Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-47#entry2874308

 

Has anyone ever made that suggestion? If so, their cause-and-effect might be back-to-front?

 

Antony Watts?  

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-46#entry2874308 (and similar posts)

 

Worth looking at the dates of some of the references in this article. Like this one for example - Stephen Wilde's ideas might pre date that but I suspect not...

[Gray-Wolf]

Nobody mentioning mr W's fabled 'delay' .....or is that no delay?........ it changes so frequently I find it hard to remember which it is???

 

Sadly S.I.'s super water post appears to be no more? At least we don't need to worry about the old specific heat capacity of water any more? A body of water, the size of an ocean, doesn't hold onto it's heat for , now what was the techno speak he used? oh yeah! for not that long at all!!! ( don't know if that's minutes,days,weeks ,month,years or centuries?) but it appears there is some magical quality which means that bottom waters stay at some pre determined temp no matter the heating it's subjected to before it's subducted to the deep!

 

Odd that those probes should be noting it warming at the bottom of the indian ocean ( and Pacific?) but hey! it'll not stay warmer for 'that long' cause that's what we now know about water......

 

This is fun isn't it?

[knocker]

There was a bit of chat recently about CFCs, ozone, etc. This little snippet may be of interest.

 

Stratospheric Influence on Tropospheric Weather and Climate.

 

 Anthropogenic Effect

 

It is now well recognized that anthropogenic pollutants such as chlorofluorocarbons(CFCs) released in the troposphere cause depletion of stratospheric ozone on a global scale. Stratospheric model results predict that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, associated with global warming in the troposphere as a result of an enhanced greenhouse effect, should lead to global cooling of the stratosphere (Brasseur and Hitchmann 1998).

 

At stratospheric altitudes and above where infrared emission from C02 can escape to space, dramatic atmospheric cooling is expected. Tropospheric climate models generally predict a l-4°C increase in the tropospheric temperature in a doubled-CO2 scenario. Corresponding middle atmospheric models for the same scenario predict a 10-20°C decrease in stratospheric temperatures.

 

Such a large stratospheric signal of global temperature change suggests that the atmospheric effects of increasing levels of C02 may become apparent at higher altitudes before an unambiguous trend is observed in the troposphere. A large change in the stratospheric thermal structure would also drive significant changes in the stratospheric circulation and dynamics. This would affect tropospheric climate because stratospheric dynamics provide the upper boundary mechanical forcing of tropospheric weather patterns.

 

To understand the effects of anthropogenic pollutants in the stratosphere, the dynamic processes by which tropospheric trace gases are transported into the stratosphere should be determined. Both observations and models have shown that most tropospheric trace gases enter the stratosphere through the tropical tropopause and are then transported through the stratosphere by winds and various mixing processes (see Fig. 9.12). For greenhouse gases like COz and CH4, which show increasing abundance and have a long atmospheric lifetime, the time difference between the appearance of a given abundance in the troposphere and the appearance of that same abundance in the stratosphere is known as the age of air.

 

The effect of greenhouse gases on stratospheric warming probabilities is less clear. The polar stratosphere will not obviously cool more significantly than the tropical stratosphere (Shindell et al. 2001). Moreover, a tendency for polar amplification of warming near the surface would seem to work against enhanced meridional temperature gradients in the stratosphere. One might expect that warming of the tropical upper troposphere and cooling of the polar stratosphere by greenhouse gas increases would lead to increased temperature gradients on constant pressure surfaces in the upper troposphere-lower stratosphere region, and it would increase the vertical shear and refractive index in midlatitudes. It is not clear that these changes would be far enough poleward to produce a positive feedback on the stratospheric polar night jet. Moreover, many other changes would occur in the troposphere that would produce effects. Gillett et al. (2003a,  found consistent positive annular mode responses in reply to C02 increases, but the magnitudes of these changes were not large.

 

Chemical reaction rates in the atmosphere are dependent on temperature, and thus the concentration of ozone is sensitive to temperature changes. Decreases in upper stratospheric temperature slow the rate of photochemical ozone destruction in this region. Hence the concentration of upper stratospheric ozone increases in response to cooling. Cooling of the polar lower stratosphere would lead to more efficient chlorine activation on aerosol and polar stratospheric clouds and enhanced ozone destruction. Therefore, the concentration of ozone in the springtime polar lower stratosphere would decrease in response to cooling.

 

Reference: Stratosphere Troposphere Interactions, K. Mohanakumar, Springer.

Edited December 24, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

On climate models and tipping points;

 

Still the Ghost pointed downward to the grave by which it stood.

“Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead,†said Scrooge. “But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me.â€

[su rui ke]

A warm November? Not according to this lot: http://www.weatherbell.com/videos/encoded/1387630105_2.ogg 

Hilarious!

 

'How can they say it was the warmest November on record? Look at all these months that were warmer!'

 

Er, yes, but at least one of those that you pointed out is not a November - being at the beginning of the year kind of gives it away - and one of the others clearly had a lower anomaly than November this year, even though it was warm compared to months immediately before and after it.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi su!

 

In case you haven't noticed they can ,and do ,say whatever they like and often follow it up by claiming the opposite..........

 

We are closing in on flipping back into a period of mainly positive natural forcings so god only knows what they will be claiming/ignoring/altering then?

 

When you think about natural propensity to warmer global temps augmented by man's GHG outputs, albedo flip across the arctic, oceanic outpourings of stored heat and Asia becoming more responsible with their pollution we can expect a faster rate of surface temperature increases than we have currently seen and there are just not enough steam pipes to go around!

[knocker]

Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises

 

Both abrupt changes in the physical climate system and steady changes in climate that can trigger abrupt changes in other physical, biological, and human systems present possible threats to nature and society. Abrupt change is already underway in some systems, and large scientific uncertainties about the likelihood of other abrupt changes highlight the need for further research. However, with recent advances in understanding of the climate system, some potential abrupt changes once thought to be imminent threats are now considered unlikely to occur this century. This report summarizes the current state of knowledge on potential abrupt changes to the ocean, atmosphere, ecosystems, and high latitude areas, and identifies key research and monitoring needs. The report calls for action to develop an abrupt change early warning system to help anticipate future abrupt changes and reduce their impacts.

 

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/other-reports-on-climate-change/2013-2/abrupt-impacts-of-climate-change/

[knocker]

This, Knocker, is a prime example of the content free garbage that is masquerading as science. The mind boggles and disintegrates with each passing word. Have you actually read all that crap?  Just asking. 

 

I haven't read the whole report but what I have makes sense to me and Richard Alley

 

 This to me is a prime example..................

 

We always thought Monckton was barking now we need think no more. Actually perhaps he's on to something about species could not have evolved...............................

 

Boxing Day Special: NASA faked the moon landing - a Christmas gift from WUWT

 

As a Christmas special, Anthony Watts paraded out Christopher Monckton, who wrote how his religion frowns on lies while proceeding to tell lie after lie after lie.  He spent much of the article wrongly accusing climate and other earth system scientists all around the world of fraud, deception, being on the take, profiteering and being socialists. (And using a verb as an adjective in the process.) Lots of bedazzled WUWTers bowed their heads and chanted homage to the lord (Monckton), while atheistic WUWTers chastised him for bringing religion to WUWT and socialist WUWTers objected to Monckton's suggestion that socialism is immoral. (Archived here - and updated here in case anyone wants to waste time wading through 342 comments just to learn about the myriad weird and illogical non-reasons people come up with to justify their rejection of science. Or to collect more evidence of just how nutty Christopher Monckton is - eg his comments about how species could not have evolved and his illogical comments trying to justify his claims that climate science is a hoax.)

Edited December 26, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

This, Knocker, is a prime example of the content free garbage that is masquerading as science. The mind boggles and disintegrates with each passing word. Have you actually read all that crap?  Just asking. 

 

 If dismissal was an argument then you're talking crap and thus I'm the one talking science sense.

 

No, of course that doesn't work so, if you think it's wrong, explain why.

[knocker]

One of the prevailing myths about climate change is that it's a "new" science -- merely the latest fad in an ongoing cycle of scientific doom-saying. You've almost certainly heard or read someone say something like this: "In the 70s, the scientists were all telling us the globe was cooling -- now it's warming. Well which one is it, durn it?" The implication is that climate science is some kind of a trend, and is apt to change course when those fickle scientists find something else to fixate on. This is anything but the case:

 

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/climate-science-circa-1956-video.html

Edited December 26, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Just wait until the other side pop up a lascaux cave image showing cooling.......... in fact it's cooling all the way down.......

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-47#entry2875860

 

As you say, well and truly debunked.

 

 

The mean sea level (MSL) trends measured by tide gauges that are presented on this web site are local relative MSL trends as opposed to the global sea level trend. Tide gauge measurements are made with restpect to a local fixed reference level on land; therefore, if there is some long-term vertical land motion occurring at that location, the relative MSL trend measured there is a combination of the global sea level rate and the local vertical land motion. The global sea level trend has been recorded by satellite altimeters since 1992 and the latest calculation of the trend can be obtained from NOAA's Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry, along with maps of the regional variation in the trend. The University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group compares global sea level rates calculated by different research organizations and provides detailed explanations about the issues involved.

 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

 

Sea level is rising at an increasing rate

 

 

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

 

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

 

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

 

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

 

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

 

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

 

Sea-level rise: What the experts expect

 

In the long run, sea-level rise will be one of the most serious consequences of global warming. But how fast will sea levels rise? Model simulations are still associated with considerable uncertainty – too complex and varied are the processes that contribute to the increase. A just-published survey of 90 sea-level experts from 18 countries now reveals what amount of sea-level rise the wider expert community expects. With successful, strong mitigation measures, the experts expect a likely rise of 40-60 cm in this century and 60-100 cm by the year 2300. With unmitigated warming, however, the likely range is 70-120 cm by 2100 and two to three meters by the year 2300.

 

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/sea-level-rise-what-the-experts-expect/

 

Edited December 26, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

Just wait until the other side pop up a lascaux cave image showing cooling.......... in fact it's cooling all the way down.......

There's no need to bait them, Ian...Each link to WUWT or IceAgeNow counts double!

[knocker]

I've put this in here but without any ulterior motive. There is no suitable thread.

 

Gavin Schmidt give the Stephen Schneider Lecture at the AGU Falll Meeting this year.  It's worth watching

 

 

Stephen Schneider was a science communicator who understood intimately the roles of expertise and values in raising public awareness and in discussing both problems and solutions to issues of public concern. With a new generation of climate scientists stepping up to the microphone, what are the lessons to be learned from his experiences? I will discuss the ethical issues associated with being both a scientist and a human being, the importance of honesty - to oneself and to ones audience - and how this can be effective. I will also discuss how scientists can find a role for themselves in advocating what they feel strongly about and how to avoid some common pitfalls and problems. Above all, I will present a picture of how one can try to be both a public voice and a good scientist, and how these roles, in the end, reinforce one another.

 

Edited December 27, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.scmp.com/business/commodities/article/1391305/coal-feels-heat?

 

I've read a few things recently about 'king coal' struggling to roll over loans and fund future investment as the banks begin to see them as a poor long term investment? 

 

No matter what the 'climate misleaders' and their funders have achieved with the general public it would appear that big business has done it's own digging around and is now starting to react to the future threats?

 

I wonder how much moaning we'll get for being single handedly responsible for the financial implications climate change brings along with it? Do you think that the other place could even conceptualise that the financial sector has it's own reasons for keeping up with the latest information that the Science of climate change brings us and react in a way as to best serve their investors?

 

Do you think it'll mean anything to them that industry takes the future threats of climate change so seriously or will they feel themselves 'better informed' than the worlds lead industrialists/financiers?

[knocker]

AGU Fall Meeting 2013Our understanding of future Arctic change is informed by the history of past changes, which often have been both large and abrupt. The well-known ice-age events such as the Younger Dryas show how sea-ice changes can amplify forcing to produce very large responses, with wintertime sea ice especially important. These changes are increasingly seen to have played a central role in the ice-age cycling through their global impact on CO2 storage in the deep ocean.The Heinrich events reveal processes of ice-sheet/ocean interaction, some of which are being played out in Greenland and Antarctica now, and which may have large future effects on sea-level rise. The paleoclimatic record plus physical understanding greatly reduce the worst worries about instabilities from methane stored in cold places, but tend to support a role in amplifying future warming.Overall, the very large impacts of past Arctic changes, and the likelihood that future changes under business-as-usual fossil-fuel emissions will be unprecedented in combined size and speed, raise important questions.

 

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-47#entry2877251

 

I was going to ask why are so bashful about supplying links to support your rhetoric when I twigged. Our old friends at CFACT so not too much time spent on this.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/

 

Regarding warming winters.

 

In U.S., Winters Warming but Precipitation More Nuanced

 

The Winter Solstice arrives on Saturday, marking a headlong plunge into winter. Looking at the past 42 years of data shows that almost the entirety of the Lower 48 has warmed over the season. Precipitation trends show more regional differences, though.

Climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions have in large part caused temperatures to increase by 1.5°F since 1895 in the U.S. Much of that increase has come since 1970, and different seasons are warming faster than others. Winters, which begin in the meteorological sense on December 1 and run through February, have warmed 0.61°F percade in the contiguous U.S. from 1970-2012. That's faster than the rate of 0.435°F of warming per decade experienced over the same period.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/winters-warming-in-the-u.s.-precipitation-more-nuanced-16868

 

Tornadoes are tricky for a number of reasons as can be seen.

 

 

There are good reasons to believe that global warming leads to more storminess, but the exact nature of that transition is unclear and hard to measure. Part of the reason for this difficulty is that a given type of storm may become more likely under certain conditions caused by climate change, while a different kind of storm may become less likely, with the “storminess†overall increasing but doing so indifferent ways across time. Also, the most severe, and thus possibly the most important, weather events are infrequent so it is difficult to see changes over time with any statistical confidence. I address many of these issues here and here.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/05/21/are-there-more-tornadoes-because-of-global-warming/

 

Are Tornadoes Getting Stronger? New Research Hints yes…

 

SAN FRANCISCO — The trail of twisted metal and torn roofs left behind by massive twisters is growing longer and wider, a sign that tornadoes may be growing stronger, climate scientist James Elsner said here Tuesday (Dec. 10) at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

 

Beginning in 2000, tornado intensity — as measured by a twister’s damage path — started rising sharply, said Elsner, of Florida State University. “I’m not saying this is climate change, but I do think there is a climate effect,†he said. “I do think you can connect the dots.â€

 

Devastating tornado outbreaks in recent years, such as the massive storm that injured hundreds in Moore, Okla., this summer, have focused attention on whether climate change is altering tornado frequency and strength. Just last week, a heated debate played out in an op-ed on LiveScience and the New York Times over whether tornado-tracking data could answer these questions. One scientist claimed the data show twister numbers are dropping, but tornado experts said changes over time in how weather officials assess tornado size and damage make it difficult to look for climate patterns

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/12/13/are-tornadoes-getting-stronger-new-research-hints-yes/

Edited December 28, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

No steam pipes today but I bet you didn't know what absolute bounders the IPCC are.

 

Anthony Watts takes "exception" and posts a doozy of a climate conspiracy theory at WUWT

 

Today Anthony Watts has posted an article by Tim Ball who made this startling new revelation.  According to WUWT (archived here):

 

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set climate research back thirty years, mostly by focusing world attention on CO2 and higher temperature. It was a classic misdirection that required planning. The IPCC was created for this purpose and pursued it relentlessly. Through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) they controlled national weather offices so global climate policies and research funding were similarly directed.

 

This means that all the world's nations have finally found common ground.  Despite their differences in politics and world view, despite battling each other in trade wars and military conflicts they all agreed on one thing because they are under the control of the IPCC.  They conspire together on climate science.

Edited December 28, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

First of all the GW alarmists predicted warmer winters when that prediction failed, ,GW they then said climate change would cause more extreme weather like more tornado"s more forest fires etc that again another failed predictions,fewest Tornado"s ever recorded plus the fewest forest fires since 1984 so what next for this failed Alarmists.http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/torgraph-big.png

 

I take it you have not looked for the reason we saw the U.S. see such a different year the past 12 months KL? Have you not noted a shift in the Jet pattern over the lower 48 from one of being under a ridge ( for nearly 6 years) to being in the exact opposite position? Does your mind not seek to answer what could have driven such a switch? 

 

As it is the areas 'outside' the trough have been seeing very warm weather with temperature records falling in alaska and the SW/SE.Could this 'switch ' be signalling a change from the natural drivers that dictated the period that saw the lower 48 under the ridge? Do global temps, in this ENSO Neutral year, look a tad warm? Might we be seeing us transition into the next period of natural 'warm drivers'? Let's see what the next year brings eh? If we suddenly see, in early spring, ENSO signal a Nino in the making then I'd be worried that your 'pause' is now over and we are about to find out what temps do under the next 'warming spurt'.

[knocker]

Just to add to your Christmas cheer the noble Lord's 'Sermon on The Mount' speech.

 

Lord Monckton's on morality - glass houses alert

 

 

The good Lord, Monckton of Brenchley, has seen fit to deliver upon us this Christmas his sermon.  Well, the Pope does it.  The Archbishop of Canterbury does it.  So why not the admirably upright citizen (though he would prefer subject) of these shores, the 3rd Viscount Monckton

 

http://ingeniouspursuits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/lord-moncktons-on-morality-glass-houses.html?spref=tw

Edited December 28, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

Just to add to your Christmas cheer the noble Lord's 'Sermon on The Mount' speech.

 

Lord Monckton's on morality - glass houses alert

 

http://ingeniouspursuits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/lord-moncktons-on-morality-glass-houses.html?spref=tw

Oh dear!

 

They have gotten mercurial poisoning but don't realize they've got mercurial poisoning...

 

Mad as a hatter!

[Gray-Wolf]

Oh My many gods!

 

I take it folk have worked through this Monkton madness ( along with the rebuttal?) . Whenever I've seen the merry gang who attend his meetings there is a relief that they appear not long for this world but monkton's words, sadly, are.

 

I can only hope that a few of those who 'needed' ( so badly) for AGW to be wholly incorrect, and found such lunacy as they searched for alternatives, gained the courage to accept the facts that are out there ( even if they still cannot bear to concede the broader brushstrokes of AGW to be correct?) and look again at what  is happening to our world and what may well happen if we sit idly by?

 

I can only hope that the lunacy we now see paraded by the 'Misleaders' is far too extreme for right minded folk to give credence to any more and so turns them toward sceptisism and science for their answers?

 

Surely such lunacy can only be the product of believing your own press ( and sycophants) to the extent that you believe that every utterance you make, no matter how dumb, will be gobbled up by your 'faithful' without thought or question?

 

It is truly sad that just as climate turns toward it's first major expression of rapid and damaging change ( in this human driven period of climate change) that the folk who turned to such personalities for plausible alternatives are left watching them degenerate into gibbering wrecks (as they stand witness to the very predictions that they heaped derision on made flesh before them). 

 

I'd always believed ( and posted) that we need everyone thinking about how to mitigate change so we might stand a chance of someone having that 'lightbulb moment' that would really make a difference.

 

As it is paid lackeys have robbed us of such a concerted effort and folk have either been diverted from trying to find solutions or just been lead to believe there was no issue to even think about......

 

We may laugh but it really isn't funny......in fact it's deadly serious........

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-47#entry2879114

 

"Remember this nonsense" 97% of 2500 " scientist consensus agree that GW is taking place"

 

Actually I don't and your link isn't very helpful apart from enlightening me to the fact that disingenuous actually means phoney.

 

I assume there is no confusion here with this.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article 

Edited December 30, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-47#entry2879275

 

That statement is threatening to unbalance my chakras, disturb my aura and encourage a sudden extrusion of ectoplasm. Peer review is dangerous! Bah Humbug!