any possibility that an ice free Arctic Ocean (in Sept-Oct before it does freeze up) would be a benefit in providing the possibility of additional snowfall in some arctic climate zones?

YFlyer

Coles wrote: »

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

Where is this data?

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Now here's a rather depressing thought ... there may be no way for this debate (or the more general debate that already existed) to be resolved.

Let's say it continues to warm at a steady rate without much political action. The IPCC will claim this verifies their prediction, I might say it would have happened anyway except for 0.5 C of the warming. Not sure what other skeptics might say.

Then let's say it continues to warm even after a successful carbon limiting program by the international community (setting aside the political ramifications). Then the IPCC will no doubt claim we acted too late, set into motion an inevitable warming, while I would no doubt be saying this shifts the balance of probability to my view of natural variability driven warming. Skeptics of other kinds would still be treading water.

Then let's say it stops warming and goes into random fluctuation mode. In the absence of human activity modification, this would look very bad for the IPCC but I suspect they would claim a huge natural cooling effect finally large enough to do what we would not do, in other words, saved by nature. If this happened near the end of a more robust intervention in the carbon cycle, then the IPCC would no doubt claim both victory and credit. In either case, while my primary thesis would be defeated (by cooling and not warming) I would likely be saying this shows the dominant role of natural variability. Other skeptics would be most favoured by this outcome, saying they had been essentially proven right.

So in other words, it is difficult for me to foresee any situation between now and the end of the century that would end the debates going on, or to prove to some impartial observer that one side had things right and others were wrong.

The way to end the debate is for you to provide a credible scientific explanation for any observed warming that has at least as much evidence supporting it as the current best explanation.

When you’re criticizing the scientific consensus it’s a matter of put up or shut up. Anyone can ‘hurl from the ditch’ but until you can provide a better explanation than what we already have then nobody should believe you

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Is there any possibility that an ice free Arctic Ocean (in Sept-Oct before it does freeze up) would be a benefit in providing the possibility of additional snowfall in some arctic climate zones?

I would be concerned about what happens in the arctic when the heat required to phase shift water from ice to liquid water is freed up to heat up that water to higher temperatures

It takes an awful lot of energy to turn water from ice into liquid or from liquid into gas. This is balanced on the other side turning water into ice releases energy. When the arctic is ice free it creates a more dynamic energy system that could have a lot of unforeseen consequences to thermally driven currents in the air and water

No one human can model these interactions, they’re far too complex. it takes collaboration and high powered computer models to have a chance of narrowing down where all of this energy will go

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You missed the (bad) joke.

He didn't just jump the gun, he shot himself in the foot with it. He got it spectacularly wrong. You talk about Lindzen. Well this guy is no better. 2013 he says ice-free in 2016. No joy, so a year later he changes to 2020. There is absolutely no merit to what he's said on this issue up to this point. He's been as alarmist as they come, and even ridiculed by other experts. Yet you see nothing wrong and think he's worth listening to.

I've not been downplaying the melt without at least putting forward some factual reasons based not just on extrapolating the curve of the previous decade (2000-10) downwards but highlighting a flattening that neither Wadhams or many other "experts" of the consensus either predicted or are currently communicating.

If you want to compare Wadhams to Lindzen, it is only a fair comparison if Wadhams was claiming that we have already had ice free arctic summers

Lindzen says climate sensitivity is about 1c we’re already higher than this without doubling our CO2 concentration.

Wadhams might be more pessimistic than many other scientists but at least he’s prepared to change his predictions when the data changes

I have read studies that say the 2012 record low extent was linked to wildfires darkening the snow. This is not a part of the IPCC models, but the next time there are record Siberian wildfires and the right wind conditions we could see a similar surge in arctic sea ice. It’s uncertain, there are lots of variables but Wadhams is not very far away from the range of plausible outcomes, it’s just on the extreme end of plausibility.

Lindzen is off that scale entirely

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

If you want to compare Wadhams to Lindzen, it is only a fair comparison if Wadhams was claiming that we have already had ice free arctic summers

According to him, we should have had it in 2016.

Lindzen says climate sensitivity is about 1c we’re already higher than this without doubling our CO2 concentration.

Maybe MT does have a point afterall. GHG can only account for up to 50% of the ice-melt, according to the IPCC. What other unnknowns are there waiting to be discovered?

Wadhams might be more pessimistic than many other scientists but at least he’s prepared to change his predictions when the data changes

He didn't. The data didn't change, he just changed his projections because his earlier prediction failed spectacularly.

I have read studies that say the 2012 record low extent was linked to wildfires darkening the snow. This is not a part of the IPCC models, but the next time there are record Siberian wildfires and the right wind conditions we could see a similar surge in arctic sea ice. It’s uncertain, there are lots of variables but Wadhams is not very far away from the range of plausible outcomes, it’s just on the extreme end of plausibility.

Lindzen is off that scale entirely

Wadham is on the extreme end of reality. Please post a link to these 2012 studies.

YFlyer

daheff wrote: »

If an inland lake/sea were made to take some sea, how would that effect the local climate?

MT should answer since Great Lakes affect local climate.

YFlyer

Gases such as carbon dioxide and methane store incoming radiation from the sun. This increase energy in the atmosphere will influence the movement of energy around the globe.

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Is there any possibility that an ice free Arctic Ocean (in Sept-Oct before it does freeze up) would be a benefit in providing the possibility of additional snowfall in some arctic climate zones?

I don't think any of us here will be around to find out but I would imagine it would.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I would be concerned about what happens in the arctic when the heat required to phase shift water from ice to liquid water is freed up to heat up that water to higher temperatures

It takes an awful lot of energy to turn water from ice into liquid or from liquid into gas. This is balanced on the other side turning water into ice releases energy. When the arctic is ice free it creates a more dynamic energy system that could have a lot of unforeseen consequences to thermally driven currents in the air and water

No one human can model these interactions, they’re far too complex. it takes collaboration and high powered computer models to have a chance of narrowing down where all of this energy will go

And current models are pants at accounting for what's going on right now (IPCC, 2019).

oriel36

Akrasia wrote: »

When you’re criticizing the scientific consensus it’s a matter of put up or shut up.

That is somewhat severe as many people attempt to take a wider view of planetary temperatures and the causes for their fluctuations including daily and annual cyclical fluctuations. Attacking some else's conclusion is a waste of time and especially when everything is rigged towards supporting that conclusion.

Here is a basic temperature 'heartbeat' of the Earth where temperatures fluctuate daily in response to one complete rotation of the Earth each 24 hour day -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg

A meteorologist should have no difficulty interpreting the extended period as demonstrating the link between rotations and temperature fluctuations across a period in much the same way a doctor can interpret an ECG as one complete action of the heart -

https://cdn4.vectorstock.com/i/1000x1000/67/23/heart-rate-heartbeat-neon-line-blue-graphic-vector-22216723.jpg

The experimental theorists following an exceptionally poor 17th century conclusion do not accept the interpretation that one 24 hour day and one rotation are the same thing even when daily temperature fluctuations maintain the correlation between cause and effect -

" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA

If that is not dismaying then I do not know what is but then again, this is what happened when less careful people decided that the links between planetary motions and timekeeping took priority over planetary motions and Earth sciences like climate, the seasons and so on. Perhaps the advice of Pascal is more gentle when discussing issues -

"When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true. People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others." Pascal

Akrasia

"Gaoth wrote:

Wadham is on the extreme end of reality. Please post a link to these 2012 studies.

Here’s one from PNAS
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/22/7964

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

And current models are pants at accounting for what's going on right now (IPCC, 2019).

They’re not great, but they’re the best models we have, they have low spatial and temporal resolution but they are getting the general picture mostly right. The alternative is to go with gut instinct to overrule where you think the flaws in the models lie, and this is where Wadhams has gotten himself into trouble. He trusted his own expertise and instincts too much and discounted the expertise of the other scientists working on the same problem too much

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

They’re not great, but they’re the best models we have, they have low spatial and temporal resolution but they are getting the general picture mostly right. The alternative is to go with gut instinct to overrule where you think the flaws in the models lie, and this is where Wadhams has gotten himself into trouble. He trusted his own expertise and instincts too much and discounted the expertise of the other scientists working on the same problem too much

And yet you believe we should be listening to him before others.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

And yet you believe we should be listening to him before others.

We should listen to him before others who have less expertise and a much worse track record

Wadhams is mostly right on the science, most ‘skeptics’ are mostly ignorant of the science, and some of the prominent scientists who oppose climate action have spent the end of their careers promoting known falsehoods and misinformation about climate science