Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[VillagePlank]

Good post from Tamino, here

 

Here's my take with his final point using only HadCrut4,

 

 

I don't use the 1 and 2 sigma lines, rather I use the 1.96 sigma: simply because it shows how anomolously warm the 1998 event really was as it falls outside of bounds.

 

My (amateurish) take on things would seem to suggest that 2014 is really rather critical in terms of what's been going on recently. As Tamino points out the uncertainty is so large, it's really difficult to tell properly. Will 2014 be the year that brings statistical significance?

 

One thing's for certain: that underlying trend is still there. At 0.016degC/yr (1975-2013), and falling, perhaps it's not as rapid as some would 'like' it, but, nevertheless, it is still there. It's worth noting that, as usual, the normal caveats with linear regression apply; if you do the plot for the whole of HadCrut4 then the entire last 10 year's residuals appear above the trend line, not edging below it.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-56#entry2938024

 

 

I see the other side using ridicule already to try and debunk. Don't they ever read before commenting? It would be a change if they could comment on the content that includes the scientific content.

 

And this comment highlights the problem. There isn't necessarily another side to all the discussions as if it's a p ****g contest. Whether one believes in AGW or not this is still a scientific debate and IMO it frankly isn't worth anyone spending time on this nonsense from a boutique analyst with a blatant agenda. If you think otherwise fine, then it follows you believe that the entire foundation of the science produced by climate scientists and related disciplines is garbage

 

 

The reason climate "scientists" rely on statistical nonsense and bully tactics like ridicule and insults is because the entire foundation of their "science" is garbage and they have to discourage people from looking behind the curtain. This entire "global warming" movement is a government manufactured effort to raise money through carbon related taxes. It is the ideal way to siphon money off "big oil, gas and coal." Voters won't vote for higher taxes, but they will vote to save the earth and polar bears. That is why the entire focus is on a relatively weak trace greenhouse gas called carbon dioxide.

 

In passing just a thought regarding Kilimanjaro.

 

It's been well known for years that tropical glaciers have been retreating drastically since since the mid to late 19th century, including Kilimanjaro. The reasons are complex but I have yet to read a scientist categorically state that this is down to GW because it isn't. Now the mass glacier melt worldwide is connected but that isn't mentioned. If he's relying on Al Gore then forget it as most scientists do. But still while we on the subject a paper by Cullen, et al.

 

Kilimanjaro Glaciers: Recent areal extent from satellite data and newinterpretation of observed

20th century retreat rates

 

Conclusions

 

[20] All ice bodies on Kilimanjaro have retreated drastically between 1912–2003. Despite air temperatures always being below freezing, areal retreat of plateau glaciers is governed mostly by solar radiation induced melt on vertical walls that characterize their north and south margins [Molg et al., 2003]. Though the processes responsible for the formation of the vertical walls is still not well understood, once established, the vertical wall retreat is irreversible, and no change in 20th century climate appears to have significantly altered their ongoing demise. However, the apparent and near disintegration of the Northern Ice Field and Furtwangler glaciers into two ice entities, respectively, can only accelerate present retreat rates of these two ice bodies.

 

[21] Though constant shrinkage of the plateau glaciers could have started as a result of a slow change in climate, through a process that allowed the glaciers to reach some threshold to produce vertical walls, evidence for a sudden change in climate prior to the 20th century appears to come from the slope glaciers. The rapid recession of slope glaciers in the first part of the 20th century clearly shows that they were drastically out of equilibrium. The strong imbalance at the beginning of the 20th century can only be explained by a sudden shift in climate shortly before the strong retreat rates began. If such a change in climate had occurred much earlier, the slope glacier imbalance would not have been as large. Slope glaciers are still out of equilibrium, and though 20th century changes in air temperature at the height of the glaciers do not appear responsible (Figure 4), we cannot rule out that changes in moisture (reduction in specific humidity) may be linked to their ongoing imbalance.

 

[22] Rather than changes in 20th century climate being responsible for their demise, glaciers on Kilimanjaro appear to be remnants of a past climate that was once able to sustain them. Hastenrath [2001, 2006] suggests an increase in net shortwave radiation, accompanied by a decrease in cloudiness and precipitation, initiated the retreat of the glaciers during the last two decades of the 19th century. This is supported by a recent finding that a higher frequency of climatically significant Indian Ocean Zonal Mode events in the 19th century (1820–1880) may have provided a mechanism to contribute to a wetter climate in East Africa, and thus stable glaciers [Mo¨lg et al., 2006]. To fully understand what climatic conditions enabled glaciers to accumulate and grow prior to the onset of modern glacier recession on Kilimanjaro, more effort to reconstruct 19th century climate is necessary.

 

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/2006/cullen-et-al-2006.pdf

 

Regarding South America.

 

Unprecedented glacier melting in the Andes blamed on climate change

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/egu-ugm012113.php

Edited February 24, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-56#entry2938107

 

 

The CO2 level has been 7,000 PPM without catastrophic warming, and earth fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 PPM, or 10x the level it is today. Additionally, this chart raises the question, what triggers the warming that brings the earth out of ice age? CO2 doesn't suddenly bubble up from solid ice, CO2 only gets produced once the oceans warm and life begins to grow. Something other than CO2 must cause the warming coming out of ice ages.

 

That of course isn't true plus there is something fundamentally missing from the statement. Or one or two things actually. The warming at the start of the Ordovacian saw temperatures reach a global average of 35°C (today it is 14.7°C), part of this was caused by high levels of atmospheric CO2. The cooling 60 million years later saw temperatures fall to 5°C and was caused by continental drift and planetary movement within space. Had CO2 levels been lower then the cooling would have intensified further. But a few basics.

 

Louis Agassiz introduced the idea of 'ice ages', based on his observations of striated rocks in the Alps, which he summarised in his book Etudes sur les glaciers (Agassiz, 1840). An astronomical theory- that climate responded to changes in insolation forcing due to orbital variations - to explain these ice ages was first proposed by Adhemar (1842) and subsequently enhanced by Croll (1875), who included the effects of orbital eccentricity and obliquity in addition to precession of the equinoxes. However, it was the pioneering calculations of how incoming solar radiation varied with both latitude and season over hundreds of thousands of years by Milankovitch (1930), which really advanced the astronomical theory and led to it commonly being referred to as the Milankovitch Theory. As the glacial-interglacial (cold-warm) cycles are closely associated with the build-up and melting  of the Laurentide and Fennoscandian Ice Sheets at high northern latitudes, summer insolation at these latitudes (usually 65° N) has often been cited as the critical controlling factor. The theory only really became accepted following the paper by Hays eta!. (1976). These authors utilised a frequency analysis of palaeoclimate records contained within radiometrically dated marine sediment cores and concluded that, 'Changes in the Earth's orbital geometry are the fundamental cause of the succession of Quaternary ice ages.' However, there remain a number of uncertainties with the Milankovitch Theory,  one of which has led to alternative theories in which variation in the inclination of the Earth's orbital plane is important.
 

Back in the Octavian and before the world was a different place so sticking to reality the key players seem to be changes in orbital eccentricity, obliquity, precession of the equinoxes, orbital inclination, CO2 and other GHGs and of course volcanic activity. Frozen earth was probably saved by mass increase of CO2 due to volcanoes.

 

Much uncertainty still exists regarding the roles of greenhouse gases during the transition into and out of ice ages, that is whether they act as a forcing or feedback. Ruddiman (2003) suggested that the exact role of C02 and CH4 in the climate system depends upon which of the orbital variations  is acting to alter insolation changes. During obliquity cycles the ice sheets control changes in atmospheric C02 because they vary in-phase. However, during precession cycles C02 leads ice volume and is similarly phased to Southern Ocean SSTs, so that greenhouse gases are playing a forcing rather than feedback role. Sigman and Boyle (2000) proposed that the most viable hypotheses for the cause of glacial-interglacial C02 change involve the extraction of carbon from the surface ocean by biological production. However, a more recent study by Kohfeld et al. (2005) indicated that sequestration of carbon by iron fertilisation of marine biota from increased atmospheric dust deposition could only have contributed less than half of the measured glacial-interglacial variation in atmospheric C02 , and that physical mechanisms must have been the dominant processes. The reduced atmospheric C02 subsequently acts as a positive feedback on ice sheet size.

 

Generally, during a termination, temperature slightly leads both key greenhouse gases by a few millennia but essentially they move together. Carbon dioxide tends to have an approximately linear increase while CH4 has a two-step rise, with a slow increase followed by a more rapid jump.

 

There have been a few more thoughts on this lately.

 

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

 

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship.  They found that:

• The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic.
• This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans.
• This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.  The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.
• The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

Edited February 24, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Where the hell are they gaining their data from Knocks? Global CO2 at 4,000ppm and an ice age??? 35 million years ( or so) ago CO2 levels dipped below 450ppm and we saw the first ice sheets form in Antarctica. Where were the ice sheets when global CO2 was at 4,000ppm????? 

 

I worry about us reaching 450ppm because of that relationship with Antarctica yet they believe we can go as high as 4,000ppm and still have ice on the planet???? Oh Boy! how do you deal with folk of such intellect?

[knocker]

Colorado Becomes The First State To Regulate Methane Emissions From Fracking

 

Colorado will be the first state in the nation to clamp down on emissions of the super potent greenhouse gas methane from the state’s booming oil and gas industry. The rules, finalized Sunday, will require well operators to comply with stricter leak detection requirements — a provision the state’s main oil and gas industry trade group fought to change.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/24/3322651/colorado-methane-fracking/

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-56#entry2938363

 

How you can link to this unhinged crackpot and his equally dotty mate is beyond my comprehension. Apart from the lies they are quite despicable and have no place in any scientific debate.

 

 

It's depressingly hilarious that one of the loudest-mouthed crackpots "linking" Prof. Mann to "pedophiles" is a former school teacher whose career ended in scandal almost a decade ago following his arrest and trial for sending dozens of obscene text messages to a 16-y-o school girl. Former high school art teacher John O'Sullivan was acquitted after his step-daughter testified she had sent the obscene messages -- testimony that the judge said he did not find entirely credible. O'Sullivan then published an autobiographical novel (titled "Vanilla Girl") in which he defends what he called "kiddie fiddling" -- I kid you not.*

 

 

Two days ago, John O'Sullivan, the leader of a group of global warming denier wackos called the Sky Dragon Slayers (which includes Tim Ball), published an even more rabid diatribe than Steyn's in which he claims Prof. Mann is "linked to" the pedophile Sandusky and that he has "lawyered Up after Penn State Child Sex Link." That's followed by his usual libelous accusations of "scientific misconduct," "criminal fraud, etc,"

 

 

O'Sullivan claims to be legal scholar and a lawyer with a law degree from University of Surrey and that he has "successfully litigated for 13 years in New York and Federal 2nd District courts." He claims to be a science writer with major articles published around the world including in National Review and Forbes magazines. He also claimed to be employed as a legal consultant by Pearlman Lindholm, the law firm defending Tim Ball in the matter of Mann vs. Ball, et al. before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. None of that is true. He is an utterly shameless humbug. In 2010, he purchased his "law degree" from the online diploma mill "Hill University" that sells any degree in any field with a "promised delivery in just 14 days!"

 

And so on and so on.

 

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his_21.html

[knocker]

 

Posted 46 minutes ago

 

 

Why does the climate change debate cause such intransigence. All Mann had to do was share his megadata which formed the famed hockey stick.!!!

 

It's also  worth noting, that the data underlying many studies in question have long been publicly available, and the studies themselves have been vetted through peer reviews.

[knocker]

For reputable links to Michael Mann legal matters.

 

http://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/links-for-mann-legal-matters.html

 

Strange Bedfellows … and Fear of Broad Impacts of Mann/UVa Court Ruling

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2014/02/strange-bedfellows-and-fear-of-broad-impacts-of-mann-uva-court-ruling/

Edited February 25, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Wits scientists debunk climate change myths

 

Wits University scientists have debunked two big myths around climate change by proving firstly, that despite predictions, tropical storms are not increasing in number. However, they are shifting, and South Africa could be at increased risk of being directly impacted by tropical cyclones within the next 40 years. Secondly, while global warming is causing frost to be less severe, late season frost is not receding as quickly as flowering is advancing, resulting in increased frost risk which will likely begin to threaten food security.

 

http://www.wits.ac.za/newsroom/newsitems/201402/22966/news_item_22966.html

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-56#entry2938567

 

 

Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears: ‘We had both higher temps and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today

 

I'm not going through all this again.

 

In the Devonian period, the world was experiencing super greenhouse climate conditions. This means that it was very warm, there probably were no ice caps, there was a lot carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (with estimates of 4,000 parts per million).As plant communities expanded onto land to form the first forests, they depleted the carbon dioxide (CO2) that was in the atmosphere, CO2 levels dropped to 400 ppm toward the end of the Devonian. It got colder. There were glaciation events and the rapid change in the climate caused severe extinction in the tropics and the existing coral reefs became extinct. By comparison, the world’s current CO2 level is very close to 400 ppm.

 

I take it all these recent posts are to avoid attempting to find credible scientific arguments refuting the current consensus,

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-56#entry2938567

 

 

I'm not going through all this again.

 

In the Devonian period, the world was experiencing super greenhouse climate conditions. This means that it was very warm, there probably were no ice caps, there was a lot carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (with estimates of 4,000 parts per million).

As plant communities expanded onto land to form the first forests, they depleted the carbon dioxide (CO2) that was in the atmosphere, CO2 levels dropped to 400 ppm toward the end of the Devonian. It got colder. There were glaciation events and the rapid change in the climate caused severe extinction in the tropics and the existing coral reefs became extinct. By comparison, the world’s current CO2 level is very close to 400 ppm.

 

I take it all these recent posts are to avoid attempting to find credible scientific arguments refuting the current consensus,

 

I'm watching it as I type and I don't think Dr Moore has spoken yet. So, good foresight Keith

Edit: interesting testimony by fisherman Christopher Brown. He's talking about changes to the New England fishery - from cold water species to more warm water ones.

 

Edit: here is Dr Moore...well...I have to say it was the same old same old. Just what the other thread wants to hear.

 

Hello, here's a bloke banging on about windmills - and I was quite impressed by the first two witnesses

Edited February 25, 2014 by Devonian

[knocker]

What "hiatus"? Great graphic by Tamino

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/by-request/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[knocker]

I thought I'd start off this morning with a double espresso and some very light entertainment. I quite enjoyed both although the latter was tinged with a little sadness.

 

It would appear Richard Feynman has become the patron saint of deniers. God knows what he would think about it but I suspect he would see the funny side. Anyway the slayer Tim Ball is waxing lyrical over on WUWT. Oh the joy.

 

 

Time is limited (again), so just a couple of short reports of the latest at WUWT.Sleazy Tim Ball has an article (archived here) claiming that all weather forecasts are worse than they were 50 years ago.  He's wrong.  Weather forecasts 50 years ago were okay to a point - maybe two or three days ahead.  Now they are pretty good up to even seven days ahead.  The use of computers and satellites has made a huge difference.

 

From the illiterati

 

They can’t predict the weather. Therefore they cannot be accurate on climate. Simple!

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/not-even-wrong.html

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-56#entry2938742

 

 

Doesn't look quite so alarming with the pink line does it? The fact is the next few years will be interesting. If the temps continue to stall or even, heaven forbid, dip down they will have new theories of why temps are just not following that evil CO2.

 

Interesting point of origin for your pink line. Did you pluck it out of thin air or import it from WUWT? Funny how CO₂ is 'evil'. We would be in a right pickle without it. Says it all about certain mindsets.

[knocker]

Connecting the dots to win on climate

http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/02/connecting-dots-to-win-on-climate.html

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-56#entry2938773

 

 

Didn't realise this was a contest. Equally shows how reliant some are on scare tactics, etc etc rather than proper science

 

I know political satire is extinct but it's very encouraging to see that climate satire is in rude health.

[knocker]

Pause for thought

 

Ed Hawkins, Doug McNeall and I have just had a commentary published called Pause for Thought. It’s part of a Nature Focus on the slowdown in global surface warming, which includes six commentaries plus new research by Seneviratne et al. on how the number of extreme hot days has continued increasing throughout the slowdown in the global average. Unfortunately it’s not open access, but the content is free for the next month with registration, and I can also put our article online in six months.

 

http://blogs.plos.org/models/pause-for-thought/

Edited February 26, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

No pause in the increase of hot temperature extremes

 

Observational data show a continued increase of hot extremes over land during the so-called global warming hiatus. This tendency is greater for the most extreme events and thus more relevant for impacts than changes in global mean temperature.

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2145.html

Edited February 26, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-56#entry2938834

 

 

This is a good read.

http://seekingalpha....ust-the-experts

 

I didn't really want to revisit this rubbish again but it seems apposite in view of a new paper and exposes yet another lie from the above.

 

 

If you search the climategate emails for "sublimation Lonnie Thompson glaciers" you will find this little nugget of a smoking gun.

I've heard Lonnie Thompson talk about the Kilimanjaro core and he got some local temperatures - that we don't have access to, and there was little warming in them. The same situation applies for Quelccaya in Peru and also some of his Tibet sites. Lonnie thinks they are disappearing because of sublimation, but he can't pin anything down. They are going though.

 

Study Links Temperature to a Peruvian Glacier’s Growth and Retreat

 

The group then compared the glacier’s movements to a record of ice accumulation on top of Quelccaya, obtained from long cylinders of ice drilled by the glaciologist Lonnie G. Thompson of Ohio State University.

 

The new paper suggests that the glacier sometimes grew during periods when the accumulation of ice in the region was relatively low, and conversely, that it retreated during some periods of high ice accumulation.

 

Dr. Kelly and Mr. Stroup conclude that the glacier is sensitive to temperature and that other factors, like the amount of snowfall, are secondary, thus supporting a view long held by Dr. Thompson that the glacier can essentially be viewed as a huge thermometer.

 

“The big driver is temperature,†said Dr. Thompson, who was not involved in the new paper.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/science/study-links-melting-peruvian-ice-cap-to-higher-temperatures.html?&_r=1

Edited February 26, 2014 by knocker

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-57#entry2938834

 

Interesting? If you put fancy pink bits onto a graph you can alter people's perception...The questions remains: Why?

[knocker]

Heat hide and seek

 

Natural variability can explain fluctuations in surface temperatures but can it account for the current slowdown in warming?

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2155.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201403

[knocker]

Scientist-versus-activist debates mislead the public

http://www.nature.com/news/scientist-versus-activist-debates-mislead-the-public-1.14761

[Gray-Wolf]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-57#entry2938834

 

Interesting? If you put fancy pink bits onto a graph you can alter people's perception...The questions remains: Why?

 

The thing is Pete if they'd care to read up on the subject , rather than look at newspaper references, they would find a whole array of possible weather impacts driven by low ice/high heat content across the Arctic?

 

If anything it merely illustrates a very shallow understanding of the topic?

 

It would be nice if they would just look across the pond to see how this winter was for our American cousins this year?

 

Maybe they could compare the jet pattern over our cold winters of recent years and see how it compares? 

 

The thing is this is not a 'natural cycle' and it is only at the beginning of its influence on our weather, it is not set to 'flip' back to a more benign phase, it is only set to get worse and the folk attempting to poke fun today will look inceasingly stupid as the impacts bite home and ice levels reduce further /heat content of the Arctic ocean blossoms further.

 

Before we began to actually see the impacts of low ice begin to bite I was more concerned about the press the Deniers would make over the negative set up of the planets natural forcings, now I see both the 'naturals' set to flip but also the spectre of this rapid , and messy , abrupt climate 'step' just around the corner. 

[knocker]

Quote of the week from one of 'these people'.

 

Andrew Dessler. Climate scientist at Texas A&M; author of Introduction to Modern Climate Change.

 

"Just listened to interview between Brian Hoskins and the pile of nonsense named Nigel Lawson. How incredibly embarrassing for the BBC".

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-57#entry2939632

 

 

The only reason I can think off is that he doesn't have faith in it's ability to stand on own it's feet.

 

Pit it's advisable to check the sources you are replying too. Apart from being vile characters and liars the information is in the public domain.

 

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his_21.html

 

http://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/links-for-mann-legal-matters.html

 

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2014/02/strange-bedfellows-and-fear-of-broad-impacts-of-mann-uva-court-ruling/

Edited February 27, 2014 by knocker