Global warming discussion III

[aleCcowaN]

Didn't you state a page or so back, something to the effect "it's best to ignore my posts"

But that has to be reminded in each page, once at the top and once at the bottom .

Maybe I will not longer ignore them, as with your recent posting spree, with its spamming bits, you're close to make mistakes of dire consequences regarding the forum rules.

 

[aleCcowaN]

3 Big Flares, Earthquake Watch | S0 News March 3, 2015

Pleeeeease! more like this one!

If there were more people like you, a bouncer job would be an easy one.

 

[CapelDodger]

Haig and the rest of the self-absorbed rabble at WUWT seem to believe that climate scientists have only just become aware of ocean cycles which climate scientists discovered quite some time ago. You'd have thought they'd have passed the information on to themselves, but according to Watts they didn't. What a strange and confusing little world these people inhabit; it's no wonder they're so angry most of the time.

Soon has retreated to the strange and confused fortress of Heartland which is his natural environment. One can hear the sound of drawbridges being raised all over denier terrain.

 

[varwoche]

It is amazing that Haig does not seem to bother to find about the authors of the sources he relies on.

He is in good(?) company.

 

[Agatha]

The hypothesis that the sun causes earthquakes should be discussed HERE and not in the general GW thread. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Posted By: Agatha

 

[CapelDodger]

It's not like the warmist / alarmist crowd have got much right, so far !

What have climate scientists got wrong?

While you work on that lets consider what you and yours have predicted.

In the 70's and 80's the prediction that there would be no warming. Fail.

In the 90's that the Hansen et al model would prove wrong. Pat Michaels had to lie to Congress to cover that one. The model wasn't exactly right, of course, but has proved to be very close.

Your people's models ... well, there never were any.

In the 2000's that there was about to be cooling. Over and over, always about to happen. Never did, still hasn't.

Natural forcing, the Pause has easily swamped the insignificant additional warming of the tiny (by comparison to nature) AGW.

Warmest year ever last year. What's getting swamped again?

Your focus is on our Co2 as a main factor when Water vapor is such a massive GHG that is way out of our control hardly gets mentioned

So water is leaping up into the atmosphere and staying there because ... well, there's no because there for you, is there?

Atmospheric water vapour is increasing because temperatures are increasing, and temperatures are increasing because of the enhanced greenhouse effect, itself due to human activity.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yesterday was published the remaining update among the most relevant temperature records and it's confirmed: Feb-14 to Jan-15, the warmest 12-month period recorded. We're entering a phase when these records are more likely to be broken on a regular basis -maybe next June, so to speak- than stay a while like in the so-called "pause".

 

[Warmer1]

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

From my information posted above

"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."

In other words you don't really know and yet they are confused.

 

[bit_pattern]

The hypothesis that the sun causes earthquakes should be discussed HERE and not in the general GW thread. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Posted By: Agatha

Wouldn't it be better then to either edit the offending post or move it to the relevant thread?

 

[CapelDodger]

Something I neglected in my post on Failed Denialist Predictions, but is in fact the most common :

"This is the final nail in the coffin of the AGW Hoax".

(Or words to that effect.) The latest inspiration for such is Dr Pachauri's troubles. Really.

I doubt any of the pro-science camp are so naive as to predict the end of AGW denialism under any circumstances.

 

[aleCcowaN]

From my information posted above

"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."

In other words you don't really know and yet they are confused.

In the right words, your post doesn't relate with what you quoted from mine. If you force both text chunks to coexist, they'd say something like "as the trend of 0.2 W/(m2decade) matches model output regarding CO2" [your text] then "there's an overall trend of about 2 W/(m2 decade)" [what I doubt in what you quoted from me]

Your are basically saying: "A and B coexist in the same text. A is true, then B should be true, don't you see it?"

Or you may drop the mask of discussing the content and say "Though clumsily cited, that text comes from an authority. What authority do you have to doubt them?" Because that's the only aspect I see in this conversation. Both scepticism and science have been left aside.

It's simple: show me the trend of 2 watt per square metre and decade that authority is talking about and I will examine it and admit my eventual mistakes. It's important, as that is mentioned ... in the abstract of the very paper!

Do you need a hint? read this, this and this.

I like to highlight that the paper talks about a trend that seasonally varies between 0.1 and 0.2 W/(m2 decade) -fine, now we're talking-, and maybe what the paper suggest is the general trend not being around 2 W/(m2 decade) in the longer term, what would make even more unfortunate those press releases.

 

[lomiller]

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.

Net anthropogenic forcing is ~ 2W/m^2. This includes the warming effect of greenhouse gases and the cooling effect of aerosols. If you look at just the warming factors it's between 3 - 3.5

However since greenhouse gases impact energy leaving the earth in all directions you need to multiply this b y 4 (surface of a sphere/area of a circle) to convert to equivalent solar change.

You also need to account for the fact that 30% of incoming solar energy is reflected into space directly.

incoming solar energy is ~1360W/m^2

This gives us
Net anthropogenic forcing solar equivalent = ~2*4*1/0.7 = ~11.4W/m^2 (0.8%)
Greenhouse forcing = ~13W/m^2 - ~20W/m^2 (0.95% - 1.4%)

So current anthropogenic forcing is already much greater than a Dalton or Maunder Minimum

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

IOW even though global warming is "caused by the big ball of fire in the sky" global warming "isn't due to the the heat from the big ball of fire, it's something else that gets amplified massively by some unknown positive feedback, but not the positive feedback the IPCC, that can't possibly exist, this one is much larger and smart so it knows to not amplify the effect of greenhouse gasses!"

 

[lomiller]

Et tu, Brute

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3823654b974f781521.png[/qimg]

Already debunked.
1) No IPCC scenario, even the ultra high emissions ones result in the trends you are claiming. High trends do exist for very high CO2 emission scenarios, but these high rates occur later in the century when atmospheric CO2 is much higher and still match current observations.

2) you can't pick a "starting point" and plot the trends from there because you lose your y-intercept. You should have learned this in Junior high, you can't use just the slow of 2 lines to compare them, you need the slope and y-intercept.

 

[macdoc]

facing reality ...and preparing for extremes

AS CHAOS from climate change ramps up in the coming decades, making floods, droughts and heatwaves commonplace, Europe will be ready. So says the European Environment Agency, which launched its five-year assessment of the state of Europe's environment in Copenhagen, Denmark, this week.

A key message is that we must prepare now for the catastrophes that will become more frequent if the world warms up as predicted. "Many of the decisions we make today will determine how we are going to live in 2050," said Hans Bruyninckx, executive director of the agency, at the launch of The European Environment State and Outlook 2015.

Unlike other rich nations such as the US and Australia, Europe has embraced the reality of climate change and is blazing a trail in preparation for what is to come. The European Union has agreed to spend 20 per cent of its budget of €960 billion for 2014 to 2020 on mitigating climate change and adapting to its effects. The money is expected to boost efforts to climate-proof Europe. "Countries must decide what to use it on, and make sure it's used properly," says Stéphane Isoard, the agency's specialist on adaptation to climate change.

Dozens of projects are already in various phases of readiness with the help of earlier funding. The top reason cited by 28 out of 30 national authorities for going ahead with such projects is the impact of previous extreme weather events, according to a survey published in October. Next, for 17 out of 30, came the heavy economic costs of storm or flood damage. For example, the European Commission estimates that between 1980 and 2011, floods killed more than 2500 people and adversely affected another 5.5 million in Europe, while causing economic losses exceeding €90 billion.

more
http://www.newscientist.com/article...rail-against-climate-change.html#.VPhcekJ4bHA

 

[Reality Check]

Missed this:

Et tu, Brute

Sorry, Haig, but an non-sourced image from someone who is obviously ignorant is just bad.
Here we have someone who is ignorant enough to think that climate model projections (as used by IPCC) are simple rates. This is wrong. Climate model projections are ensembles of predicted temperatures that depend on the scenario being described. This is why when you look at the actual scientific projections in IPCC reports you do not see straight lines - you see bunches of curves.
The IPCC reports do use overall rates of these projections in descriptions.


Let me guess - a childish attempt as science from Monckton?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Actually, from triple-C, Climate Conservative Consumers, an endless source of funnily twisted graphics, should you need to prepare a class. This hand fan was published there some years ago.

The place is not mentioned much nowadays, as it recycles the same debunked manure all over again: their discovery today was that the Earth was a warmer planet hundreds of million of years ago, with different orbit, different axial tilt, a Sun with a bit different properties and mainly with two immensely vast and deep oceans where both geographical poles were located. And they thank Obama for that (they're kinda prone to publish "deedledey-dee, Obama!")

 

[CapelDodger]

While Haig's preparing his no doubt extensive list of Things Climate Science Got Wrong, here's one to be getting on with :

Arctic sea ice is getting thinner faster than expected
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...a-ice-is-getting-thinner-faster-than-expected

New data compiled from a range of sources – from Navy submarines to satellites – suggests that thinning is happening much faster than models have estimated, according to a study aiming to link those disparate data sources for the first time. University of Washington researchers Ron Lindsay and Axel Schweiger calculated that in the central part of the Arctic Ocean basin, sea ice has thinned by 65% since 1975. During September, when the ice reaches its annual minimum, ice thickness is down by a stunning 85%.

 

[Warmer1]

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

I didn't read the original paper

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

"to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html

The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade

 

[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."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

"to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html

The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade

Match your highlighted text with the text in red. Read the abstracts in the three papers I quoted above -they are footnoted in the very abstract of the paper we're discussing-. Then we have something important to discuss: is that trend of 2 watts per square metre and decade a real one? There's a conceptual problem there from the very beginning and in fact it sounds pretty much "old science". It was that what infuriated me the moment I read "Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time" and started to dig in the press note and paper.

Let's agree that:
* Haig and his wall of links are completely harmless; articles like that are very damaging
* You might give me the credit of not having a 0.2 mistaken as a 2.

 

[macdoc]

El Nino conditions declared finally tho it has been hovering for a good while and Japan declared earlier.

Elusive El Niño arrives: Forecasters predict it will stay weak, have little influence on weather and climate
Date:
March 5, 2015
Source:
NOAA
Summary:
The long-anticipated El Niño has finally arrived, according to forecasters with NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. In their updated monthly outlook released today, forecasters issued an El Niño Advisory to declare the arrival of the ocean-atmospheric phenomenon marked by warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean near the equator.

more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150305152759.htm