Global warming discussion III

[OCaptain]

Ah, the good old tu coque defence. They all do it, therefore they're all doing it. The 97% must have their side of the political aisle because the 3% so obviousaly have theirs. And since the 3% side is the Right side the 97% side is the Left side. Algore algore algore benghazi.

You can investigate it yourself, all the data is available, and the code, and a description of the algorithms and processes, and the fact that after homogenisation the long-term trend is reduced fractionally. Really, check it out.

Of course if you believe the trend is actually increased because that's what they do on that side of the aisle I guess you can save yourself the trouble. Life must so much easier when you have beliefs.

But he can't use all the raw data, because Phil Jones lost the unmolested data!

;-)

 

[lomiller]

My understanding is that there is a Pause / Hiatus in the warming of the 20th century and that will turn into a cooling as the Sun becomes less active in a Grand Solar Minimum. As happened 400 years ago in the Maunder Minimum associated with the Little Ice Age.

Your "understanding" is at odds with the published science.

As happened 400 years ago in the Maunder Minimum associated with the Little Ice Age.

Entering into the LIA the earth cooled 0.2 - 0.6 Deg C over ~300 years. It's warmed 0.5 Deg C in the last 30.

Even if future solar cycles can be predicted the way you suggest (suspect in it's own right) the largest know climate impact from them is tiny compared to current warming trends.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Haig View Post

My understanding is that there is a Pause / Hiatus in the warming of the 20th century and that will turn into a cooling as the Sun becomes less active in a Grand Solar Minimum. As happened 400 years ago in the Maunder Minimum associated with the Little Ice Age.

you have a very poor understanding.

Would you care to outline where the pause in the ocean heat has shown up???

You do understand that atmosphere is tiny portion of the energy balance??

are these inconvenent facts undermining your poorly supported "understanding.

BTW ...it's the 21st Century for a while now ....it's getting hotter, we're responsible ....the sun is going the other way. Occam's Razor rules.

 

[hgus]

[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qZOz9q5-o10/VNmkYlAbrcI/AAAAAAAAL0w/D52qj5Bu0HI/s566/c63d7596-d8f3-482d-88ad-68cc501116d7-bestSizeAvailable.png[/qimg]

Does the warming oceans means we are going to see stronger los Ninjos in the future?

 

[CORed]

Im'a going to go ahead and just keep on posting this, despite the fact that we all know it won't help to penetrate the political beliefs held by the usual suspects but, really, it is simple enough that even they should be able to understand if they ever do bother with trying to understand the issue.

Logger - how about challenging you beliefs for once in awhile and take a critical look, come back and explain to us where you think the flaws in this relatively simple means of verifying the validity of temperature data homogenisation lie? Maybe you could explain the rationale for how a world wide conspiracy among meteorological agencies to adjust the global temperature trend by a mere 3% makes any sense whatsoever?

If, hypothetically, we accept the notion that climatologists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fudge temperature records, what I would like to know is, how are they getting arctic sea ice and glaciers all over the world to melt?

 

[hgus]

If, hypothetically, we accept the notion that climatologists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fudge temperature records, what I would like to know is, how are they getting arctic sea ice and glaciers all over the world to melt?

Just to play the devils advocate: How do you know that the glaciers is melting?From hearsay and climatologists, right? It is normal for the glaciers to melt a bit in the summer and increase in winter. The movies and pictures you see are just normal seasonal behavior of glaciers! Some glaciers are decreasing and some are increasing, as they have always done! /******** mode.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Does the warming oceans means we are going to see stronger los Ninjos in the future?

Yes, but if enough heat gets pulled into some of the deep water currents it could reverse or stall them out. Which would be a Bad Thing.

 

[Reality Check]

Just to play the devils advocate: How do you know that the glaciers is melting?From hearsay and climatologists, right?

To take the question seriously, hgus D): The answer is no.
The size of glaciers is in the domain of geography. So the people who gather data on them are geographers, specifically glaciologists. The evidence is photographs of glaciers, records of their extent and the extent of moraine they leave behind.

You can see a local to me example here: Franz Josef Glacier with its interesting record of retreat, advance and then retreat again.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Since the skeptics have been a bit silent, the enthalpy of the cooler, but more moist air is higher (approx. 6kJ/kg)

Useful calculators here:
http://www.conservationphysics.org/atmcalc/atmoclc1.php#enthalpy
http://www.conservationphysics.org/atmcalc/atmocalc.php

Obvious really, it takes a lot of energy to evaporate the additional moisture.

That's right. I didn't check the calculations myself because to made it so I dropped at least an extra 10% of humidity for that temperature range.

This question goes to the essence behind the denialist babble yesterday, today and tomorrow: "How is it warming when much more snow is falling?" what comes from the false premise that the "volume of snow" is caused by some some "volume of cold", also "It's a little warmer just because we are in a wet period" what fails to explain the amount of heat needed to both raise temperature and air humidity (they wouldn't resource to speak of water vapour as a greenhouse gas because they know it pulls them into a loosing position real quick)

Perihelion was on the 4th Jan, combined with it being summer in that part of the world means that isolation is about as high as it gets, yet the Antarctic Sea Ice was a bit slow to melt at that point (It has returned to more normal levels now). From the little I understand the additional energy is helping to fortify the circulating winds and ocean currents that are helping to effectively insulate Antarctica from the sort of polar amplification that has affected the Arctic region . It has also help increase the mixing in the surface layer in the ocean and increase the wave action and this has helped to cause increased evaporation, the loss of energy from that has led to more ice (or rather a lack of melting).

Without analysing its causes, those days there was up to one million square kilometres additional Antarctic sea ice when compared with recent years, though with an ice extent just up to a quarter million square kilometres. Even though, because of the solar angle, it sufficed to reflect back into space a considerable portion of short wave radiation compared to 2013 and previous years. I didn't estimate or search for the estimation, but it was in the range of 0.2 to 0.6% of solar incoming radiation. That by itself has the power to turn down the planetary average surface temperature several hundreds of a degree. For instance, look at the global and hemispheric values in January's State of the Climate: the Southern Hemisphere is 0.11°C below its higher anomaly record and that is explained, possibly over-explained, just by the extra sea ice surface.

As a consequence there's a wave of "cooling" in the Southern Polar Region and it will stay with us through February and March, so the consequence is the anomaly value for current February is going to be far from the record. The sst anomalies have been propagating to mid-latitudes and to date we can even see clearly the Southern branch of Brazil current moved northwards. Anyway, that "cooling wave" born in a temporary change of albedo is still being overwhelmed by greenhouse gas effects [Those interested in that subject may look for second and third level products involving long and short incoming and outgoing radiation at surface and top of the atmosphere]

In the end, what I'm saying is that these dramatic developments, as well as the current polar spell in the Capital of the United Federation of Planets can't hide a process of general average warming, which goes on with a trend of +0.12/+0.14°C by decade, no matter the rhetorical contractions that the denialist muscle continue to pull.

ETA: I don't understand the reference to the satellite golem - My poor Google Fu leads me to your post here as the fifth entry.

I meant the RSS dataset made by the happy Huntville bunch.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm certain we're causing climate change, and it's going to devastate the environment unless we get a handle on it.

I'm claiming that realistically, efforts to prevent rising GHG's are going to fail because of several factors:
- Politically, the GOP is going to control the House and/or Senate for the foreseeable future. They will not approve any legislation that harms the fossil fuel industry.
- Financially, there is too much money at stake for American fossil fuel companies to reduce production of oil, coal, and natural gas. You'll notice that under Obama, the oil industry has boomed and America has become the number one producer of natural gas and oil in the world. We'll most likely have another Democrat president in 2016 and the same thing will happen.
- Developing countries, like India and China, are already addicted to cheap fossil fuel energy. We'll continue to supply it to them

Here's a graph of coal exports since Obama took office:

Does that look encouraging?

We have to be realists and look at the situation without rose-colored glasses. We're going to blow past the two-degree warming threshold without a look back. We'll have to have plans in place to stop runaway global warming.

From that I only share the notion about how harmful are the United States in their contemporary mood.

And I don't buy the "practical approach" as it's just a boastful disguise. There's a faux logic in that of a drunk that recklessly drives and he can't be stop but just have increased his health and other insurances waiting for the inevitable crash and the flying pedestrians.

If I had been interested in such faux logics and making a mockery of this forum, I would have posted in "http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5&order=desc&page=3#Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?".

 

[bit_pattern]

how are they getting arctic sea ice and glaciers all over the world to melt?

Al Gore *nods*

In all seriousness though, if you accept the notion you have to ignore or dismiss so much evidence that denying the reality of the rapidly deteriorating cryosphere is no big thing. I mean, heck, we've got one contributor here who is apparently convinced that record high temperatures are the sign of an impending ice age. For the more sophisticated denier there are other sleights of hand to placate the sense of dissonance, e.g. insisting that increasing sea ice in the NH is being somehow offset by increasing sea ice in the SH, or believing that a minor typo in a report relating to the disappearance in regional glaciers and the fact that a tiny percentage of said glaciers bucked the recent trend and grew marginally over the period means that ALL glaciers are either growing or the data is suspect.

In Australia atm, the latest trope is to deny that a recent category 5 cyclone was in fact much weaker than that and that the meteorological agency is using "modelling" to overestimate its wind power, based on a claim made by a trained biologist-cum-think-tank-hack from a third tier regional university that data from a single station situated in an area where the force was at its weakest showed the event was really only a category 2.

Basically, once you believe that scientists are colluding in an intricate global conspiracy, you can pretty much believe anything.

 

[hgus]

Basically, once you believe that scientists are colluding in an intricate global conspiracy, you can pretty much believe anything.

Since they* can't use science to win, they must go the shoot the messenger rout. They will try to muddy the water as long as they can. Just as the tobacco industry once did.

*I am referring to Monckton et al who I believe is lying, not those who honestly disbelieve in AGW.

 

[CapelDodger]

Since they* can't use science to win, they must go the shoot the messenger rout.

You may be familiar with the Serengeti Strategy : predators can't attack an entire herd so they cut out an individual or two and target them. Michael Mann, for instance. Rachel Carson in the past.

They will try to muddy the water as long as they can. Just as the tobacco industry once did.

Same general strategy, and quite a few of the same personnel. It starts with ol' "Smokin' Fred" Singer and his Rolodex - the Idsos, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, Spencer. Same smokescreen of pretensiously titled think-tanks. Tobacco, environmental lead, acid rain, CFC's, mercury - whatever's paying today they'll deny it.

When Singer starts denying a potential environmental hazard it means the industry involved has confirmed that there really is a problem. If there's a scientific argument to be made against the hazard then they'd make it. If there's not they call Singer - or did; he's recently announced his retirement.

*I am referring to Monckton et al who I believe is lying, not those who honestly disbelieve in AGW.

Monckton suffers from a mental disorder due to Grave's Disease; symptoms include paranoia and grandiosity. He lies like a shag-pile carpet, true, but may not always realise he's doing it.

 

[Reality Check]

Monckton suffers from a mental disorder due to Grave's Disease; symptoms include paranoia and grandiosity.

A few "maybes"s need to be inserted here, CapelDodger .
Christopher Monckton suffers from Graves' disease.
This commonly affects the thyroids probably leading to hyperthyroidism and

People with hyperthyroidism may experience behavioral and personality changes including: psychosis, mania, anxiety, agitation, and depression.[5]

Thus those personality changes could include paranoia and grandiosity but we cannot exclude that Monckton would be paranoid and/or grandiose without Graves' disease.

 

[Caper]

I'm no expert. I've just been casually following the debate for 2 decades. From about 1995 to 2011 the winters were nothing like when I was a kid. We were told this was because of global warming. The past few years winters have made a comeback. This year winter has been as cold as it has been decades ago. Why? The same experts say global warming.

 

[varwoche]

I'm no expert. I've just been casually following the debate for 2 decades. From about 1995 to 2011 the winters were nothing like when I was a kid. We were told this was because of global warming. The past few years winters have made a comeback. This year winter has been as cold as it has been decades ago. Why? The same experts say global warming.

Regional weather is not to be confused with global climate.

 

[macdoc]

. This year winter has been as cold as it has been decades ago. Why? The same experts say global warming.

''

'good idea to say where you are but I can guess.

For the US it's been one of the warmest winters..you are just in the wrong area.
Short answer...cold air that is normally trapped by the jet stream around the pole has spilled south due to a jet stream weakened by a warming Arctic....hence Arctic Vortex and what used to be an occasional phenomena ...the Arctic Dipole is now more frequent.

Continents are unusually cold...in some regions

 

[Reality Check]

I'm no expert. I've just been casually following the debate for 2 decades. From about 1995 to 2011 the winters were nothing like when I was a kid. We were told this was because of global warming. The past few years winters have made a comeback. This year winter has been as cold as it has been decades ago. Why? The same experts say global warming.

Hi Caper, this is a common misconception.
Global warming does not meant that every year will be warmer than the last. It means that the long term trend (30 years is the standard) will have a warming trend. It is also global not regional. That is why scientist say that winters that are colder than you remember and winters that are warmer than you remember can both be caused by global warming. It is the trend that makes climate, not the individual years.

 

[Warmer1]

I'm no expert. I've just been casually following the debate for 2 decades. From about 1995 to 2011 the winters were nothing like when I was a kid. We were told this was because of global warming. The past few years winters have made a comeback. This year winter has been as cold as it has been decades ago. Why? The same experts say global warming.

How Do the Polar Vortex and Warming Relate?

http://news.discovery.com/earth/wea...he-polar-vortex-and-warming-relate-150212.htm

"Some researchers suggest that such kinks in the jet stream that allow that cold air to spill out could actually become more common in a warming world because of changes to the environment where that cold air originates — the Arctic."

and
"This pattern may sound familiar to those in the eastern U.S. who shivered under repeated such incursions last winter, when the term “polar vortex” became all the rage. The non-stop sucker punches of frigid air also brought to the forefront the idea that global warming could paradoxically be behind them, with Arctic sea ice melt forcing wild dives in the jet stream up in the atmosphere.

But it’s a hotly debated idea that has spurred a flurry of research, some of which bolsters the connection but still leaves key questions unanswered and many atmospheric scientists skeptical."

Also
Is Global Warming Behind the Polar Vortex?
Rutgers climate scientist believes that Arctic warming is altering jet stream around Northern Hemisphere

http://news.rutgers.edu/hot-topic/global-warming-behind-polar-vortex/20140129#.VO6fMy7laqo

 

[Caper]

Regional weather is not to be confused with global climate.

I agree 100%. But that should go for the other side too. Every time it was warm outside for the last 15 years it was because of global warming. When ski hills back home could only open a few weeks a year because of the warmth it was because of global warming. Now, for the last few years the trend has completely reversed and that to is because of global warming.