Global warming discussion III

[Gulliver Foyle]

I imagine with this much pent up anticipation the disappointment when the impending ice-age never actually eventuates must be on par with that felt by those apocalypse groups who confidently predict the end of the world by a certain date. I mean, it really is the same level of cray cray.

They'll just do what the religious apocoplyptistas do and change the dates a number of times, before eventually wising up enough to drop any specific date predicitions and change to "any day now".

 

[aleCcowaN]

<sciencedaily>... for the first time. </sciencedaily>

These blokes at ScienceDaily don't do much better than Haig's. You may think I'm exaggerating, but what Haig does periodically here is like having an horoscope among the serious materials in the New York Times; like reading "Pisces: not a good time for a trip..." alongside with "Eurozone Officials Reach Accord With Greece": nobody is gonna think one of them is serious because the other one is.

With a poor wording and incomplete explanations ("This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation") the article and its promotion is fodder for denialism, including those who appear not to be deniers: Surprise! CO2 Directly Linked To Global Warming

So, don't bother in replying the Haigs of the world and their earthquakes coming from solar changes as evidence of climate change driven by the same woo sources. Better let them alone, as independent readers can ask us any moment to explain why we dismiss each individual post a la Haig. Let's concentrate in what is really damaging: the clumsy promotion of scientific papers and articles, promotion that is fostered by an unhealthy trend towards showmanship in science.

 

[aleCcowaN]

We got off on the wrong foot.

You lumped me in with the warming deniers here, which really pissed me off. Climate change is THE issue we should be talking about. Last January was the second hottest January on record (globally). As a species we're committing slow suicide. I honestly think there's some horrible feedback loop out there (like sublimation of frozen methane) just waiting to be triggered by us. I also think we're too dumb, as a species, to stop it at this point.

So I apologize for my tone, and I shouldn't have made fun of your English. I can't speak another language to save my life. Friends?

Don't worry, nothing offensive there as language may be a valid argument. I'd love to debate with you and everyone all the political and economical aspects of AGW. I am all for tariffs on national emissions, no matter how difficult it is. Anyway, I'm afraid this is not the thread to do that though I admit the risk of taking the debate into the "Economics, ..." sub-forum where the customers know little, if anything, about economics, let alone the "... Politics ..." forum where everybody has something to say about everything just because they vote somewhere and have mouths.

 

[Warmer1]

These blokes at ScienceDaily don't do much better than Haig's.

With a poor wording and incomplete explanations ("This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation") the article and its promotion is fodder for denialism, including those who appear not to be deniers: Surprise! CO2 Directly Linked To Global Warming

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

Here is the correct information straight from the source at Berkeley Lab.

"Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor."

"The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2."

You are correct that it should have been presented better but I think most people understand that the article is an overview and in order to split hairs on the specific science they need to dig further. It is no where near the same level as Haig's sources.

If you find instances of deniers trying to use that article please let me know.

The article would be a glaring error to you as an expert but not so much for many people who see articles like this is a bridge between scientists and the public. It is somewhat expected that articles like this do not speak in absolute scientific terms for more general audiences in our culture. The gist of the article is probably very clear to many.

Thx

 

[aleCcowaN]

"Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor."

But the confusion comes straight from the horse's mouth.

Is there some trend of 2 W/m2.decade? I have a hard time believing it.

I didn't read the original paper and I don't think I'll do because my experience tells me that it never hides the best work what comes from such muddy communication while it's shown in places so near to the candlelights like Nature or Science.

A late "first of its kind" work badly communicated -when in fact it has being done in hundreds of parallel works during decades- is the kind of thing denialists applaud and exploit, so we can safely expect a legion of imbeciles to write about it: How come two places located at different latitudes show the same decadal trend? If there is such trend, why the planed cooled? and so on. The usual suspects will be probably here dropping links from Bob Tisdale and Obi-Wan Kenobi one or two months from now.

 

[macdoc]

just the facts

will be interesting to see how trash sites like WUWT fares...

Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links

28 February 2015 by Hal Hodson
Magazine issue 3010.

The trustworthiness of a web page might help it rise up Google's rankings if the search giant starts to measure quality by facts, not just links

THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...es-based-on-facts-not-links.html#.VPNhf0J4bHA

I can hear the howls of protest by Monckton ans Inhofe et al now.

Good on google...we'll see how it actually plays out.

 

[bit_pattern]

will be interesting to see how trash sites like WUWT fares...



http://www.newscientist.com/article...es-based-on-facts-not-links.html#.VPNhf0J4bHA

I can hear the howls of protest by Monckton ans Inhofe et al now.

Good on google...we'll see how it actually plays out.

A few years back I was cold calling for an Internet marketing company when Jo Nova's gold trading business came up in my leads. We were selling ad words management so spent a lot of time talking abut Google rankings. When I spoke to Jo I let it be known that i knew who she was and we chatted about her non-business activities, she was quite insistent that Google were 'censoring' her by pushing 'pro' warming results to the top of the page (dunno how that's supposed to work whenyou see the slew of idiocy that ranks when you use GW terms, like WUWT). I just went ahead and agreed with her (hell, I wanted a sale) and didn't bother explaining that Google values pages that have been linked to by universities as the most valuable, among other things. The woman really was off her scone paranoid.

 

[Reality Check]

That remains to be seen macdoc as we have just past the very weak maximum of Solar Cycle 24 and the coming Solar Cycle 25 will settle matters I'm sure (as I understand it)
...usual ignorance about climate science repeated...

Wrong, Haig. you do not understand "it" (climate science) at all:
Haig: Repeated ignorance about the "hiatus" and a Grand Solar Minimum
Haig: Does not understand that that A in established AGW is us

The coming Solar Cycle 25 will not "settle matters" - it is predicted to be weaker than Solar Cycle 24 and that is all. As pointed out years ago to you and many times since, even a Maunder Minimum, will not have a big effect on global temperatures.
In this thread

• 4th July 2012: Are we heading into a new Ice Age? (No!)
• 3rd July 2012: Haig's dependence on the ignorance of an astrophysicist about climate science - we are not heading into a new ice age.
• etc.

First pointed out 5 years ago in another thread, Haig !
19th February 2010:

And talking about the Little Ice Age:
What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels? has a description of the results from a just released paper On the Effect of a New Grand Minimum of Solar Activity on the Future Climate on Earth (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010) (a PDF) that uses an actual climate model to do the predictions rather than whatever the Russians used.

The Suns heat is always "diverted" to the oceans, Haig . The question is by how much. The science is that the higher than usual proportion of heat taken up by the oceans is probably about to reverse.

Global warming skeptics tend to refer to the hiatus in global surface temperatures as if it were a good thing (i.e. as if GW has stopped). The actual implications of the hiatus may be bad:New Research Suggests Global Warming Is About To Heat Up
Commonsense tells us that heat cannot be stored in oceans indefinitely (they will not boil!) so at some point the balance will reverse and surface temperatures will increase sharply.
The new paper “Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures” by Byron Steinmann, Michael Mann, and Sonya Miller looks at Atlantic- and Pacific-based internal multidecadal variability (AMO and PMO). The blog explains ..

 

[Reality Check]

...no science at all...
...repeat of unattributed images...

From no science to bad science and scholarship, Haig !
Monckton is an economist not a climate scientist. His ignorance and even lies (by making assertions that are not in papers) about climate science have been exposed several times.


25th February 2015 Haig: The bad scholarship of unattributed and unexplained images and YouTube videos treated as science.

 

[Reality Check]

If you need another laugh check out Haig's sources' core "scientific" team -Oh it's Ben Davidson, his wife and two dogs!!!

This is comedy folks! Pass the Koolaid.

It is amazing that Haig does not seem to bother to find about the authors of the sources he relies on.
About Ben Davidson states that he has no climate science or even science credentials. He is an economist !
Ben Davidson is an Electric Universe crank - he spoke at one of their conferences. This may explain Haig's blind acceptance of anything Ben Davidson says since Haig seems to do that with the EC crank idea in general (see the Electric Comet thread).

 

[hgus]

How much difference in solar radiation would Earth receive in a Maunder Minimum?

Below is the best info I could find (and understand ) in a quick google search. It is from the Guardian.

Relative to current levels, the Dalton Minimum represents a 0.08% decrease in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, and the Maunder Minimum represents a 0.25% decline.

 

[CapelDodger]

@Haig

CapelDodger : you'd be hilarious if "Climatic Jihad" "Denier" wasn't so offensive. As it is, you rank lower than dirt.

The old confected denier whine that "denier" can only mean Holocaust denier when it's simply descriptive of what you people do. "Jihadist", in contrast, is deliberately insulting.

That isn't what's offensive, though, that's just everyday denier childishness. Appalling things are being done right now by actual jihadists, death and destruction of the most brutal sort, millions of lives blighted, and what's the response of your man from CFACT? "Ooh, there's a new bad word I can call climate scientists! I'll knock out a deliverable right now, Watts will put it up, he'll post any vile rubbish." Sure enough Watts posts it and his baying rabble cheers and applauds.

I don't expect you people to understand why that's offensive, not to say disgusting. You're far too shallow and self-absorbed to see it. Decent people do, though, trust me.

 

[Reality Check]

New Research Demonstrates Link Between Greenhouse Gas Pollution and Global Warming

A paper just published in Nature reports on the direct measurement of the effects of human greenhouse gas pollution on the heating of the Earth’s atmosphere. This is empirical verification of anthropogenic global warming.
...
The current study, Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010 by D. R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer and T. R. Shippert, takes a different approach than the earlier studies and in some ways is a more direct measurement. They used very precise spectroscopic instrumentation located at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one in Alaska, to measure what was happening with the Sun’s energy. They also measured variables that influence the behavior of the energy, such as ambient temperature, water vapor, and clouds. After factoring out everything but the CO2, they were able to accurately measure the effects of radiative forcing. The study was carried out from 2000 to 2010, during which time the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rose 22ppm. From the paper, these “…results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.”

 

[Haig]

How much difference in solar radiation would Earth receive in a Maunder Minimum?

Below is the best info I could find (and understand ) in a quick google search. It is from the Guardian.

Apparently, it's not that simple! How a "quiet" Sun affects our climate is complex.

Study: The sun has more impact on the climate in cool periods

The activity of the Sun is an important factor in the complex interaction that controls our climate. New research now shows that the impact of the Sun is not constant over time, but has greater significance when the Earth is cooler.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/01/study-the-sun-has-more-impact-on-the-climate-in-cool-periods/


Mini Ice Age 2015-2035 | Snow Records Back to 1700’s & Coldest March Ever is Coming
http://youtu.be/qoMcB5fW2-E


Solar forcing of Holocene summer sea-surface temperatures in the northern North Atlantic

Is the Sun driving ozone and changing the climate?

 

[Haig]

@Haig

The old confected denier whine that "denier" can only mean Holocaust denier when it's simply descriptive of what you people do. "Jihadist", in contrast, is deliberately insulting.

That isn't what's offensive, though, that's just everyday denier childishness. Appalling things are being done right now by actual jihadists, death and destruction of the most brutal sort, millions of lives blighted, and what's the response of your man from CFACT? "Ooh, there's a new bad word I can call climate scientists! I'll knock out a deliverable right now, Watts will put it up, he'll post any vile rubbish." Sure enough Watts posts it and his baying rabble cheers and applauds.

I don't expect you people to understand why that's offensive, not to say disgusting. You're far too shallow and self-absorbed to see it. Decent people do, though, trust me.

@ CapelDodger

Pure Projection


I find it interesting that this story has been essentially buried by the MSM in the U.S. at least. Does this indicate anything about U.N. influence on the media here or is it just a left wing thing?

Out on bail, IPCC’s Pachauri’s downward spiral continues: Resignation from the Indian Climate Council

 

[Reality Check]

Does this indicate anything about U.N. influence on the media here or is it just a left wing thing?

It suggests that you have an very active imagination, Haig, and that is all.

 

[Reality Check]

Apparently, it's not that simple! How a "quiet" Sun affects our climate is complex.

Which you have been ignoring for 5 years now for the simple and wrong, "It is the Sun" climate myth, Haig.

So do we have the "it is complex and so anything can happen" woo?
* A WUWT blog which is a description of a paper making the science more precise.
* A video
* A random blogger talking about another random blogger with the ignorant idea that ozone controls surface temperatures!
No - it is just "woo" woo!

 

[bit_pattern]

The UN controls the media now?

That's some seriously unhinged conspiracy theorising, right there.

 

[aleCcowaN]

How much difference in solar radiation would Earth receive in a Maunder Minimum?

Below is the best info I could find (and understand ) in a quick google search. It is from the Guardian.

That's about right. It translates in a direct drop of some 0.2°C in global temperatures.

But they might be other influences, because not only there's a feedback from a dryer atmosphere but that 0.25% decline is not uniformly distributed in the whole spectrum and it peaks around 7% in the shortest wavelengths, which has been postulated to affect cloud formation -among other effects- although nothing has been inferred, let alone proved, about it in spite of a generous funding.

The other influences are mostly woo based wrapped in a thinly disguise of science (you may follow Haig arguments on that). They come from a lack of education that, for instance, allows the subject to think that a function, its first derivative, its second derivative and its third derivative are substitutable on demand and freely scalable when argumentation requires it -so they aren't even functions-. In that way, some subtle variations in a narrow section of the spectrum can woo-propagate through the system and produce the desire effect, like an impending ice age, because, you know, why are we to consider something to be a proxy of a diminute something when we can upgrade it to harbinger of important developments?

 

[hgus]

That's about right. It translates in a direct drop of some 0.2°C in global temperatures.

But they might be other influences, because not only there's a feedback from a dryer atmosphere but that 0.25% decline is not uniformly distributed in the whole spectrum and it peaks around 7% in the shortest wavelengths, which has been postulated to affect cloud formation -among other effects- although nothing has been inferred, let alone proved, about it in spite of a generous funding.

The other influences are mostly woo based wrapped in a thinly disguise of science (you may follow Haig arguments on that). They come from a lack of education that, for instance, allows the subject to think that a function, its first derivative, its second derivative and its third derivative are substitutable on demand and freely scalable when argumentation requires it -so they aren't even functions-. In that way, some subtle variations in a narrow section of the spectrum can woo-propagate through the system and produce the desire effect, like an impending ice age, because, you know, why are we to consider something to be a proxy of a diminute something when we can upgrade it to harbinger of important developments?

Thanks for the answer! Am I wrong when I assumes that this is already part of the IPCC report, or will be when it is confirmed we are entering a Maunder Minimum?