Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Manmade Climate Change Discussion

Recommended Posts

Professsor Kerry Emanuel, MIT atmospheric scientist specialising in hurricanes, extreme weather and climate change, is doing an AMA (Ask Me Anything, basically a questions and answers session) at the moment on the /r/science section of reddit. You can have a read here  http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1xsqyn/science_ama_series_im_kerry_emanuel_a_professor/

 

Dr. Michael Mann will be doing one on the 21st of this month too, so keep an eye out!

Edited by BornFromTheVoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disaster of Opportunities, explains the relationship to the annual $2 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies, and the fact that the world economy will not crash like many in big oil would like us to believe, as global manufacturers can easily replace the needed energy with Green Technology in a relatively short time span 3 to 5 years and create millions of new jobs in the process creating the needed growth to get our economy back on track ..!As an example the annual $2 trillion alone could build 350,000 Wind Turbines with enough energy to cover all the 1.4 billion households in the world..?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never-Ending Winter? Nah, January in U.S. Was Average

 

It might seem like the East Coast has endured a never-ending winter, but that was hardly the case for the Lower 48 in January. According to new data released Thursday by the National Climatic Data Center, the nation was extremely dry and only slightly cooler than average for the first month of 2014.

 

The average temperature of the U.S. was just 0.07°F below the 1981-2010 average according to NCDC. That makes it the 52nd-coldest winter since recordkeeping began 120 years ago.

 

While recent cold temperatures may seem unusual, climate data shows that extreme cold weather events are occurring far less frequently in the continental U.S. than they used to. This is largely related to winter warming trends due to manmade global warming and natural climate variabiility

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/dry-january-across-u.s.-but-near-average-temperatures-17064

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Depending on the dataset used, the surface warming trend since 1998 is between 0.05oC per decade and 0.12oC per decade with a 2σ uncertainty of about 0.14oC per decade. That means it’s possible that there’s been no surface warming, but it’s much more likely that there has been surface warming. 

Honestly, just read that. It shouldn't be hard to work out why so many people do not bother. It's like children in a playground fighting. For every claim one side makes the other can make a counter claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, just read that. It shouldn't be hard to work out why so many people do not bother. It's like children in a playground fighting. For every claim one side makes the other can make a counter claim.

 

Perhaps you could elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of layman questions. Is there a consensus regarding what timespan constitutes a significant period from a climate perspective i.e. 30 years, for example ? (because clearly climate trends can only be spotted over a decent length of time). And if we take 30 years as being a reasonable timespan for this type of measurement, when was the last thirty year period that showed no global temperature increase ? I'm guessing the answer is 'not recently'.

 

So why are so many people obsessing and arguing over what's happened for the last ten or so years ? Surely from a climate temperature measurement perspective the only really important trend is the last 30/40/50 years ? (and any 10-15 year period is not indicative of any definitive pattern ?)

Edited by Pennine Ten Foot Drifts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PTFDs!

 

glad you survived the 'breeze' the other night!!!

 

It does peturb me that posters I have seen putting all the past warming at natures door then wilfully ignore what has been happening over the past 20 to 15 years? To me the natural 'wiggles' go up and down and leave us with our 'average' ( measured over the 30 years) so when we see a 'natural downward wiggle and it does not fall below the 'rolling average' surely there is something up? If we accept that the biggest 'wiggles' on the graph are the natural ones then what do we then see when positive natural forcings come to the fore?

 

Why do they not highlight that we have not fallen below the average over this period of negative natural driver dominance and instead highlight that we have continued to warm? Surely that just highlights that something a very 'up' with global temps????

 

Repeating myself here but I do believe that we are about to see the year turn into a 'Nino' year and also see the PDO turn neutral or positive. When global temps begin to respond to this switch back to positive drivers do we seriously believe that these posters will also ignore the natural in those temperature gains? I believe they will not only highlight the 'natural' forcings but also seek to push them as the only reason for temp rises over the coming 5 years?

 

As for the larger question of the time period used to 'capture' global climate. What happens if we run into abrupt climate change? Will we have to wait the full 30 before some folk will accept it for what it is???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of layman questions. Is there a consensus regarding what timespan constitutes a significant period from a climate perspective i.e. 30 years, for example ? (because clearly climate trends can only be spotted over a decent length of time). And if we take 30 years as being a reasonable timespan for this type of measurement, when was the last thirty year period that showed no global temperature increase ? I'm guessing the answer is 'not recently'.

 

So why are so many people obsessing and arguing over what's happened for the last ten or so years ? Surely from a climate temperature measurement perspective the only really important trend is the last 30/40/50 years ? (and any 10-15 year period is not indicative of any definitive pattern ?)

 

Put simply PTFD it's the deniers straw clutching as they have no credible scientific arguments to support their ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-54#entry2931339

 

Lets put it this way Keith. If the BBC are going to ask an economist like Lord Lawson to comment about climate science then it must be the case we should have climate scientists like Sir Brian Hoskins commentating on economics.

 

I'm 100% sure you agree with that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PTFDs!

 

glad you survived the 'breeze' the other night!!!

 

It does peturb me that posters I have seen putting all the past warming at natures door then wilfully ignore what has been happening over the past 20 to 15 years? To me the natural 'wiggles' go up and down and leave us with our 'average' ( measured over the 30 years) so when we see a 'natural downward wiggle and it does not fall below the 'rolling average' surely there is something up? If we accept that the biggest 'wiggles' on the graph are the natural ones then what do we then see when positive natural forcings come to the fore?

 

Why do they not highlight that we have not fallen below the average over this period of negative natural driver dominance and instead highlight that we have continued to warm? Surely that just highlights that something a very 'up' with global temps????

 

Repeating myself here but I do believe that we are about to see the year turn into a 'Nino' year and also see the PDO turn neutral or positive. When global temps begin to respond to this switch back to positive drivers do we seriously believe that these posters will also ignore the natural in those temperature gains? I believe they will not only highlight the 'natural' forcings but also seek to push them as the only reason for temp rises over the coming 5 years?

 

As for the larger question of the time period used to 'capture' global climate. What happens if we run into abrupt climate change? Will we have to wait the full 30 before some folk will accept it for what it is???

 

Yes G-W, it was certainly, um, enervating !!! Rather hoping tonight's breeze is the last for some time, need to get some repairs done, but even roofers seem a bit reluctant to climb up on top of our house when things are still a bit wild ! I tend to agree, if we're in a natural cooling cycle just now and overall average global temps continue to increase, (even at a slower rate), what's going to happen when we enter the next warming phase ???

 

Put simply PTFD it's the deniers straw clutching as they have no credible scientific arguments to support their ideology.

 

I also am intrigued by how record cold seems to be grabbed as 'evidence' that this is how it's always been and there's nothing new going on, when as far as I am aware, the incidence of extreme weather events is increasing, with records at all ends of the spectrum regularly being broken. If I remember rightly, (although my old brain can play tricks !), I thought that most respected climate scientists never said we'd only see more heat-waves and droughts, they predicted we'd see more extremes of all types of weather ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-54#entry2931752

 

Baseless rhetoric

 

 

AGW is not a hoax, but is being exaggerated to a ridiculous extent by the vested interests.
There is a major industry in trying to 'show' the hand of warming in any way imaginable.
It is propaganda. If you cannot see this you are complicit in the deceit.

 

Note, no mention of who these vested  interest are or indeed why the conspiracy and why hundreds of reputable international scientist should be complicit, to coin a phrase, in this deceit. This mass falsifying of scientific evidence is truly mind boggling.

 

Now if we look at the other side of the coin.

 

Published on Feb 5, 2014

February 4, 2014 - In this speech, Senator Whitehouse reveals the "carefully built apparatus of lies" constructed to deceive the public about the reality of climate change.

 

 

 
Attached Thumbnails
  • Posted Image
Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why are so many people obsessing and arguing over what's happened for the last ten or so years ? Surely from a climate temperature measurement perspective the only really important trend is the last 30/40/50 years ? (and any 10-15 year period is not indicative of any definitive pattern ?)

 

 

Because in 10-15 years that may be indicative of the next trend. What is so hard here?

 

Trends start somewhere?? How do you know what has happened in the last 10 years are not the start of the next 10-15 years?

 

Why do you firmly believe it's a blip & the "normal service" of global warming (sorry, climate change) will resume?

 

Some on here think we are going up up up, yet the last few years have not tied in with the C02 propaganda.

 

The last 10 years have not done what the "experts" said. The temperature hasn't risen in line with CO2 output as we were all told.

 

The "experts" keep changing theorys to fit in with the belief of run away warming, all the heat is now in the oceans. (the excuse to explain what ia happening now)

 

Keep betting on 5 red & after enough time & money 5 red will come up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in 10-15 years that may be indicative of the next trend. What is so hard here? Trends start somewhere?? How do you know what has happened in the last 10 years are not the start of the next 10-15 years? Why do you firmly believe it's a blip & the "normal service" of global warming (sorry, climate change) will resume? Some on here think we are going up up up, yet the last few years have not tied in with the C02 propaganda. The last 10 years have not done what the "experts" said. The temperature hasn't risen in line with CO2 output as we were all told. The "experts" keep changing theorys to fit in with the belief of run away warming, all the heat is now in the oceans. (the excuse to explain what ia happening now) Keep betting on 5 red & after enough time & money 5 red will come up.

Thing is, drgl, you should post to the sceptic thread a polar maritime to this one.Anyway, let's start at the start. Is CO2 the greenhouse gas that science says it is? And does the same apply to WV, CH4 and the rest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in 10-15 years that may be indicative of the next trend. What is so hard here?

 

Trends start somewhere?? How do you know what has happened in the last 10 years are not the start of the next 10-15 years?

 

Why do you firmly believe it's a blip & the "normal service" of global warming (sorry, climate change) will resume?

 

Some on here think we are going up up up, yet the last few years have not tied in with the C02 propaganda.

 

The last 10 years have not done what the "experts" said. The temperature hasn't risen in line with CO2 output as we were all told.

 

The "experts" keep changing theorys to fit in with the belief of run away warming, all the heat is now in the oceans. (the excuse to explain what ia happening now)

 

Keep betting on 5 red & after enough time & money 5 red will come up.

 

Indeed they do. The warming trend about 130 years ago (I'll a accept slight variation on this).

 

 

The "experts" keep changing theorys to fit in with the belief of run away warming, all the heat is now in the oceans. (the excuse to explain what ia happening now)

 

I assume the misuse of inverted commas is an attempt to emphasise that climate scientists aren't experts but let's move on. The scientists have been looking into where the heat is going as there is still an energy imbalance. The evidence elsewhere proves this, glaciers, global sea ice loss, sea level rise, etc, They are all in collusion and the papers they have written and been peer reviewed that heat is being taken up by the oceans are fabrications to fit a belief. This is so absurd it should be in the headless chickens thread.

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I also am intrigued by how record cold seems to be grabbed as 'evidence' that this is how it's always been and there's nothing new going on, when as far as I am aware, the incidence of extreme weather events is increasing, with records at all ends of the spectrum regularly being broken. If I remember rightly, (although my old brain can play tricks !), I thought that most respected climate scientists never said we'd only see more heat-waves and droughts, they predicted we'd see more extremes of all types of weather ?

 

It's much the same answer as my first. The deniers grab something like the recent cold spell in the US ( which as you correctly say is weather), and wasn't even a record cold spell, and, with a fanfare of trumpets, proclaim that this disproves AGW. Again forget the science and that no climate scientist has said it was down to AGW in the first place. Ideology mustn't be denied. Of course no mention of the record heat (again weather) in Alaska, Brazil,Finland, Russia and especially Australia and SSTs rising.

 

And then there is this

 

 

Real science? sea level rising not happening, methane gas to kill us all not happening Arctic to be ice free not happening, rising global temperatures not happening Real science more like"Real science fiction^.

 

Complete nonsense

 

 

Somerset flooding various areas of the south west before global warming

 

Nobody has suggested the opposite but at least it is an acceptance of global warming.

 

All of this isn't just clutching at straws it's grabbing bales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-54#entry2932001

 

Feb 1950 by the looks of it. A wet month according to British Rainfall but (given this month isn't finished yet) not obviously wetter up to the 14th than this year - indeed I'd say this winter is much wetter than 49/50. Snow melt may have enhanced the flooding according to BR.

 

Given that we didn't have a EA then (and thus everything flood prevention wise would be hunky dory, river perfectly dredged and the rest) it's amazing how extensive the floods were. Almost makes you think dredging isn't the solution and that, in fact, Somerset is under water because it's been lashing down for months...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with maybe lots of building work from a growing population? Hard surface=greater water run off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, drgl, you should post to the sceptic thread a polar maritime to this one.Anyway, let's start at the start. Is CO2 the greenhouse gas that science says it is? And does the same apply to WV, CH4 and the rest?

Sorry but again the reply makes no sense? Post to the sceptic thread a polar maritime? Anyway. Co2. Is it a "greenhouse" gas? If it were I'd expect to see the co2 concentration graphs follow temp. They don't. What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get this.

 

1. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas - Y/N ?

2. Have atmospheric CO2 concentrations risen in the last 100 years - Y/N ?

 

If the answer to 1 and 2 are both yes, then why wouldn't we expect to see global temps increase ?

 

So I guess the other question is:

 

3. Have global temps risen over the past 100 years - Y/N ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 If I remember rightly, (although my old brain can play tricks !), I thought that most respected climate scientists never said we'd only see more heat-waves and droughts, they predicted we'd see more extremes of all types of weather ? 

 

Well if my memory serves me correctly it all started off as "global warming". When that didn't quite work out it changed to "climate change".

 

No doubt if we have 30 years of cooling it will still be blamed on C02, "climate change" covers all bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't it always been both? I'm sure back in the 80's both were in common parlance but each used where most suitable ? Maybe whilst your researching why we use certain 'base periods' for global temp records you could have a look at the history of AGW study?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if my memory serves me correctly it all started off as "global warming". When that didn't quite work out it changed to "climate change".

 

No doubt if we have 30 years of cooling it will still be blamed on C02, "climate change" covers all bases.

 

I'm afraid your memory doesn't serve you correctly. Climate change was used years before global warming, Of course never trust the media on this.

 

 

The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?

 

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1

Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

 

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.

 

The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."

 

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."

 

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

 

For more references.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Knocks! I knew I'd used both back in the 80's (some lyrics for the bands I was in...... dour little numbers but a tad prophetic seeing where we are today!).

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...