Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Lol, now from anyone else I would sit up and take notice.

 

That's quite a trick without a head.

Edited February 1, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Understanding Lewis (2013)

 

After listening to Nicholas Lewis present evidence at the Select committee hearing this week, I thought I would try and understand his 2013 paper (An objective Bayesian Improved Approach for Applying Optimal Fingerprint Techniques to Estimate Climate Sensitivity). I read through it, and didn’t really get what he was doing (at least not in any detail). So I then downloaded two papers on which it is largely based (Forest et al. (2002) and Forest, Stone & Sokolov (2006)).

[knocker]

This issue is certainly creating some strongly divided opinion.

 

Approving Keystone XL could be the biggest mistake of Obama's presidency

 

A State Department report fails to take into account the full climate impacts of Keystone XL. Who is Obama protecting?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/keystone-xl-pipeline-obama-state-department-impact?CMP=twt_gu

Edited February 1, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Felt like a bit of a laugh so tuned into Jo Nova and her nutcase followers frothing about Charley's comments. I swear some are in the same orbit as David Icke.

 

Have a geek at the "bunch of headless chooks" at Jo Nova's blog

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/have-geek-at-bunch-of-headless-chooks.html

Edited February 1, 2014 by knocker

[Methuselah]

I don't think that scientific understanding was prerequisite for one's status as a 'sceptic'. Maybe the opposite actually applies? 

 

Even psychics get distracted by the mysterious excretions that emanate from 'sceptics'...especially those who know something of conjuring tricks.

[Methuselah]

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/01/bureau-confirms-calculating-australias-average-temperature-involves-some-hocus-pocus/

 

Can anyone explain why the instruments used would provide a set of data any different from the one imagined by 'sceptics'?

[knocker]

Eli is out of his hutch again dealing with some salient probabilities.

 

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/is-message-getting-through.html

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-53#entry2915587

 

Man up, who do you accuse of 'deception'?

 

Edit: incidentally, I think I could devise a avatar of a sceptic blogger as, I dunno, a clown or a dunce but (don't you agree?) it would hardly promote forum bonhomie...

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-53#entry2915625

 

If you can't answer them, if you don't even have a link to post then the option left is to simply hurl an insult?

Edited February 2, 2014 by Devonian

[knocker]

Leading Scientists Explain How Climate Change Is Worsening California’s Epic Drought

[Polar Maritime]

Atlantic current changes could bring drier summers to the UK.

 

Researchers forecast end of wet summers as surface and deep water circulation cools down and climate change takes hold.

 

The UK's run of rain-drenched summers could be ended by a slow-down in major Atlantic currents which bring warm, wet air to Europe, according to research. The currents were known to have weakened since 2004 but the new work suggests the trend began in the 1990s and shows no sign of ending.

However, the scientists said the changes to summer weather would take a decade or more to unfold. Professor Rowan Sutton, at the University of Reading and part of the research team, said: "Those of us that spend our summer holidays in Britain would welcome a move away from a recent succession of soggy summers. But this research certainly isn't a forecast for summer 2014, or any other year." He said the changes to UK climate would be in addition to the longer-term global warming trend driven by carbon emissions, which is most likely to bring an increase in heatwaves and extreme storms. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/20/gulf-stream-hot-summer-uk-climate-change

Edited February 2, 2014 by Polar Maritime

[Gray-Wolf]

Well I'm pleased Eli sees the same picture as me for the coming year but he could have gone further? With the consistent whining from the other place about "no temperature rise" and even accusing us of inventing the temp rises we have seen over the period from 98' I feel the need to squash the 'no warming myth' like a slug on a cinder path. 

 

Eli should have taken the logical step of looking at 2015 as well as 2014. It is true the consensus is moving toward forecasting  Nino conditions setting in by Aug. When we get into spring/early summer forecasts ( more reliable period for forecasting plus a lot closer to the event!) we should be seeing the Nino Probs becoming the predominant one. As Eli rightly points out any year with a Nino contribution will end up challenging for a record warm year if a 'Neutral' year is only bested by past Nino years. So what of a full Nino year? if , by summer, 2014 turns Nino then this means that 2015 will , in its turn, be a nino year. The average Nino is 18 months ( even though 2010 was 9 months it still took record global temp crown) so one running from Aug 2014 will run through the rest of 2014 and all of 2015. Where will that leave 2015 in global temps terms? Seems a no brainer?

 

And what will the " we haven't warmed" folk have to say about back to back record warm years? Will we be massaging the figures to make them look hotter? Will it be the steam Pipes?

 

But hey Eli you missed more! What about the Arctic ice cover through this period? We already know we can expect 1/3 of the ocean to be ice free come September these days ( courtesy of the perfect melt storm synoptics back in 07'). How much more energy does the planet accept from this 1/3rd dark water Arctic ocean? So what is that figure like when all the basin is ice free? how will that input impact global temps?

 

Well, the way I see it is we have two record warm global years in 14' and 15' we are then only 1 year away from the earliest possible return of the 'perfect melt storm synoptics' (that drove 07'?). Now as I recall 2010 saw one of the biggest volume drops we have recorded? So two nino years ( 2010 was the record global temp nino year) back to back? Will they leave the pack unscathed before the return of the next perfect melt storm year?

 

My problem is trying to figure just what the impact of an ice free basin for 6 or more weeks of the year will mean for the planet. What kind of hike in energy absorbed are we looking at?We know last year held onto more ice than the 2012 record low but it absorbed more energy than any year before it ( due to the 'new' easy melt out areas being under sun all summer) so what can we expect when that area becomes larger ( with only the hard to melt out regions lasting till late Aug)?

 

I'm guessing that the record years we will see this and next year will form the new baseline but that we could expect to see a jump in global temps in the early twenties as the planet adjusts to the ice free Arctic ( and the 'ice free' period meanders back into July).

 

Of course I've not mentioned the return to warm natural drivers or the reduction in Asian sulphate/particulate pollution. Why paint a bad picture eh?

Edited February 2, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

Err, the whole IPCC and it's hangers on!

 

Blimey, it's nearly as big a crime as the cover up of the invasion and takeover of the world by lizards

Edited February 2, 2014 by Devonian

[knocker]

The full list of the swine who have been deceiving the public and receiving brown envelopes can be downloaded here.

 

 

IPCC PRESS RELEASE

 

Embargoed until 14.30 CET on Thursday 30 January 2014

(22.30 JST, 21.30 CST, 13.30 GMT, 08.30 EST)

30 January 2014

 

IPCC publishes full reportClimate Change 2013: ThePhysical Science Basis

GENEVA, 30 January -

 

Warming of the climate system isunequivocal, human influence on theclimate system is clear, and limiting climate change will require substantial and sustainedreductions of greenhouse gas emissions.These are the key conclusions from an assessment bythe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)that is released today in its full and finalizedform.

 

The Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Working Group I assessment report,Climate Change2013: the Physical Science Basis, was approved in September 2013 by the member governmentsof the IPCC meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, who also accepted the underlying report, after whichthe Summary for Policymakers was immediately made public.

 

The full report released todayis the basis for the key conclusions presented in the Summary forPolicymakers. This Working Group I contribution tothe IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report offers acomprehensive understanding of the physical science basis of climate change. Policymakers,stakeholders and the scientific community are now able to use and apply the detailed information onwhich IPCC Working Group I bases its assessment. Additional material documents the IPCCassessment process with its multiple rounds of drafting and review.

 

“The Working Group I Fifth Assessment Report, which has over 1500 printed pages of text andincludes more than 600 printed diagrams, provides a comprehensive assessment of the physicalscience basis of climate change, citing more than9000 scientific publications. The report providesinformation about what has changed in the climate system, why it has changed, and how it willchange in the future,†said Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.

 

The full report consists of the Summary for Policymakers, a longer Technical Summary, 14 chaptersand six annexes including an Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections. The Atlas is aninnovation in this Working Group I assessment, containing time series and maps of temperature andprecipitation projections for 35 regions of theworld, which enhance accessibility for stakeholdersand users. As well as the printed Atlas, there are four sets of Atlas Supplementary Material with 155figures each, and the data underlying the Atlas figures will also be made available as part of the launch.

 

http://climatechange2013.org/

Edited February 2, 2014 by knocker

[Devonian]

Where they also dishonest amd manipulative?

Woosshh....

[knocker]

Tamino on

 

Arctic Sea Ice Decline

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/arctic-sea-ice-decline/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[knocker]

I really detest Morano.

 

How it’s Done. Mann v Morano on BBC

 

 

Leading climate scientists do not, as a rule, debate with climate deniers, for the same reason that Richard Dawkins does not debate with Creationists – the mere fact of appearing on the same platform elevates the creationists, and debases the science.

 

In this case, Dr. Michael Mann was invited on a BBC broadcast without the explicit understanding that climate denier Marc Morano would be on the same broadcast on a separate line.

 

You can listen to this 6 minute segment, and hear Morano’s well practiced Gish Galloping bluster, while Mann listens quietly until the host has to silence Morano.

 

Then listen for the Mike to quietly, methodically, open a can of calm, laser-focused whupass.

 

For another approach, see my own interview with Morano at the 2012 Heartland conference below.

 

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2014/02/01/how-its-done-mann-v-morano-on-bbc/

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-54#entry2916156

 

Interesting as according to the newspaper the average winter temp. in Spitzbergen rose by 9C between 1920 and 1950.

 

[knocker]

Beware, a headless chicken circling.

 

Snake-oil salesmen and their shonky "cures" at WUWT

 

Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale has decided he wants yet another opinion on global warming.  He's got some idea of only one of the symptoms and is looking for a diagnosis and treatment. He is trying to rebut the "if 99 doctors' opinions were the same" argument about global warming. 

What Bob wrote was (archived here):

 

We need a second opinion for the slight warming the Earth had experienced. Unfortunately, it is not likely to be coming anytime soon, not until there are changes to the political agendas that drive climate science funding.Of course, you would not accept the computer-based medical diagnosis from a model that cannot simulate basic bodily functions and processes. But that’s the position we’re faced with climate science. 

 

You’re not comfortable with the service, diagnosis, prescription or treatment, so you check out online the computer model used by the clinic. It is proclaimed to be wonderful by its programmers. But, the more you research, the more you discover the model’s defects. It can’t simulate circulation, respiration, digestion, and other basic bodily functions. There are numerous research papers exposing the flaws in the model, but they are hard to find because of all of the other papers written by the model programmers extolling its virtues.Imagine you’re running a persistent slight fever. You visit a new clinic. The nurse takes your vitals and enters them into a computer program. A short time after the computer model completes its simulations, the doctor arrives, advises you of the computer-diagnosed ailment, and prescribes controversial high-cost medications and treatment. 

 

What are the flaws in Bob's analogy?  Yes, they are too numerous for a blog article so I'll just pick out a few of them.

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/snake-oil-salesmen-and-their-shonky.html

Edited February 3, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Love the way GW alarmists ignore history  to justify there not so new  shrinking Arctic ice stories Arctic ice growth runs in cycles as it has done since "time and immemorial"http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/136317997

 

I take it that we are looking at an antipodean denialist/misleader outlet but does anyone know where KL keeps digging up this tripe from? I'll go on to my answer but for now I'm surprised that only the Aussie press can be relied upon to know about what is occurring in the Northern hemisphere? you have thought the Icelandic/Danish/British/U.S. press would have had more to say on the matter?

 

The main point of issue appears to be ice around Iceland "Ice packs which once used to ring the coasts of Iceland" being the quote? When was the last time we saw pack ice 'ringing the coast of Iceland'??? For that matter when was the last period that winter saw an ice bridge form from Greenland to NW Iceland?

 

Fish migration. The piece seems to have some very accurate information here " Cod migrating 500 miles north in 1 year"? We know from our own coastal Sea Bird populations that the sand eel can change it's location leading to starving colonies on our rocky nesting islands. With the sand eel go the larger fish that predate on them. this does appear cyclical or at least dependant on the NAO? More worrying is the never seen before northerly shift in the Prawns from the West coast of Greenland. The vast industry that used to supply the western world with it's prawns has now gone into decline as the Prawns move north leaving some coastal Greenland towns virtual ghost towns with fleets either laid up or shifted further north and the ancillary industries either closed or also in decline. There is talk of the fleets switching to new catches as other fish species move into the region as the prawns move out. It appears that whole 'zones' of life are moving north as the 10c isotherm moves North?

 

We must also remember this period was within the Post industrial revolution period impacted by GHG's and was st the very start of the 'Dimmed' period. The initial warming, halted by the combination of natural cycles and human pollution, lead to the first 'warming spurt' we see in the post ind. rev. temperature plot. Suffice to say the work done by the quoted Prof Ahlmann on the 1930's/40's Barentsz Sea area, describing the ice mountains that block progress into the area are in stark contrast with the ice free zone we have known for over a decade now?

 

As for rising temps in Spitzbergen? Well Knocks covered that in a recent post noting 30 years of warming up there ( 9C in total?) from 1920 to 1950?

 

All in all second hand news from the other end of the world is a poor substitute for on the ground reporting from the places of interest?

 

We also saw a recent report looking at north Sea Haddock and it appears that the warming waters there are leading to a reduction in fish size?

 

I also recall the Fram array catching phytoplankton/Zooplankton from further south and over the past decade or so seeing southern colonies now showing signs of breeding in the waters around Svalbard? A big shift in the species there as these southern interlopers are larger and more aggressive than their northern counterparts and so look to be replacing them?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2071.html

 

If I'm reading this correctly it would appear that the old " all the heat that's built up over summer just re-radiates back into space before refreeze....." mime is now proven both wrong and misleading in that the very process of re-radiation is the bigger part of the Arctic amplification ( with the albedo flip the second largest contributor) due to the way the atmosphere is structured up there?

 

If anyone can help me better understand how these 'differences' might manifest I'd really appreciate it! As you know the Arctic gives me the hebe's!!!

Edited February 3, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Well worth a read

 

Zeke's round up of 2013 in climate

 

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2014/02/the-global-climate-in-context-2013-in-review/

[Gray-Wolf]

And this round up too Knocks . For me I find this final paragraph sounding similar to where my thoughts have been over recent posts covering the near term future?;

 

So what are the near-term prospects? El Niño depends on fickle wind anomalies for initiation, so 

predictions are inherently difficult, but conditions are ripe for El Niño initiation in 2014. About half of 

the climate models catalogued by the International Research Institute predict that the next El Niño will 

begin by summer 2014, with the other half predicting ENSO neutral conditions21. The mean NCEP 

forecast21

 issued 13 January has an El Niño beginning in the summer of 2014, although a significant 

minority of the ensemble members predicts ENSO neutral conditions for 2014. 

 The strength of an El Niño, too, depends on the fickle wind anomalies at the time of initiation. We 

speculated22

 that the likelihood of “super El Niños, such as those in 1982-3 and 1997-8, has increased. 

Our rationale was that global warming increased SSTs in the Western Pacific, without yet having much 13 

 

effect on the temperature of upwelling deep water in the Eastern Pacific (Fig. 2 above), thus allowing the 

possibility of a larger swing of Eastern Pacific temperature. Recent paleoclimate23

 and modeling24

 studies 

find evidence for an increased frequency of extreme El Niños with global warming. 

Assuming that an El Niño begins in summer 2014, 2014 is likely to be warmer than 2013 and perhaps 

the warmest year in the instrumental record. However, given the lag between El Niño initiation and 

global temperature, 2015 is likely to have a temperature even higher than in 2014.

 

From:    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140121_Temperature2013.pdf

 

​EDIT: Also note the section on aerosol forcings and the loss of the equipment, launch failure, that would have given us the full data. Also note how peep off the writer is about there being no replacement for the sat. planned at a time when it's data is most necessary.

Where I akin to the other thread I'd be tut , tutting about how coincidental it was when the impacts of aerosols in mitigating the GHG forcings were suspected to be so large ( Global Dimming impacts) ? with the Asian rush into a coal fired energy economy halting the 80's warmup it would serve very useful not to have the short term cooling impacts of the fuel and so ignite the debate over CO2 'sensitivity'? How would it be if we found that CO2 should have been heating the planet real fast but aerosols 'near balanced' that warming potential with their 'dimming' impacts?

 

Then you could always go down the " If a power wanted to secretly seed the atmosphere with Sulphates to 'cool' the planet and stall the need for economic activity to reduce warming then a sensitive instrument measuring such particulates would not be a welcome addition to our measuring array"?

 

The joys of conspiracy eh?.............

Edited February 3, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Noticing climate change

http://honeybeesandhelium.com/2013/06/18/noticing-climate-change/

[knocker]

I found this quite interesting.

 

Science can’t settle what should be done about climate change

https://theconversation.com/science-cant-settle-what-should-be-done-about-climate-change-22727

[knocker]

DENIAL

 

'Contrariwise' , continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'