Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[BornFromTheVoid]

What would be the point of studying for something that imo is plain wrong in how it handles climate sensitivity and still continues to bury it's head in the sand regarding the pause, besides all that I know enough on the basics of physics and the rest of the course is built on unreliable climate modelling, assumptions and a ton load of conjecture. I did email them regarding the pause and why they think climate models cannot get to grips with feedbacks, strangely enough I never received a reply.

 

 

Open mindedness and all that. The IPCC published data regarding "the pause", it has been looked at, despite your claims. Remember, models do show slowdowns of a similar length to what we've seen.

 

Refusing to learn a little climate science is burying ones head in the sand. Perhaps if you did the course, you might be able to explain some of those questions yourself?

 

 

That's one of the drawbacks of dual threads, increased polarisation and they feel able to include far more previously suppressed name-calling such as you get on the extremist hate blogs.

It's all about 'good' science of course.

 

Calling out a blog for engaging in climate denial is like an extremist hate blog!? A little dramatic isn't it!?

 

He didn't produce any evidence of all this oil-funding they like to trot out, because there isn't any - how much 'funding' would be needed to run a blog anyway - a few $100s?

They build up Watts into a high priest of denialist evil - reveals more how scared they are of anyone prepared to publish contrary material than anything.

 

 

Yeah, $88,000 funding and payments for speaking at their denier conferences is nothing. 

So climate denier ="a high priest of denialist evil"! You really have a penchant for the dramatic. I bet you just love the balanced musings of James Delingpole

[Methuselah]

But, you've got to admit: 'balance' is a very effective way of avoiding scientific 'reality'...If 'Lord' Monckton can't grasp it, it ain't worth knowing; what's good for His Excellency is good enough for me...

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-36#entry2823629

 

But, when one considers (a la Joe B?) that 2010 was the warmest year to date, said pause may not be as blog-friendly as some people think?

Edited October 31, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[knocker]

WUWT is the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change for a reason.

 

Its looking to give a balance view

 

 

I've had to pop into the "Your favourite comedian" thread to amend my post.

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

@BFTV. With regards to the pause and your insistence climate models showed this, poppycock that's a case of shutting the stable door once the horse as bolted. Nearly 17 years of no warming with the CET having only risen 0.85c since the LIA.

 

 

More (false) assumptions SI? I though you disliked those?

 

 

On the low side currently? Yes

Completely beyond the range of projections? No

 

Where are the much more accurate "climate sceptic" predictions btw?

Edited October 31, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[knocker]

The correct conclusion is that there is no demonstrated observational evidence for global warming.

 

 

Global warming in an independent record of the last 130 years

 

The thermometer-based global surface temperature time series (GST) commands a prominent role in the evidence for global warming, yet this record has considerable uncertainty. An independent record, longer and with better geographic coverage, would be valuable in understanding recent change in the context of natural variability. We compiled the paleo index from 170 temperature-sensitive proxy time series (corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, historical documents). Each series was normalized to produce index values of change relative to a 1901-2000 base period; the index values were then averaged. From 1880 to 1995, the index trends significantly upward, similar to the GST. Smaller-scale aspects of the GST including two warming trends and a warm interval during the 1940s are also observed in the paleo index. The paleo index continuously extends back to 1730 with 66 records. The upward trend appears to begin in the early 19th century but the year-to-year variability is large and the 1730-1929 trend is not significant at the p<0.05 level. In addition to its value in vetting the thermometer-based record, our approach shows the potential of the un-calibrated paleo archive in understanding environmental change; this approach can be applied to aspects of environmental change where the instrumental record is even shorter (ocean pH, sea ice, hydrologic extremes).

 

 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL054271.shtml

[knocker]

Wrong thread for jiggery pokery comments and speculation.

[Gray-Wolf]

Four said: 'That's one of the drawbacks of dual threads, increased polarisation and they feel able to include far more previously suppressed name-calling such as you get on the extremist hate blogs.' 

 

I think some have said all along that this was an approach doomed to failure for just those reasons?

 

The misleaders 'brief' is to disrupt any serious discussion of the science lest 'the lurkers' become engaged and form opinions on the information and science to which they are exposed. A 'single thread' exploring the issues may lead to misleaders employing disruption techniques ( mainly baiting and then reporting any person who 'bites' to board admin so swamping mods with increased workloads and effectively leading to ownership closing areas that are 'unsustainable').

 

'Free for all' ( un-moderated) threads lead to board management threatened with legal action from misleaders once they have 'baited' folk into extreme behaviours/words (the extremes can be seen in Fours outburst linked above).

 

The misleaders have basically fulfilled their masters remit of stifling discussion on the findings of science and given the impression, to the all important lurkers, that the science is far from settled.

 

In a time that we observers should be discussing impacts we are left wasting time dancing to the misleaders tune in a desperate attempt to keep current findings accessible to the lurkers.

[Methuselah]

Wrong thread for jiggery pokery comments and speculation.

Hence its disappearance.

[BornFromTheVoid]

No amount of jiggery pokery alters the fact that not one climate scientist came out and state there would be a pause in global temps, which in another 13 years will give us enough climatic data to reevaluate the alleged consensus as we will have entered another chapter in the globes climate.

 

You make the assumption that the models don't show something, I show data showing some do. Where's the jiggery pokery? Is that the term for data you don't like? 

 

I bet no climate scientists said there be faster than expected warming from 1992 to 2006, or bet that we'd see cooling from 2010 to 2013, or that we'd see see rapid warming from 1999 to 2007, why? Because non of those are climate predictions, short timescales are dominated by natural variability, not long term climate drivers.

In another 13 years, some of the climate trends will likely have become statistically significant if they continue as they are.

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

@BFTV. In another 13 years a number of climate scientist are predicting a downward trend in global temps, now these scientist may not be on the payroll of the corrupt IPCC but their credentials are as good as any.

 

 

SI, as has been said numerous times, to you, the scientists that contribute to the IPCC report do it voluntarily. Your continued accusations (assumptions) to the contrary do not put you in a positive light

 

Who are the acclaimed scientists predicting cooling in 13 years?

 

I'll take you silence on the topic as admittance that you were wrong about the climate models then.

 

Please try and put some of your sceptical inquiry abilities to use when reading WUWT articles.

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe now is the time to implement the 'thread banning' That I suggested when this 'new system' was implemented?

 

We, in this place, should focus on the science (and not sully ourselves with this cross thread madness) and they can continue in turning the other place into an extension of WUWT...... which their links would show is an ongoing thing over there?

 

I believe we owe it to our lurkers to bring as clearer picture of where the various disciplines are taking our understanding of current changes, and their predictions for our future, as we are able ( without allowing for the constant distractions we are prey to presently)? 

Edited October 31, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

You make the assumption that the models don't show something, I show data showing some do. Where's the jiggery pokery? Is that the term for data you don't like? 

 

I bet no climate scientists said there be faster than expected warming from 1992 to 2006, or bet that we'd see cooling from 2010 to 2013, or that we'd see see rapid warming from 1999 to 2007, why? Because non of those are climate predictions, short timescales are dominated by natural variability, not long term climate drivers.

In another 13 years, some of the climate trends will likely have become statistically significant if they continue as they are.

 

 

 

 

I agree BFTV. Perhaps this can be shown using solar minima. It's been postulated that the current damping of CO² forcing is either heat taken up by the oceans or sunspot minima. The former has already been disussed and a recent paper discussed the latter. I don't have a problem with the latter and if I remember correctly the paper went on to say that at the end of the period temps would start to rise again.

 

This has happened in the last 70 years. Attempting a balanced view here.

 

Variation of global sea surface temperature (HadSST3) and observed sunspot number (NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center; NGDC) since 1960. The global monthly average sea surface temperature is estimated by University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK. Base period: 1961-1990. The thin lines in the diagram represent the monthly values, while the thick lines is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. Last month shown: June and May 2013. Last diagram update: 30 July 2013.

 

 

Variation of global surface air temperature (HadCRUT4) and observed sunspot number (NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center; NGDC) since 1960. The global monthly average surface air temperature is a cooperative effort between the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK. The thin lines represent the monthly values, while the thick lines is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The variation in global temperature is about 0.2^oC during one sunspot period, superimposed on the general increasing temperature trend during the period shown. The somewhat asymmetrical temperature 'bumps' around 1973 and 1998 are reflecting oceanographic El Niño effects. Last month shown: June and May 2013. Last diagram update: 30 July 2013.

 

http://www.climate4you.com/

Edited October 31, 2013 by knocker

[UV-RAY]

 

 

 

 

SI, as has been said numerous times, to you, the scientists that contribute to the IPCC report do it voluntarily. Your continued accusations (assumptions) to the contrary do not put you in a positive light

 

Who are the acclaimed scientists predicting cooling in 13 years?

 

I'll take you silence on the topic as admittance that you were wrong about the climate models then.

 

Please try and put some of your sceptical inquiry abilities to use when reading WUWT articles.

 

The funding they receive is from taxpayers, either that or they have a money tree in the back garden. The scientists I alluded too are Russian BFTV and I've posted their viewpoints earlier this year. Also my sceptical viewpoint is  focused on the  constant fudging of data and facts to suite an overblown theory whose only facts are that the globe warmed up until 17 years ago. 

[Devonian]

Tamara said:

Someone is surely going to come along very soon and shut these threads down . I posted this here in compliance with the rules, but the ridiculous slanging match going on in the other thread is a prime illustration of the problem that will never go away 

 

I too post in compliance of the rules, not once have I posted to the 'sceptic' thread, not once...

 

Anyway, I think both threads are informative. Of course the information isn't the same but ten years of these internet debates teaches me that agreement is as far off as ever.

 

I see no slanging match. I have seen and protested at some highly offensive and ridiculous comments but by and large these threads see one view being countered by another. To close down debate would be sad because I actually think the two threads, and the distance they mean there is between views, works -  in a odd kind of way - I don't, myself, see there being such a threat of close down atm.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Devonian

[Tamara]

The funding they receive is from taxpayers, either that or they have a money tree in the back garden. The scientists I alluded too are Russian BFTV and I've posted their viewpoints earlier this year. Also my sceptical viewpoint is  focused on the  constant fudging of data and facts to suite an overblown theory whose only facts are that the globe warmed up until 17 years ago. 

I think it is right to let research continue into AGW theory at the same time as research should be allowed to continue into natural forcings with the biggest regard to solar phases and cycles.  From a sceptical pov, this is a prudent line to take and to put aside issues of fudging data etc  The truth and the facts will verify in this way and any potential theoretic assumptions will be outed, however long it takes. Sceptical opinion and open mindededness evolve accordingly with what time and further research will show us  Fixed and assumptive opinions on the other hand will hinder this process

 

The coming decade or so could tell us a lot about the net cost balance between the effects of negative feeback solar cyclical activity, and any artificial positive warming feedbacks that are theorised - should these exist, or not, as the case may be

Edited October 31, 2013 by Tamara תָּמָר

[Devonian]

Is it really not possible to actually have a conversation about this subject with someone who has a different opinion without it declining into farce?

This is an important issue, and understanding it (or at least, wanting/trying to) is worthwhile and fairly normal.

Is there anyone who reads these threads who actually believes they don't know for certain what to think, or is everyone talking into a void of other people's certainty?

Grrrr

 

I don't know Fergus.

 

I do know several of the recent posts to the 'man made' thread have taught me something. Likewise I learn about people from the 'sceptic' thread. I try to understand where people are coming from. Climate, climate change, how much we're having an effect,  is an important issue but the net is a hugely imperfect place to debate. In reality we don't know who we debate with but we know the cover the net gives allows people to behave in ways they wouldn't face to face. I think the two threads give another way of trying to make the best of things - two sword lengths and all that. Of course the confrontation of two sides would be better not there but one the net, and for the reasons I've given, I can't see that going away.

[Devonian]

I think it is right to let research continue into AGW theory at the same time as research should be allowed to continue into natural forcings with the biggest regard to solar phases and cycles.  From a sceptical pov, this is a prudent line to take and to put aside issues of fudging data etc  The truth and the facts will verify in this way and any potential theoretic assumptions will be outed, however long it takes. Sceptical opinion and open mindededness evolve accordingly with what time and further research will show us  Fixed and assumptive opinions on the other hand will hinder this process

 

There is research into the sun and into climate. Lots of both.

 

I don't know who you have in mind with your last sentence.

[Fergus Brown]

Hi all.

 

The IPCC report is a SYNTHESIS . The lead scientists and principal scientists on each section are highly-respected, experienced and competent specialists whose reputations are founded on a track record of sound, meaningful science.

 

These people review THOUSANDS of papers from thousands of other scientists and present their findings to nearly 200 political representatives of governments, who then argue the toss about the wording or detail of pretty much every line, until everyone is satisfied with all of it.

 

The scientists who make contributions to the various chapters are generally paid faculty members of Universities or Instituitions. Like all of us, they make a living doing a job which is paid for by their students (directly or indirectly). The work they do for the IPCC reports is unpaid and voluntary. It is potentially reputation-enhancing, but the burden is huge and disproportionate to any 'reward' .

 

Pretty much ALL of the 'natural' and 'anthropogenic' forcings of climate are researched, evaluated and considered in the WG1 section of the AR5. The conclusions about the relative impacts of these are carefully presented. Then, as with all good science, further research is conducted to improve understanding of each and all of these elements of 'climate'. This is not 'fudging'; it is the process of science.

 

The last ten years have been the warmest ten on record. The previous decade was the next warmest, the previous decade the next warmest. etcetera. 

 

[Tamara]

There is research into the sun and into climate. Lots of both.

 

I don't know who you have in mind with your last sentence.

Its not a personalised post Devonian. It is a general overview in terms of appraising ALL the forcings that could contribute to climate variation.  There is research into both yes, but the gist of what i said is that much more equanimity and open mindedness is required in bringing balance of opinion

 

What I would add though is that the sloganisms attributed to individuals according to their opinions is highly unhelpful and the largest catalyst of all to the problems found on these threads

 

The IPCC reports, without doubt, are to be welcomed as yardstick to measure for progress. As one who is yet to be persuaded by the theory of artificial positive feedback warming, it is good to have these report updates as they provide a benchmark to update opinion one way or the other. I find the latest report rather disappointing personally as it has done very little to further influence my opinion and the overall conclusion I would take from it is that uncertainty into the theorised feedbacks is as large as ever. Meanwhile, we are entering a potentially deep lull in solar activity, of a duration of up to perhaps three decades or so and this represents nearly half the time of the forecast period for future climate variation.

 

A true test indeed of its expectations, but for me, at this stage, it carries far too high a supplementary confidence marker in terms of its predictions and expectations

Edited October 31, 2013 by Tamara תָּמָר

[Devonian]

Hi all.

 

The IPCC report is a SYNTHESIS . The lead scientists and principal scientists on each section are highly-respected, experienced and competent specialists whose reputations are founded on a track record of sound, meaningful science.

 

These people review THOUSANDS of papers from thousands of other scientists and present their findings to nearly 200 political representatives of governments, who then argue the toss about the wording or detail of pretty much every line, until everyone is satisfied with all of it.

 

The scientists who make contributions to the various chapters are generally paid faculty members of Universities or Instituitions. Like all of us, they make a living doing a job which is paid for by their students (directly or indirectly). The work they do for the IPCC reports is unpaid and voluntary. It is potentially reputation-enhancing, but the burden is huge and disproportionate to any 'reward' .

 

Pretty much ALL of the 'natural' and 'anthropogenic' forcings of climate are researched, evaluated and considered in the WG1 section of the AR5. The conclusions about the relative impacts of these are carefully presented. Then, as with all good science, further research is conducted to improve understanding of each and all of these elements of 'climate'. This is not 'fudging'; it is the process of science.

 

The last ten years have been the warmest ten on record. The previous decade was the next warmest, the previous decade the next warmest. etcetera. 

 

 

I know, and agree. Indeed, like you, I've know that for years. It's a reasonable position imo.

 

But, it's clear there are people who reject all that. The question is how do we debate when everything you and I know is rejected? It's seriously difficult, is the answer....

[be cause]

Maybe now is the time to implement the 'thread banning' That I suggested when this 'new system' was implemented?

 

We, in this place, should focus on the science (and not sully ourselves with this cross thread madness) and they can continue in turning the other place into an extension of WUWT...... which their links would show is an ongoing thing over there?

 

I believe we owe it to our lurkers to bring as clearer picture of where the various disciplines are taking our understanding of current changes, and their predictions for our future, as we are able ( without allowing for the constant distractions we are prey to presently)? 

 

I too am a Lurkers fan ...

Edited October 31, 2013 by be cause

[BornFromTheVoid]

I think it is right to let research continue into AGW theory at the same time as research should be allowed to continue into natural forcings with the biggest regard to solar phases and cycles.  From a sceptical pov, this is a prudent line to take and to put aside issues of fudging data etc  The truth and the facts will verify in this way and any potential theoretic assumptions will be outed, however long it takes. Sceptical opinion and open mindededness evolve accordingly with what time and further research will show us  Fixed and assumptive opinions on the other hand will hinder this process

 

The coming decade or so could tell us a lot about the net cost balance between the effects of negative feeback solar cyclical activity, and any artificial positive warming feedbacks that are theorised - should these exist, or not, as the case may be

 

What would you consider the fixed and assumptive opinions, over say, the evidence based ones?

[Fergus Brown]

Its not a personalised post Devonian. It is a general overview in terms of appraising ALL the forcings that could contribute to climate variation.  There is research into both yes, but the gist of what i said is that much more equanimity and open mindedness is required in bringing balance of opinion

Hi Tamara,

 

IMO, the chapter of the AR5 which deals with Attribution shows a considered, balanced approach to all the potential forcings. I'd like to claim that the conclusions are all unequivocal but this would be untrue - within the assessment there are considerable variables which matter. What is unequivocal, however, is that there is no alternative way of accounting for much the change in climate since 1850 than 'anthropogenic' contributions. 

 

The interesting questions should be about -  given that we are changing our planet in ways which result, collectively, in a warming climate - are there changes we can make, collectively, to the way we deal with forests, water resources, energy generation, which could help reduce the potential future impacts? What should we spend our present wealth on for future benefit? What responsibility should we be taking now, for effects that we will never see? Are we, irrespective of all good intentions, basically damned?

 

These are interesting issues, and the best answers depend on the view we take on things like the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of the Global System, the relative regional and global impact of different mitigation strategies, but, for me, most importantly, whether we, in this generation and this life, are willing to take responsibility for the decisions we make (or fail to make) now.

 

Edited October 31, 2013 by Fergus Brown

[knocker]

Global Warming Natural Cycle

The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from paleo data covering the past 1 million years. Is there a difference between current climate, and the natural cycle? For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages. This shifting in and out of warm periods and ice ages is correlated strongly with Milankovitch cycles. In order to understand the difference between natural cycle and human-caused global warming, one needs to consider changes in radiative forcing and how this affects systems on earth such as the atmosphere, vegetation, ice and snow, ocean cycles and related effects. The current radiative forcing levels are clearly outside of the natural cycle range.

 

 

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

[knocker]

2013 globally hottest September on record according to NASA GISS, together with September 2005.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt