Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Manmade Climate Change Discussion


Paul

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Walsall Wood, Walsall, West Midlands 145m ASL
  • Location: Walsall Wood, Walsall, West Midlands 145m ASL

Somebody told me the other day that global warming must be true because these days on a sunny day in the UK you can get a tan/sunstroke in a matter of hours. Yet 20-30 years ago it would have to be sunny for days for this to happen. Is this true or were they talking rubbish? Sorry if this seems like a silly question, but I would like an answer from somebody who knows what they're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Somebody told me the other day that global warming must be true because these days on a sunny day in the UK you can get a tan/sunstroke in a matter of hours. Yet 20-30 years ago it would have to be sunny for days for this to happen. Is this true or were they talking rubbish? Sorry if this seems like a silly question, but I would like an answer from somebody who knows what they're talking about.

It sounds like rubbish to me, WS??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Or someone growing older and spending more of the 'precious' sun time basking instead of running around doing stuff (not noticing 'shade time')?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL

This thread is for people who believe that climate change is man made.  Please read Paul's opening post.

 

This does not affect the rest of the threads in this part of the forum.....

 

This is for like minded people to discuss man made climate change without any input from the people who do not believe that climate change is man made.

 

It is that simple that even primary school kids can follow that instruction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

The detection of the anthropogenic signal is statistically robust independent of the model utilized to characterize the internal variability.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/imbers-et-al-2013-AGW-detection.html

 

A new study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres by Imbers, Lopez, Huntingford, and Allen tests the robustness of the detection of human-caused global warming in previous studies.  Specifically their study builds on Lean and Rind (2009), Folland et al. (2013) (which they refer to as Folland 2011, based on an abstract presented at the AGU conference in 2011 of the recently-published 2013 paper), Kaufmann et al. (2011), and Lockwood (2008), as well as considering Loehle and Scafetta (2011).
 
Imbers et al. investigated whether using different characterizations and models of internal natural variability in the climate system (for example the El Niño Southern Oscillation [ENSO] and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO]), with both short and long memory processes, would impact the detection of the human-caused global warming signal.

 

The study itself (paywall) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50296/abstract

Edited by BornFromTheVoid
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

 

No matter how strong the evidence on climate change, deniers will keep denying

 

... Scientific debate continues in the peer-reviewed literature and at scientific conferences, where the impact of ocean acidification, the rate that ice sheets and glaciers melt, and the prevalence of hurricanes, drought and disease are debated. Indeed, there is debate about the likely range of climate sensitivity, the temperature rise expected with a doubling of CO2 levels. But established facts – like gravity, evolution, or global warming from greenhouse gas emissions – are not debatable.

 
In the social sciences the debate has moved on as well. There is now considerable research focus on the variables that explain why some people choose to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.
 
If 97 out of 100 scientists and 97% of peer-reviewed articles oppose your view that the climate is just fine and we have nothing to worry about, what can you do? How would you “explain away†that consensus?
 
It appears that in those situations dissenters often resort to the belief that the inconvenient scientific consensus is the result of a nefarious conspiracy. If a scientific consensus cannot be accepted as the result of researchers independently converging on the same evidence-based view, the idea of a complex and secretive conspiracy among researchers — often accompanied by claims that dissenting voices are censored — presents an alternative explanation for that consensus. And so 97 out of 100 climate scientists conspire to create a “hoax†called climate change. The idea that science is a conspiracy also facilitates the framing of dissenters as the unrecognised geniuses who resist a “dogma†by heroically posting the truth on their blogs.
 
This is why those who cannot accept the overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gases are warming the globe claim scientists fake evidence to support their political point – calling it “Lysenkoismâ€. Hence the tobacco industry’s insistence that medical research into the health effects of smoking is the effort of “a vertically integrated, highly concentrated, oligopolistic cartel†that “manufactures alleged evidence.†And perhaps that is why a sitting US Senator has entitled his recent book “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.â€
 
How widespread is this reframing of an overwhelming scientific consensus as conspiracy? According to a recent poll, 37% of American voters believe global warming is a hoax. This figure likely represents an upper bound. My own recent data, also based on a representative sample, suggest a figure of 20%. In comparison, 10% believe US agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and 15% believe that the evidence for a link between second-hand cigarette smoke and ill-health has been invented by a corrupt cartel of medical researchers.

 

 

 

The rest is here http://theconversation.com/no-matter-how-strong-the-evidence-on-climate-change-deniers-will-keep-denying-14496

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Ed Hawkins & Phil Jones: On increasing global temperatures: 75 years after Callendar

 

Abstract

In 1938, Guy Stewart Callendar was the first to demonstrate that the Earth's land surface was warming. Callendar also suggested that the production of carbon dioxide by the combustion of fossil fuels was responsible for much of this modern change in climate. This short note marks the 75th anniversary of Callendar's landmark study and demonstrates that his global land temperature estimates agree remarkably well with more recent analyses.

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2178/pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne
The Alarming Science Behind Climate Change’s Increasingly Wild Weather: Ostro And Francis On Video

Earlier this month, Chris Mooney moderated a terrific Climate Desk event featuring top climate researcher Jennifer Francis along with senior Weather Channel meteorologist (and former skeptic) Stu Ostro.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/22/2150561/the-alarming-science-behind-climate-changes-increasingly-wild-weather-ostro-and-francis-on-video/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Humans play role in Australia’s “angry†hot summer

 

Human influences through global warming are likely to have played a role in Australia's recent “angry†hot summer, the hottest in Australia’s observational record, new research has found.

 

The research led by Centre of Excellence researchers at the University of Melbourne, has shown that global warming increased the chances of Australians experiencing record hot summers such as the summer of 2013, by more than five times.

 

http://www.climatescience.org.au/content/288-humans-play-role-australia%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cangry%E2%80%9D-hot-summer

 

The Paper

 

Anthropogenic contributions to Australia's record summer temperatures of 2013†



Abstract
[1] Anthropogenic contributions to the record hot 2013 Australian summer are investigated using a suite of climate model experiments. This was the hottest Australian summer in the observational record. Australian area-average summer temperatures for simulations with natural forcings only were compared to simulations with anthropogenic and natural forcings for the period 1976–2005 and the RCP8.5 high emission simulation (2006–2020) from nine CMIP5 models. Using fraction of attributable risk to compare the likelihood of extreme Australian summer temperatures between the experiments, it was very likely (>90% confidence) there was at least a 2.5 times increase in the odds of extreme heat due to human influences using simulations to 2005, and a five-fold increase in this risk using simulations for 2006–2020. The human contribution to the increased odds of Australian summer extremes like 2013 was substantial, while natural climate variations alone, including El Niño Southern Oscillation, are unlikely to explain the record temperature

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50673/abstract

Edited by knocker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

This must be personally satisfying for Steve McIntyre, though I doubt the folks at RealClimate will have the integrity to acknowledge that he was right, and they were wrong

 

 

Correct

 

A response to the critics

The publication of our paper provides a timely opportunity to revisit and respond to a series of unfounded criticisms that have been levelled at our work in recent years, mostly originating from Steve McIntyre at the ClimateAudit blog, though they have been widely repeated and embellished by other commentators.

 

 

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/yamal-and-polar-urals-a-research-update/comment-page-3/#comment-392398

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Indeed Malcolm - if McIntyre was right it was clearly for the wrong reasons...

Edited by A Boy Named Sue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Some light relief.

 

The Church of Monckton

 

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/the-church-of-monckton/

'Distinguished pillock' is what I prefer to call him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Ed Hawkins.

 

Global temperature changes in WMO report

 

A recent press release by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) described recent global temperature changes, and highlighted extreme weather in the 2001-2010 period. Much of the press release is good, but here I will examine the accuracy of two statements.

 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/wmo-report/

Edited by knocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Williams to study climate trends in St. Louis and southeastern U.S.

 

More frequent sweltering summers, droughts, flooding and extreme weather across the country are expected with our changing global climate. The problem is so severe that the Obama Administration is taking new steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions to help the nation manage the effects of climate change and to lead international climate efforts.

 

The climate changes are clear. Since 1901, the average surface temperature across the continental United States has risen at an average rate of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. However, the southeastern United States is one of the few places on Earth that has had an overall cooling trend over the last century.

 

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/25596.aspx

Edited by knocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

 

How the Koch brother screwed over the climate even more than you know

 

Since 2008, the Koch-backed group Americans for Prosperity has been urging candidates and politicians to sign its “No Climate Tax Pledge.†In 2010, we noted that many Republican House and Senate candidates had signed it, and in 2011, that at least one GOP presidential candidate had.

 
But it turns out the pledge has been far more widespread and influential than most people realized. From the Investigative Reporting Workshop:
 
A quarter of senators and more than one-third of representatives have signed a little-known pledge — backed by the Kochs — not to spend any money to fight climate change without an equivalent amount of tax cuts.
 
They are among 411 current office-holders and politicians, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Virginia Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli II, Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, three members of the Railroad Commission of Texas, the Oklahoma schools superintendent, the Idaho state treasurer and three justices of the peace in Arkansas who have signed the “No Climate Tax Pledge.†…
 
While the pledge began with a marginal following, an energized turnout of conservative voters in the 2010 election swept 85 freshman Republicans into the House. Of those 85 Republicans, 76 signed the Koch pledge as candidates. And 57 of those 76 received campaign contributions from Koch Industries’ political action committee.
 
With the support of these newly elected Republicans, from 2011 to 2013, Congress passed increasingly smaller budgets for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), attempted to strip the agency of varying regulatory powers and discouraged policies to address climate change across multiple federal agencies, according to the Workshop’s analysis....
 
... â€œThere is no other corporation in the U.S. today, in my view, that is as unabashedly, bare-knuckle aggressive across the board about its own self-interest, in the political process, in the nonprofit-policy-advocacy realm, even increasingly in academia and the broader public marketplace of ideas.†Formerly head of the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, Lewis has focussed for years on the way money affects American politics. “The Kochs’ influence, without a doubt, is growing,†he believes. A spokeswoman for the Kochs declined to comment.
 
In its multi-part report, “The Koch Club,†written by Lewis, Eric Holmberg, Alexia Campbell, and Lydia Beyoud, the Workshop found that between 2007 and 2011 the Kochs donated $41.2 million to ninety tax-exempt organizations promoting the ultra-libertarian policies that the brothers favor—policies that are often highly advantageous to their corporate interests. In addition, during this same period they gave $30.5 million to two hundred and twenty-one colleges and universities, often to fund academic programs advocating their worldview. Among the positions embraced by the Kochs are fewer government regulations on business, lower taxes, and skepticism about the causes and impact of climate change.
 
The study recounts that the Kochs have influenced the congressional climate-change debate in other ways, too, which include funding an array of nonprofit groups whose experts have testified in Congress questioning the cause, the severity, and the necessity of, acting on climate change.

 

 

 

The article is here

 

The, much more detailed, report that the article is based on is here

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously calibrated against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal and other variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality.

 

 

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

Arctic temperatures have been below normal everyday for the last 3 months http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

 

Posted Image

 

 

I know that but with Sea ice well above previous years,

Posted Image

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008

 

  it shows that with increased CO2 in the atmosphere CO2 has no effect on the climate.So there"s other natural reasons for changes in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.

 

 

So, within the above posts, there are common elements in many "sceptic" lines of evidence against a CO2 induced warming effect.

 

  • [*]Making incorrect claims or exaggerating what the data is showing (making claims about the Arctic, that in reality only apply to certain areas) [*]Suggesting that short term regional cool spells somehow refute CO2 induced warming. [*]Claiming all the change we've witnessed over the decades is entirely natural, on the basis of short term fluctuations. (temporary above average global sea ice, short term slow downs in global temperature, etc).

 

Unfortunately, very few of the more reasonable sceptics will even challenge these views within the sceptic thread here and elsewhere in the climate denial communities.

 

It seems that no matter how many times these claims debunked, they just keep popping up again and again. Is there a way of explaining things, a set of data, a type of image or something else that could finally put these kind of claims to bed?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: inter drumlin South Tyrone Blackwater river valley surrounded by the last last ice age...
  • Weather Preferences: jack frost
  • Location: inter drumlin South Tyrone Blackwater river valley surrounded by the last last ice age...

 

 

 

 

So, within the above posts, there are common elements in many "sceptic" lines of evidence against a CO2 induced warming effect.

 

[*]Making incorrect claims or exaggerating what the data is showing (making claims about the Arctic, that in reality only apply to certain areas)

[*]Suggesting that short term regional cool spells somehow refute CO2 induced warming.

[*]Claiming all the change we've witnessed over the decades is entirely natural, on the basis of short term fluctuations. (temporary above average global sea ice, short term slow downs in global temperature, etc).

 

Unfortunately, very few of the more reasonable sceptics will even challenge these views within the sceptic thread here and elsewhere in the climate denial communities.

 

It seems that no matter how many times these claims debunked, they just keep popping up again and again. Is there a way of explaining things, a set of data, a type of image or something else that could finally put these kind of claims to bed?

 

Some folk buy the gaurdain .. others think the Male on Sinday is a newspaper   sell lav. ie

Edited by be cause
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

deleted

Edited by stewfox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

 

 

 

 

So, within the above posts, there are common elements in many "sceptic" lines of evidence against a CO2 induced warming effect.

 

[*]Making incorrect claims or exaggerating what the data is showing (making claims about the Arctic, that in reality only apply to certain areas)

[*]Suggesting that short term regional cool spells somehow refute CO2 induced warming.

[*]Claiming all the change we've witnessed over the decades is entirely natural, on the basis of short term fluctuations. (temporary above average global sea ice, short term slow downs in global temperature, etc).

 

Unfortunately, very few of the more reasonable sceptics will even challenge these views within the sceptic thread here and elsewhere in the climate denial communities.

 

It seems that no matter how many times these claims debunked, they just keep popping up again and again. Is there a way of explaining things, a set of data, a type of image or something else that could finally put these kind of claims to bed?

 

Indeed, BFTV...One-off bits of weather say nothing about long-term global trends...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...