Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Manmade Climate Change Discussion

Recommended Posts

Yes but my post has a Lol smiley and wasn't meant...

 

Which means four's were?....

 

If GW was referring to anyone then, imo, he mean 'Goddard' and his likes. The main players. But, GW can speak for himself.

 

Anyway, we'll get nowhere like this so no more from me on what single words mean.

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again SI, "Climate Misleaders" are the group of folk as described by Jen Francis, you are far from being such and flatter yourself to feel I see you as such?

 

Last year the early spring 'signals' from NOAA were for a low grade Nino, as it was we barely crossed the threshold before neutral won out. This year other climate indicators ( not just those used by the ENSO forecasting teams ) are hinting at a return to Nino ..... this is obviously long overdue ( unless you think the west coast US drought is climate change and not a result of Nina after Nina without the relief of Nino floods?) and will , of course , overturn the 98' global temp record . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again SI, "Climate Misleaders" are the group of folk as described by Jen Francis, you are far from being such and flatter yourself to feel I see you as such?

 

Last year the early spring 'signals' from NOAA were for a low grade Nino, as it was we barely crossed the threshold before neutral won out. This year other climate indicators ( not just those used by the ENSO forecasting teams ) are hinting at a return to Nino ..... this is obviously long overdue ( unless you think the west coast US drought is climate change and not a result of Nina after Nina without the relief of Nino floods?) and will , of course , overturn the 98' global temp record . 

 

It certainly would be surprising if we never see another El Nino. When we get one will it bring record temperatures? Somewhere between possibly and probably imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I'm looking at it Dev is the very stunted 2010 Nino ( 9 months?) challenged for the global temp record but had it run another 9 months it would have beaten it by a fair margin? This Nino looks to set up in late summer and run through into summer 2015 ( so an average size) but we are already seeing Nino' like impacts in Australia and other areas of the southern hemisphere so the move into a full blown Nino will only exacerbate those impacts. These may well help strengthen the Nino as less of it's 'energy release' is needed to drive such impacts and so must flow into other areas of the global climate?

 

As it is Eastern U.S. could really do with the rain/snow that the Nino generally brings with it as the drought there is the worst ever recorded as it is with areas of the African continent. it's all right folk wishing for the Nina dominance to continue ( and keep global temp rises pegged at the lower level) but this keeps some areas of the world in dire need of water and this 'need' is now exceptional. A switch back to Nino dominance will at least ease the torment in those areas even if it does mean that 2014/15 surpass the global temp record 98' set?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — THE overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mike MacCracken was the first “real†climate scientist that I got to know, who started answering my questions, pointing things out to me, and introducing me to other folks.Dr. MacCracken is a global treasure, in that he knows the course of climate science over the last half century as few others do, and sees the big picture in a way that few will.

 

 For this interview, I crashed a conference at the University of Michigan in January 2012.

 

Next time you hear that climate science is something Al Gore invented in 2006, or that climate science predictions have been wrong,  pull out this video. A little history is in order.

 

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/20/classic-crock-what-we-knew-in-82/

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-51#entry2902006

 

Oh dear the barrel is really being scraped now when an article by the fruitcake Mark Morano is being quoted. He's about as close to being a scientist as I am becoming the Pope. Just one example as I can't be bothered with the rest of the drivel.

 

 

Excuse 2 – Ocean heat

Ah yes, the old ‘dog ate my warming’ excuse. The oceans have mysteriously sucked all the heat out of the atmosphere and have hidden it deep down, conveniently where nobody can measure it. This makes perfect sense, as everybody knows that in order to heat up a cold bath, all we need to do is turn the fan heater on in the bathroom, right?

 

Well.....................................eat your heart out Judith.

 

Yet Another Large Jump in Ocean Warming

 

The fourth-quarter result for 0-700 meter ocean heat content is in already, and it shows another large increase from a year earlier.

The 12-month increase is 2.38 × 1022 Joules, the largest jump since 3Q 2006. It works out to 1.48 W/m2 over the Earth's entire surface area.

 

http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/yet-another-large-jump-in-ocean-warming.html?spref=tw

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No better than watts upwith that that your are more than happy to deride

 

How so jon? I've just read through what was posted there and followed up the highlighted statements and all seems in order? The site itself does not set itself up as anything other than the ramblings of interested parties looking at current goings on in the climate world ( no claims of being the number one this or that?) so I cannot even place it into the same category as Watt's site?

 

Over the years the Watt's site has been proven to be both wrong and misleading in it's postings but i have never heard of any such inconsistencies from this blog?

 

I am just confused at this apparent need for polarity that we see from the 'other place', this drive to have the climate debate as a 50/50 , unsettled, thing? As if to highlight this the recent poll of published papers ,from Nov 2012 to Dec 2013 found that of 2259 published,peer reviewed papers only 1 had dismissed human driven climate change? That is far bigger than a 97% slice of the climate scientists pie now isn't it?

 

As such you would imagine the number of blogs etc. that side with the general scientific feeling would be reflective of this breakdown but it is not is it? Why do you think that this might be? When we see media debates on the subject do we see science arguing with science about impacts or are we forced to watch science being given a similar slot to the minority denier/Misleader supporters? Surely we should be seeing such governed by the same logic that we see employed for political parties with those attracting most votes being allotted the lions share of the air time and those attracting the lowest pollsters given proportionally less? Why do we not see 97 minutes of AGW supportive science and 1 minute of opposing voices? Surely that would be a fairer representation of the subject and allow the public a better chance of understanding the situation? 

 

How do we prosper by allowing that 1% the same opportunity to promote their beliefs as we do to the scientific understandings on the subject?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coal Company Director guest author on WUWT.Posted Image I see no comparison with Eli Rabett (a.k.a. Dr. Joshua Halpern)

 

Viv Forbes, coal company director, sez it's not really hot down under (when it is!)

 

Viv Forbes, a coal company director from Australia, has posted another article at WUWT (archived here).  He put up a map of Australia with a whole bunch of record high temperatures in different years. I think he was trying to argue that Australia's Angry Summer wasn't "unprecedented".  He'd have been wrong.  It was unprecedented in all sorts of ways. What he wrote was:

No doubt we will hear how the current heatwaves in Australia are “unprecedented†and evidence of dangerous man-made global warming.

They are neither “global†nor “unprecedentedâ€.

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/viv-forbes-coal-company-director-sez.html

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA Finds 2013 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend

 

 

NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures.

 

With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record.

 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut610vvLfct

 

I appreciate this has already been posted by BFTV.

 

Global Analysis - Annual 2013

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA Finds 2013 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend

 

 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut610vvLfct

 

I appreciate this has already been posted by BFTV.

 

Global Analysis - Annual 2013

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

 

EDIT: Actually, silly mistake, those temperatures are anomalies in Celsius on the GISS LOTI page, and Fahrenheit actual temperatures on the NASA press release, hence some of the confusion. Still, the ranking doesn't tie in with the data here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Edited by BornFromTheVoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that GISS have the data to more decimal places then they post online. A more detailed analysis is here http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140121_Temperature2013.pdf

 

Uncertainty between nearby years is a few hundredths of a degree Celsius1. Thus, accounting for this uncertainty, we say that 2005 and 2010 tie for warmest year, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2013 tie as the 3rd through 9th warmest, and 2012 is the 10th warmest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But will that data bring the same kind of 'Wow!' to the other thread as it does here? to see 2013 tie with the 'super nino' year of 98' whilst being an ENSO neutral year is truly worrying. If the El Nino research Knocks linked to above is to be believed then the last two 'Supers', 83 and 98, had only 15 yrs between them ( and not the old 20 year span) making the next Nino favourite to be another 'Super Nino' ( already 16 yrs since the last?).

 

Should we see the Feb  Enso advisory showing another swing in the ensembles toward a Nino setting up over summer ( currently swung to a 50/50 split for either Neutral or Nino from  ensembles that earlier in the winter were going for Neutral over the summer of 2014) over the chances of staying Neutral I'd be even more concerned that we are about to endure a Super Nino year.

 

If Neutral can rank so high in global records and a 9 month Nino (2010) rank as warmest then what do we reasonably expect a Super Nino to post? If it is a 'normal' 18 month event that would mean 2014 with a Nino influence but 2015 a full blown nino year. Both these years would surely look likely to be warmer than 2013? If 2014 took the 2010 crown for hottest year then surely a full nino year in 2015 will quickly take that crown?

 

How would such global temps impact the Arctic?

 

The earliest 'serious' predictions for an ice free Arctic were 2016 plus or minus 3 years? Should a globally warm winter 14/15 limit ice growth then the full heat of a nino spring/summer will surely take it's toll on the pack?

 

That said 2017 is the earliest possible return of the 10 to 20 yr 'Perfect Melt Storm' synoptic? and if it follows the two perfect storm years before 2007 then that would favour a 10 yr period and a return to those conditions in 2017?

 

Could the present Arctic survive the onslaught of 18 months of Super Nino followed by a perfect melt storm?

 

EDIT: And how will the loss of summer sea ice cover impact global temps if the loss of 1/3 of it's cover is mooted to be having impacts on our polar jet and the weather systems it guides?

Edited by Gray-Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite GW

 

GISTEMP global temperature anomalies 1950:2013 categorised and trends by ENSO phase

 

 

post-12275-0-69971200-1390343351_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-51#entry2902908

 

 

it takes the stance that it's actually open to honest scientific debate,

 

I admit I have to be open and fair about this and the above is really not an accusation I can honestly make about some of the posters in the other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global and Arctic

post-12275-0-62971100-1390388214_thumb.j

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mischievous question implicitly assumes that Climate Change is a real and significant phenomena, which view you effectively endorse by responding.

 

Very helpful four. I didn't set the assessment ( which is fri so tomorrow is the last chance to offer up suggestions)

 

I don't think KL's "it still snows" will also prove very useful to her?

 

I've come up with the expansion and refinement of renewable energy technologies, new engineered crops for dealing with pests and drought and the potential for the world to unite in action to mitigate the impacts? I really cannot see any positives that we might expect from Climate change? The opening up of new lands for agriculture is far to slow to 'swap in' for the losses of agricultural output that the changes promise to bring? More CO2 does not mean a boon time for grain crops as there is a 'cut off' where the added CO2 leads to drops in yields, less energy used to warm over winter is offset by the air con unit boom we see over summer.

 

I'm just lost trying to help her with this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-51#entry2903310

 

Great links, hugely entertaining! It's telling you feel the need to devote a post to attacking one man.

 

Do you know that the yahoo author you link to thinks his readership are soooo thick he has to mention (and here you should yourself perhaps reach for the garlic Posted Image ...) those pavlovianally hated  'liberals' 11 times. LOL!

 

Edit: make that two posts.

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...