Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Polar Maritime]

Guess who's being nasty over on the other thread? I've looked for what we are accused, here on this thread , of and can see no reason to take such a nasty tone? Why must he do it?

 

Last resort as usual GW...

[knocker]

Reading the last missive from the other side of the divide one is reminded of Ben Johnson.

 

 

There he sits a whole afternoon sometimes, reading of these same abominable, vile, (a pox on them, I cannot abide them!)  rascally verses.

[Gray-Wolf]

I just don't see why such posting is allowed to continue? Surely leaving such unchallenged just gives the green light for more of the same?

 

I have accrued warnings and even been given time outs for less in the past and it does seem ( from here) that folk on the other thread can post similar without any type of reminder as to the 'rules of posting' if not just out of common courtesy?

[Methuselah]

Freedom of speech, Ian? And, at the end of the day, are we not equally free - and qualified and/or literate enough - to counter such nonsense? What would the world be like if it were not for being able to lampoon numpties like Watts and Monckton?

[Gray-Wolf]

Point taken Pete!

 

I suppose if you give them enough rope...........

[Polar Maritime]

[Gray-Wolf]

I have to wonder why the average figure stayed over 400ppm through june when the northern hemisphere biomass should have been soaking it up??? I could see why Jan/Feb should keep a high average but I really did expect a dip as our summers vegetation took its share of the CO2?

 

Are we being given another hint by the planet to address our current excessive production or it will start to spit more out itself in the form of carbon sink failures ( remember the 410ppm readings over the southern ocean last month???)

 

EDIT: Have to agree with you from up here Knocks as my past posting has me limited to just 10 posts , across the forum, per day......... and a very lengthy penalty it appears with no end date ever given???

 

One scientist gave the 2016 + or - 3 years and since that time the Deniers have told us that all of science ( and his/her dog) predicted a 2013 melt out date. I must admit the first place I saw this was over in Wattsy's mad house so it kinda shows the quality of the folk parroting it , year in year out, to me?

 

That said I too would be very interested in seeing a few links to all of these Arctic Scientists that are currently being tarred with the 'Ice free Today' brush?

 

I take it if we began to attribute nonsense to posters in the other place they would take offense? Oh! Hold on....... they don't need my help to do that do they? ;-)

Edited July 2, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-68#entry2996811

 

 

Apparantly  ,according to the likes of Al Gore and the motley train of confused.com  gravy train scientists ,the North Pole should be ice free by now!

I'm aware of one scientist who suggested the Arctic might be sea ice free by 2016 plus or minus three years but I'm not conversant with the rest of the motley array of scientists on the make who claimed it should be ice free by now. A few names, and perhaps a link, would be appreciated. As a Regional Forum Host I'm sure you are aware of the protocol. 

Edited July 2, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

This is the meto position on the 'ice free' Arctic and was last updated on April 14th this year;

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/sea-ice-2012

 

"Current climate models indicate that a plausible date for the earliest ice free* summer in the Arctic is 2025-2030. The performance of climate models is evaluated continually and routinely assessed against available observations. Preliminary new results from the CryoSat satellite (combined with data from the previous satellite IceSat) indicate that ice volume between 2003 and 2012 has declined at a rate as least as large as previously indicated, and faster than many climate models. Detailed assessment of the observational evidence is therefore essential, and helps us to understand more about our climate and feedbacks, in addition to leading to improved models and projections. An improved understanding of Arctic processes may lead to revised projections for an ice free summer in the Arctic."

 

( my bold type)

[BornFromTheVoid]

Paul and the admins, I think we've just seen a good demonstration of what's wrong with this area.

A reasonable look at the recent exchanges between this and the climate sceptic thread shows quite clearly which members have been unable to adhere to any kind of reasonable debate, who's been making ridiculous claims that they cannot support and who then resort to emotive arguments and insults when they're asked to provide evidence or when evidence is provided that disproves their claims.

Productive debate here will always struggle when requests for evidence are dismissed and responded to with insults and baseless statements are paraded as science.

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/64332-antarctic-ice-discussion/page-48#entry2997029

 

 

There"s no conspiracy theory ,but to much evidence is stacking up on data tampering just some of the data adjustments taking place to satisfy the politicians green tax adgenda  .http://notrickszone....ght-in-siberia/ when politics and scientist get together its never a good union,http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/ http://notalotofpeop...t-luling-texas/

 

After yesterdays fiasco we had better clarify one thing immediately. Have you any evidence to back up this statement, "but to much evidence is stacking up on data tampering just some of the data adjustments taking place to satisfy the politicians green tax adgenda"? If not you are once again accusing an international institution of fraud which, quite frankly, is not a good start to any discussion so I'll keep it brief.

 

Regarding Luling see Nick Stokes who knows a fair bit on the subject. (also the comments section)

 

http://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/ushcn-tempest-over-luling-texas-theres.html

 

Regarding the Homewood/Goddard NOAA dispute the latter have issued a press statement that there is nothing wrong with their algorithms. I could link to Nick stokes discussing this but HotWhopper has a fairly lengthy piece on it with various links which she is quite fastidious about so I'll just link to that.

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/noaa-and-temperature-data-it-must-be.html#more

[Gray-Wolf]

Just wondering; if there is an ice free summer in say 2025 what changes would that bring to us here in the UK?

 

Hi D.S.!

 

I only wish i could tell you in full what we ought to expect but the truth, as far as I know, is that " Nobody knows". What we do know is that it would not occur without change.

 

Lets try and imagine one small area of that change and see if we can figure the 'might be's'?

 

We know the Arctic is lessening the pressure/temperature gradient between the pole and equator as the Arctic warms at a rapid rate ( compared to the equator) so what happens when this gradient reduces even more?

 

In the past warm phase of the planet it is suggested that we had no 'polar jet' . Over recent summers we have frequently seen areas to our north with higher temps to our own. To me this makes the polar jet redundant and pushes south the boundary between cooler northern air and sub tropical air. If we lose all the ice ( instead of half of it) then surely we increase, over the summer months when the north is under full sun 24hrs a day, the occurrence of the north being warmer than the temperate regions? What then of the polar jet?

 

Does the Jet become so sinuous as to meet with the sub-tropical jet? If you imagine this happening then anywhere inside the 'loop' will have no polar boundary meaning the sub tropical airs can push further north ( and the tropic with it?). does this lead to a rapid warming of the temperate regions and a push north of the tropics ( shifting/expanding the desert belt further north?) Does this 'open door' to the sub tropical air lead to a flood of warmer air further north further undermining the remnants of the polar jet as nature then 'balances' the northern hemisphere temps without the boundary of the polar jet? nature likes balance, our weather is based on this drive for balance so with a warmed polar region will not the 'vacuum' of the temperate belt be addressed by allowing warmer air in?

 

When I think of changes that a fully ice free basin will drive I automatically look to the atmosphere. It is the most dynamic piece of the jigsaw with air-masses able to travel huge distance in short time frames. all the air-masses need is an 'invitation' to migrate?

 

But let us not think about the shocking days when we first see an ice free basin. Let us focus on what then occurs to the Arctic. The feedback from such a loss makes a repeat more likely the following year. Firstly all the ice would be FY ice and so more likely to melt, second the extension to the ice free period as the sea loses its heat to allow freezing leads to a thinner pack. both these 'results' lead to a likelihood of a follow up ice free year and make it more likely that the period of 'no ice' extends back into summer allowing even more heat to be milked from the system the following year.....and we go around again. to me i look at places like Baffin or Hudson bay to see what type of 'ice season' could evolve once the basin becomes ice free.

 

When we think about the energy that an ice free basin is likely to absorb, compared to 90% of that energy bouncing harmlessly back into space it maybe makes a lot more sense as to why we ought to be worried about such a change? The slow build up of CO2 is allowing an energy imbalance to occur on the planet driving warming ( to regain the balance). What type of warming would the sudden introduction of all that energy need to again 'balance' the system?

 

Jethro always used to argue that any heat gained over summer would be harmlessly radiated back into space come autumn, making 'no change' a likely result. We know from studies of the Arctic atmosphere that the inversion above the surface layers does not allow for such a simple conclusion. the heat makes its way into the climate system and the like of Dr Francis are studying ( and showing results) just that exchange. The wayward polar jet and the 'stuck weather' they drive appear to be a facet of the current energy that a partially ice free Arctic provide? 

 

As i said at the top nobody truly knows what ice free conditions will drive but we do know that they will drive something!

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-68

 

 

I've read plenty of the scientific papers. I linked to the media reports as these cut to the chase. Also, it has been proven that the scientific papers get edited to save face, they forgot about the Google cache in that case though!!!!

 

 

 

That's interesting. Which relevant scientific papers have been edited to save face and what exactly is the proof of this? Are you actually saying that media reports are more reliable because they haven't been doctored like the original papers?

 

EDIT

This must be the ultimate irony. Someone accusing hundreds of scientists of having an 'agenda' and yet quotes media reports for the 'truth'.

 

 

It's not really hard to see why so many remain sceptical about the whole CO2 agenda.

 

I agree it's actually quite easy to see why so many remain sceptical about the whole CO2 agenda. The clue is in the use of the word 'agenda' and the misuse of sceptical regarding science.

 

Given the complexity of the subject it's hardly surprising that different scientific papers will arrive at different dates for the probability of an ice free Arctic but in reality it's really irrelevant. If you do not believe that CO₂ has any part to play in Arctic sea ice loss, or is not the main driver, how do you explain this?

Edited July 3, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

 

 

Media reports that quote scientists. Oh dear.

 

 

 

 

Oh dear indeed. Have you read Rose and Delingpole recently? I'm afraid this will have to be my last post on this particular subject as your last two posts aren't even thinly disguised as debate.

 

Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: The Daily Mail

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/12/30/climate-change-misinformer-of-the-year-the-dail/197340

[A.J]

I remind posters in here again of the forum guidelines found here ---------> http://forum.netweather.tv/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

and with that, I set a challenge, a test for the keyboard warriors among you without me having to name names

 

either adhere to the forum guidelines or your posting abilities will be restricted either temporarily or permanently.....the choice is yours

[Methuselah]

Hi PM...I've just finished removing 7 posts, most of which weren't even in the appropriate thread...

[Gray-Wolf]

I find it quite laughable that those who believe themselves to be 'sceptical' of science so easily/readily dismiss what science does as time moves forward????

 

As information accrues then better, more informed forecasts are made. Surely the lesson we all gained from 07' was that science can be behind 'reality' when it lacks data?

 

Is anybody trying to say that the shift in scientific consensus, regarding an ice free Arctic basin, post the 07' event was 'contrived' or was it just best practice being observed?

 

So post the 2012 'average weather' shocker are folk still demanding that the science ought to stand still and not update its opinions in light of the lessons we learnt there? 

 

Currently the consensus, as per the MetO snippet I posted, stands at around 2025 to 2030 for ice free.

 

Personally I think this is conservative and await the next 'perfect melt storm' ( possible earliest re- appearance in 2017) to decide just when the ice will go as I doubt that the basin has enough 'good ice' to survive such an event this time around.

 

So that places me 1 year above the lone scientist who gave the 2016 + or - 3 years punt...... maybe he had a point?

[DAVID SNOW]

Thanks for taking the time to try and answer my rather broad question Grey Wolf

 

Oh, and it was just a question to another member ( a member who spends  some time on the subject) asking them for their opinion. If my post was in the wrong section? Why was it not moved rather than being deleted? I seldom post in here, and it will be a long time before I do again. Thanks again GW for your reply.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Thanks for taking the time to try and answer my rather broad question Grey Wolf

 

Oh, and it was just a question to another member ( a member who spends  some time on the subject) asking them for their opinion. If my post was in the wrong section? Why was it not moved rather than being deleted? I seldom post in here, and it will be a long time before I do again. Thanks again GW for your reply.

 

Try not to let it put you off DS, it may have just been a mistake.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi David! I do not think your question is in the wrong section at all but , sadly, there are still a few unnecessary and unflattering posts going on in the section a.t.m.? Mods appear to be on it but you are in no way involved with any of it!

 

As for your question it is something I really do mull over.

 

It might just be me but I think too few folk bother themselves with the issue? If this is a direct result of the impacts that 'paid misleaders' have had ( leaving folk not knowing what to think about climate future as it 'appears' to be a muddy murky area where no one knows what is happening?) then it may prove a great loss to humanity with far too few minds working on what we might do to avoid any unpleasantries ( content to just keep on with what 'seems' to work for them now??).

 

To me the number involved in the energy that we will find flooding into the climate system are mind boggling. Dwarfing our current GHG impacts on a year to year basis and plenty strong enough to impact/override all current natural drivers we see modifying our weather?

 

We have just see our own flooding ( due to blocked/repeating weather patterns) , China's massive flooding ( due to blocked/repeating weather patterns), central european flooding ( due to blocked/repeating weather patterns) and now the mid west/Canada flooding ( due to blocked/repeating weather patterns). All of this is on the back of the weather disruption we have seen over the past decade of low snow cover/sea ice levels in the Arctic and evidence showing 'extra heat' entering into the climate system from this loss of albedo.

 

We are a 'Weather Site' and as such I had imagined that anything that could interfere with 'understanding' the weather would be a subject we were all over. I appear to be very wrong in this assumption with a very vocal ( and unpleasant ?) minority taking it upon themselves to stand opposed to the wealth of scientific observations we have today?

 

I know i have a 'side' in this 'debate' but it does appear to me that the directive that the 'paid misleaders' gave to 'challenge every post/ mention of climate change' has really borne fruits with the current climate of majority exclusion from the debate a direct result.

 

I honestly believe that 'events' will drive humanities actions to mitigate change but this will be far too late to try and stop/mitigate the catastrophe we face on losing arctic albedo from our climate system. Myself ,and many others, now see the loss of Sea ice as a given and this then raises further concerns as to whether we will be able to mitigate anything else that climate change promises?

 

The IPCC give us a mere 250GtC of carbon left to safely use before the GHG forcing threatens to break the 2c post industrial rev. temp rise. Should we stop producing now the loss of the Arctic ice/albedo may well drive changes that drive us well beyond the 2c ceiling. East Siberian Sea submerged permafrost only needs to 'burp' 30gtC of methane to use up all of that carbon allowance and the more we learn of the reserves there the more likely we are to see significant amounts of methane entering into the climate system reducing the amount of carbon we can safely use?

 

I suppose I could have mentioned the ESS methane issue as a consequence but then until we have more data folk would shout any concerns down as 'doomsaying' or some such?

Edited July 3, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Global Warming continues at a standstillRSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to June 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monkton alert!!!!

 

I do wonder why any person of moderate intelligence would go as far as reproducing his outpourings? We have all seen the current monthly global values and we are all aware of when the past 10 'warmest years' fell so why does anyone think that this piece of nonsense carries any gravitas? 

 

I can only think it is presented as a possible inflamer ? Is this what we want on our site? Is it what we need? Does it help further our understanding ( apart from that of the mind set of the poster?)? 

Edited July 3, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

And the post above that one with the same link had already been posted in the Antarctic thread yesterday morning for some reason which I replied to here. I'm definitely getting a feeling of deja vu again.

Edited July 3, 2014 by knocker

[Polar Maritime]

Yes knock, Round and round we go..

[knocker]

An amusing snippet from Sou this morning.

 

Las Vegas Denier Fest: Awards for best con artists, denial propagandists and plodders for hire

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/07/las-vegas-denier-fest-awards-for-best.html

[Gray-Wolf]

So you keep saying. Was the winter of 2010 in the UK nothing special either? Considering not so long ago we were being told snow in winter in the UK would become a thing of the past I'd say a winter like that was special.

 

 

Not bad for a world that has apparently warmed so much & is continuing to do so. Even more impressive if you consider how much heat towns & cities that didn't exist in 1659 generate.

 

 

http://www.weather.com/news/winter-ncdc-state-climate-report-2013-2014-20140313

 

No doubt if certain states record record heat there will be a fanfare about that!

 

I find it odd that you bring up winter manifestations of a 'stuck, elongated Jet pattern' to argue against the summer events the same messed up Jet brings us?

Again, the observations are increasingly favouring the lessening of the temp/pressure grad between pole and equator as a major reason why we are seeing an slower, more convoluted Polar Jet. Without the energy of a high contrast between pole/equator the energy to drive a strong , straight jet just is not there. We even saw what a more extreme contrast does to the jet this past winter as the 'Arctic plunge' inside the Jet trough in the USA flopped into the warm Atlantic ocean. Though a convoluted 'loopy jet' over the Pacific/America the 'contrasts' over the eastern seaboard lead to a very vigorous ( and straight running) Jet across the Atlantic firing depression after depression at the UK