Stopping Dangerous Global Warming

[Devonian]

44 minutes ago, stewfox said:

Interesting no one can answer the question ,answer, 'its the weather'. All the 'theories' re why its expanding (2/3 yrs ago) would be put to bed in one season,

In the Antarctic air temperatures were 2-4C (3.6-7.2F) warmer than normal in November, with strong westerly winds helping disperse the sea ice pack. Several large bodies of open water have opened up within the sea ice formations around the Amundsen Sea and Ross Sea coasts.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/06/arctic-antarctic-ice-melt-november-record

Imagine someone baking a cake every Christmas.

Each year they decrease the number of raisins in the mix a little and increase the number of sultanas a little. After ten years does it mean you will see no raisins in a cooked cake or that its more likely you'll see less raisins and more sultanas than the cake made ten years ago? Might some (trouble makers) come along , eat a slice, and say, 'You say this cake has less raisins in it compared to ten years ago but I just found several!'? You might show them the recipe and your observations of how it has changed, what went into the cake. You might even be a little exasperated if people insisted the mix wasn't changing year by year and that they require proof it has changed...

Edited December 30, 2016 by Devonian

[knocker]

1 hour ago, jvenge said:

There isn't any evidence linking CO2 to extreme weather events, be it storms, tornadoes or hurricanes. There is no trend for an increase in droughts or flooding. Even the IPCC admit there is no link. Does that mean some evidence won't be found in the future? No. Does that mean that these things won't happen? No. However, based on the observations, that hasn't happened. 

I think you should at least make the effort to support this statement

What the IPCC report says about extreme weather events

https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-the-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weather-events

[Methuselah]

8 minutes ago, knocker said:

I think you should at least make the effort to support this statement

What the IPCC report says about extreme weather events

https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-the-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weather-events

False attribution seems very popular in our new post-truth society, doesn't it Malcolm? TBH, I'd far rather accept the conclusions of the IPPC & Co than play 'he said, she said' with self-styled 'sceptics'!

[stewfox]

22 minutes ago, Devonian said:

Imagine someone baking a cake every Christmas.

Each year they decrease the number of raisins in the mix a little and increase the number of sultanas a little. After ten years does it mean you will see no raisins in a cooked cake or that its more likely you'll see less raisins and more sultanas than the cake made ten years ago? Might some (trouble makers) come along , eat a slice, and say, 'You say this cake has less raisins in it compared to ten years ago but I just found several!'? You might show them the recipe and your observations of how it has changed, what went into the cake. You might even be a little exasperated if people insisted the mix wasn't changing year by year and that they require proof it has changed...

On this analogy for the Antarctica we would have expected less raisins but we have see far more raisins in the whole cake and now we see less raisins but we don't know why . We need to know why.

Edited December 30, 2016 by stewfox

[jvenge]

29 minutes ago, knocker said:

I think you should at least make the effort to support this statement

What the IPCC report says about extreme weather events

https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-the-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weather-events

It didn't make it into the AR5 report.

The only thing that made it in was this snippet.

Of course, the IPCC do indeed state they believe the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and cyclones will increase, but this has not yet been observed.

From AR5 "In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated."

 

AND

"“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”

Edited December 30, 2016 by jvenge

[jvenge]

Just some more graphs showing the "increase" in extreme weather events.

 

[jvenge]

So, to conclude, go ahead and believe whatever you wish about extreme weather events, but to date there is zero evidence to support claims of increases in frequencies and strengths, just hypothesis and model for the future. It's a familiar theme.

 

[Devonian]

26 minutes ago, jvenge said:

So, to conclude, go ahead and believe whatever you wish about extreme weather events, but to date there is zero evidence to support claims of increases in frequencies and strengths, just hypothesis and model for the future. It's a familiar theme.

 

Blimey, you'll be going on about CAGW next.

I'm not sure who, bar you, is going on about extreme weather events. But, I do think we are seeing changes to the climate. Slow enough that people like you can ignore them, but I think the evidence and observations are clear.

Like I said, December last year in the UK was extraordinary, the 'anticycloncity' in my part of the UK this winter pretty amazing and the state of the Arctic sea ice likewise. Plenty of other odd weather about across the world.  Ignore that if you like (and you do) but the evidence is all about us that the atmosphere of this planet is being changed enough by our activities to, slowly, change the climate.

[jvenge]

1 minute ago, Devonian said:

Blimey, you'll be going on about CAGW next.

I'm not sure who, bar you, is going on about extreme weather events. But, I do think we are seeing changes to the climate. Slow enough that people like you can ignore them, but I think the evidence and observations are clear.

Like I said, December last year in the UK was extraordinary, the 'anticycloncity' in my part of the UK this winter pretty amazing and the state of the Arctic sea ice likewise. Plenty of other odd weather about across the world.  Ignore that if you like (and you do) but the evidence is all about us that the atmosphere of this planet is being changed enough by our activities to, slowly, change the climate.

Maybe you skipped quite a lot of the posts prior, but forum members here did link weather events to CO2 increase, including flooding and droughts.

You should read more above, but I'm not ignoring anything and I don't disbelieve AGW, but I believe that there is no evidence to conclude that the warming that has occurred has caused problems for mankind.   Current future hypothesis for weather events, including floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, etc, are currently unsupported by observable evidence.

If that makes me a skeptic, then I'm proud to be. 

 

 

[Devonian]

9 minutes ago, jvenge said:

Maybe you skipped quite a lot of the posts prior, but forum members here did link weather events to CO2 increase, including flooding and droughts.

You should read more above, but I'm not ignoring anything and I don't disbelieve AGW, but I believe that there is no evidence to conclude that the warming that has occurred has caused problems for mankind.   Current future hypothesis for weather events, including floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, etc, are currently unsupported by observable evidence.

If that makes me a skeptic, then I'm proud to be. 

 

 

Then you are being a sceptic about the rubbish 'climate sceptics' come out with! No one (bar climate sceptics) talk about CAGW, none of us who follow the observations and data expect the world to end tomorrow (despite what said 'sceptic's say of us) but we do expect 2-4C warming by centuries end and that IS a big deal - whether you accept it or not.

[Methuselah]

3 minutes ago, Devonian said:

Then you are being a sceptic about the rubbish 'climate sceptics' come out with! No one (bar climate sceptics) talk about CAGW, none of us who follow the observations and data expect the world to end tomorrow (despite what said 'sceptic's say of us) but we do expect 2-4C warming by centuries end and that IS a big deal - whether you accept it or not.

And, as if to prove your point, Dev - I don't even know what CAGW is!

[jvenge]

15 minutes ago, Devonian said:

Then you are being a sceptic about the rubbish 'climate sceptics' come out with! No one (bar climate sceptics) talk about CAGW, none of us who follow the observations and data expect the world to end tomorrow (despite what said 'sceptic's say of us) but we do expect 2-4C warming by centuries end and that IS a big deal - whether you accept it or not.

There is something wrong with people in this forum. Please tell me where I have mentioned CAGW? Indeed, it appears you are the one who brought it up. Do you have something on your mind?

By the way, 4C warming by the end of the century would be considered on the CAGW side :-) 

Just curious, but what makes you personally think that warming will accelerate to reach the heights of between 2-4C by the end of the century?

 

[jvenge]

14 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

And, as if to prove your point, Dev - I don't even know what CAGW is!

The C is for catastrophic and it is assigned to what some refer to as the runaway effect of AGW, which would lead to catastrophic consequences for the World.

[Gray-Wolf]

2 hours ago, stewfox said:

Interesting no one can answer the question ,answer, 'its the weather'. All the 'theories' re why its expanding (2/3 yrs ago) would be put to bed in one season,

 

And yet I'm sure You visit the various Antarctica threads over the years Stew?

I'm sure that , whilst there, you will have read my many posts on the subject of sea ice extension and the warnings that the 'very slow', 2% per decade increase in annual ice around Antarctica since 1980, would end and reverse once the 'Naturals flipped and the Ozone hole began to mend?

I'm sure you will have read how that all the models show rapid Sea ice reduction around Antarctica before 2050? I'm sure this is the main reason paid deniers grabbed onto the anomalous data we were seeing as 'proof' that everything AGW promised was wrong?

Well the naturals flipped back in 2014 and it is looking like it was not just an inter phase ,phase but a return to the Pacific forcings that brought us the 18% decline in sea ice from 1950 to 1978? NASA has been reporting a reduction in the size of the Ozone hole in the austral spring since 2013 so its 'forcings' , from the strat down, will now be reducing.

Our problem is the warming that has occurred since 1978. The Ozone hole impacted circumpolar winds/current had been keeping most of Antarctica in 'splendid isolation' from warming     ( until the warm bottom water worked through the sea floor canyons to the coast bringing the issues with P.I.G. /Totten and arriving at the base of Ross in 2012?) with only the Peninsula pointing out beyond the winds ( where it was the fastest warming place on the planet).

All of this will still be impacted by 'natural variability for a while longer at least so next year may see a less aggressive melt season down there, but then it might see a repeat?

The big problem with open water is it allows ocean processes to impact the shelfs/ocean terminating glaciers for longer over melt season. Without the buffering of sea ice damping out wave action the floating sections of the shelf get 'waggled' more and so break off more. With those pesky bottom waters already eating away at the grounding lines of all the Ice shelfs under study ( now including Totten which the Aussies just had a good look at) it could signal the kind of 'speed up' in losses we have been seeing for a few decades now in Greenland.

[knocker]

1 hour ago, jvenge said:

So, to conclude, go ahead and believe whatever you wish about extreme weather events, but to date there is zero evidence to support claims of increases in frequencies and strengths, just hypothesis and model for the future. It's a familiar theme.

 

Thank you for conceding that I may indeed believe whatever I wish but I've never actually said that there is evidence directly linking global warming to an increasing number of droughts and floods because I have actually read the latest WMO report on the subject. Unless of course I have missed one.

http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf

I just suggested that you just support statements with a link or else it just reads as a personal opinion. Also given that if one believes in global warming then one presumably has to accept more moisture/'energy into the atmosphere. How researchers can get a handle on this in order to help future strategic decisions without modelling is not immediately apparent to me.

[Gray-Wolf]

25 minutes ago, jvenge said:

 

Just curious, but what makes you personally think that warming will accelerate to reach the heights of between 2-4C by the end of the century?

 

Well if you'd pull back from the sham that is the IPCC and pay more attention to the multiple Peer reviewed Papers normal folk concentrate on ( who are concerned about the future of their planet) that are produced each and every year you'd stand more of a chance of understanding both how rapidly our understanding is advancing and how rapidly our climate is now shifting.

At the peak of the past nino we popped through 1.5c above 1880. Only 3 years before that stood at 1c above 1880. Are you saying that the past nino put a full 0.5c on top of 2013's yearly temp? but then 2014 was a record year and 2015 was also a record year so if we say nino put a massive 0.3c on the 2016 temps ( at nino max) then we still have the matter of 0.2c over the preceding two years to account for?

0.2 every 2 years means 1 c over ten years does it not?

Now we both know that has to be a non sense don't we? But if we do how do we explain the 10 year warming at the end of the younger dryas? How could we see such a hike over such a short period of time?

In 2014 PDO swung positive ( and stayed that way to date) IPO swung positive ( and stayed that way to date) Barentsz/Kara/Beaufort/Berring/Baffin /Greenland seas all continued there 'open water status' over the late summer months and CO2 rose by your IPCC beyond B.A.U. rates, meanwhile the CH4 plumes off Siberia continued to grow ( as Shakova and Co found in their 2014 mission).

All that is happening is that the naturals have swung back into the configuration we saw through the 80's/90's but this time we have open water Arctic, elevated CO2 and a year on year reduction in man made dimming to add into the global temp rises. We saw , through the noughties, the added impacts of Asian dimming as Indochina rapidly increased their pollution ( Asian Brown cloud anyone?) whilst IPO and PDO sat in their negative phases. That was a mighty amount of cooling they were driving yet global temps still rose??? So what do you expect once they turn their impacts to augmenting AGW warming instead of dragging it down? 

[Methuselah]

47 minutes ago, jvenge said:

The C is for catastrophic and it is assigned to what some refer to as the runaway effect of AGW, which would lead to catastrophic consequences for the World.

Ah, that one: a worst-case scenario, put forward as just that, and nothing more; but, now used as a straw-man hypothesis by deniers?

[BornFromTheVoid]

3 hours ago, jvenge said:

There isn't any evidence linking CO2 to extreme weather events, be it storms, tornadoes or hurricanes. There is no trend for an increase in droughts or flooding. Even the IPCC admit there is no link. Does that mean some evidence won't be found in the future? No. Does that mean that these things won't happen? No. However, based on the observations, that hasn't happened. 

C'mon jvenge, your constant false statements are getting a bit much.

Quote

 

There isn't any evidence linking CO2 to extreme weather events

Even the IPCC admit there is no link.

 

From the latest IPCC report: Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions

So to say there's no evidence and the IPCC admit there's no link is utter BS.

[Gray-Wolf]

3 minutes ago, knocker said:

Thank you for conceding that I may indeed believe whatever I wish but I've never actually said that there is evidence directly linking global warming to an increasing number of droughts and floods because I have actually read the latest WMO report on the subject. Unless of course I have missed one.

http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf

I just suggested that you just support statements with a link or else it just reads as a personal opinion. Also given that if one believes in global warming then one presumably has to accept more moisture/'energy into the atmosphere. How researchers can get a handle on this in order to help future strategic decisions without modelling is not immediately apparent to me.

I'll raise you this Knocks

http://www.ametsoc.net/eee/2015/2015_bams_eee_low_res.pdf

They go through just how we can attribute the extremes we saw through 2015 to AGW. The Paid deniers gave their minions the instructions to demand proof so year on year, supplemental to the study they were engaged on , a lot of papers will now show how AGW is implicated in that event.

Of course that is 153 pages, across multiple events. This first site I posted it onto I had a reply within 3 minutes declaring it rubbish......... fast readers those Deniers, and with massive brains!!! I'm still wading though it two weeks later!!!!

[knocker]

1 hour ago, jvenge said:

If that makes me a skeptic, then I'm proud to be. 

 

 

That's good because all scientists are skeptics; that's how it works.

[Methuselah]

7 minutes ago, knocker said:

That's good because all scientists are skeptics; that's how it works.

Indeed. And there's nothing better at tweaking one's in-built scepticism than enduring the wit and wisdom of a Monckton or a Delingpole?

[jvenge]

1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

C'mon jvenge, your constant false statements are getting a bit much.

From the latest IPCC report: Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions

So to say there's no evidence and the IPCC admit there's no link is utter BS.

Hello,

I think I referenced the parts that the AR5 report mentioned, along with quotes, where the IPCC admit there are no observable trends.

Now, considering the World has indeed warmed, I don't think I ever said there has been no increase in warm extremes. One would imagine there has to be, for there to be warming.

 Apologies for not referencing it prior. I will do so in future, to save a good ten or so posts. 

1 hour ago, knocker said:

That's good because all scientists are skeptics; that's how it works.

I'm just a lowly engineer, not a scientist. In engineering, things just kind of need to work. 

 

1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

Ah, that one: a worst-case scenario, put forward as just that, and nothing more; but, now used as a straw-man hypothesis by deniers?

I wasn't the one who mentioned CAGW, was I? So it seems the straw man would be on your side, for trying to say that I brought it up, in order to attack me for bringing it up, even though I didn't. Da?

 

2 hours ago, knocker said:

I just suggested that you just support statements with a link or else it just reads as a personal opinion. Also given that if one believes in global warming then one presumably has to accept more moisture/'energy into the atmosphere. How researchers can get a handle on this in order to help future strategic decisions without modelling is not immediately apparent to me

One would think that with more heat in the atmosphere that where will be more water vapor and therefore I assume more rain fall. I'm not a scientist to know what form that will take and over what time frame, but I don't think they managed to measure on a global scale such increases yet. However, I will take your suggestion when referencing, but I admit that apart from you, you are the only one in this thread who carries himself well in responses and doesn't try to put words into my mouth I haven't even said.

Happy New Year to all, in advance, as I won't be able to post until Monday.

Edited December 30, 2016 by jvenge

[Gray-Wolf]

Changes in the water that air masses now carry

[stewfox]

7 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

And yet I'm sure You visit the various Antarctica threads over the years Stew?

In need me you and 4 other members over the last few years. But not going down this road again.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

Thing is stew Dangerous climate change is now and there is no stopping it.

There is moderating it and there is dealing with the consequences of it but there will be no 'stopping of it'.

For many years I used the failing dam analogy for climate shift. Once the first microscopic cracks begin to propagate through the load bearing structure the end result is inevitable lest action swiftly be taken to bolster/repair the damage. This time was the 90's and noughties but what did we do?

This dying year saw chunks of the face of that dam tumble into the valley below and yet some still feel obfuscation is our best defence, why some even appear to believe that merely removing 'climate change' from govt. documentation will consign it into the history books within ten years........... Dunning Kruger par excellence 

To solve any problem first of all you must define the problem.

Back then it was stopping temps being forced to rise by our burning of fossil fuels. today it is what exactly?

Stopping the Arctic going blue Ocean on us? Stopping the permafrost from losing its GHG cargo?, In 2013 Siberian ice caves showed us 1.5c above 1880 consigned us to its loss and earlier this year temps reached 1.5c above 1880.... Or is it settling the Stratosphere back into its past working order ,or is it the gravity waves in the mesosphere we need calm ( from the peturbations of the strat below driven by the constant breaching of the tropopause by an ever more violent atmosphere below?) stopping cleaning up our atmosphere so we can stay dimmed and avoid the full impacts of our current GHG burden?

Which/what should we do?

I will tell you what we will do. Absolutely nothing, that is what we'll do and the arguments will change to " the science never told us it would be this bad! " ........