Global warming discussion III

[bit_pattern]

Fortuitously relevant

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...en-global-warming-and-extreme-weather-events/

The subtle — but real — relationship between global warming and extreme weather events

 

[lomiller]

See how long it took to "forget" the debunking of graphs like this one...

It may not make sense to do it, but it is what the deniers are doing. For example in the IPCC sceanarioes in the graphic you provided they would do something like this.

1) Look at the averge rate or warming per decade from 2000 - 2100 for the scenario and get a value a little over 0.35 deg/decade.

2) Start from a point in the late 90's where actual temperatures are over the scenario result, and draw a line with that slope. (added in red)

3) Then they go on to draw their own "pause" starting at around the same time "here is the real tend since 2000!" (added in blue)

4) don't show the actual IPCC scenario result and then claim that because their line is over the actual measurement the IPCC is overestimating warming.

The problem is that their representation of the IPCC scenario result is MUCH higher than the actual scenario result at all points.

 

[The Atheist]

Evidently it is. More's the pity.

You missed the point, but that doesn't surprise me at all. I've been deeply involved in the climate science debate since the late 1980s and have no need of any instruction.

-- You are labouring under the misapprehension someone somewhere predicted "with a high degree of certainty"

No. No misapprehension. It actually happened. The IPCC released a finding that showed there would be more cyclones and hurricanes.

That has since been shown to be false and they are now saying there will be more severe storms. They might even be right.

-- You argued that because heat wave temperature extremes were supposedly higher 50 years ago that current events aren't being caused by climate change

Wrong again. I was using it as an example of false conclusion.

-- You argued that science should "prove" things...

Nomenclature. Prove/display/show/provide evidence - take your pick.

 

[CapelDodger]

You missed the point, but that doesn't surprise me at all. I've been deeply involved in the climate science debate since the late 1980s and have no need of any instruction.

Opinions may differ.

No. No misapprehension. It actually happened. The IPCC released a finding that showed there would be more cyclones and hurricanes.

The IPCC is not a court and does not issue "findings". It issues reports which summarise the science as currently understood, and since there has never been a concensus on how AGW will affect the frequency of storms the IPCC has never "found" one way or the other. There is a concensus that the intensity of storms will increase as ocean surfaces warm, but that's a no-brainer.

That has since been shown to be false and they are now saying there will be more severe storms. They might even be right.

Of course there has always been a concensus amongst the AGW denialati that climate scientists are predicting more storms because said scientists are alarmist and, well, that's what alarmists would say, isn't it?

 

[macdoc]

The IPCC released a finding that showed there would be more cyclones and hurricanes.

News to me....I've been following this for decades and the only commentary I've seen on hurricanes is...

more of the severe category storms....borne out
more rainfall intensity ....borne out

Possibly fewer Atlantic storms due to wind shear ....still a maybe.

All cyclonic storms are heat engines so warm SSTs means more powerful storms, more intense storms but not necessarily more storms.

Also the range of cyclonic storms is expanding...

 

[The Atheist]

The IPCC is not a court and does not issue "findings".

Lots of places outside of courts issue findings, but it's still just semantics as to what you call it.

 

[Trakar]

You missed the point, but that doesn't surprise me at all. I've been deeply involved in the climate science debate since the late 1980s and have no need of any instruction.

Exactly where and how have you been "deeply involved in the climate science debate?" This a concern given your demonstrated manner of discussion here, especially given your propensity to make assertions without citing supporting references and to make statements like the above which seem to indicate that you know everything of importance there is to know about the subject and there is nothing more that you feel you should learn to advance and improve your understanding.

No. No misapprehension. It actually happened. The IPCC released a finding that showed there would be more cyclones and hurricanes.

That has since been shown to be false and they are now saying there will be more severe storms. They might even be right.

The IPCC doesn't make these determinations, they are predominantly catalogers of science; the IPCC itself doesn't do research. One of the main reasons that there are shifts of IPCC consideration from one report to the next is that the weight of new research forces revisions of understandings. Saying that any previous assessments were "false" or even "flawed" is only something that can be determined in retrospect and generally not until after two to three climatically relevant periods have passed and observations can be compared to earlier understandings and projections.

Nomenclature. Prove/display/show/provide evidence - take your pick.

Your ability to casually conflate these terms is counter-productive to your attempt to "prove" expertise, or even basic competence, with regard to the serious discussion of this or any other scientific field of understanding.

 

[Reality Check]

‘Prediction’ or ‘projection’? The nomenclature of climate science.

Oh dear, Haig - you think semantic arguments are science !

In the meanwhile you continue to spread lies about climate science with not sourced and obviously deluded images, Haig.
The reality does match the models: How reliable are climate models?

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations

 

[Reality Check]

...h/tip to Jtom

H/tip to a continued state of ignorance about climate science leading to citing someone really ignorant, Haig!
AGW never stopped so it is rather delusional of the WUWT author to state that it will start again !

And now I see where that lying image came from - WUWT is repeating a graph that John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources. It looks like the idiocy of selecting 102 IPCC graphs (from the last AR?) and comparing them to observations. That is stupid without considering the scenarios involved - there should be multiple projections on that graph or a statement of which scenario was selected. Where are the even more reliable surface measurements of temperatures? Why does the graph extend up to 2025 (10 years of no observations!). Why only CMIP-5 climate models? Why only 2 out of several satellite datasets?

The implication without more information is John Christy has cherry picked the data to create a false picture of models not matching observations.

ETA: Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing suggest actual cherry picking - that graph is of mid-troposphere temperatures (we live in the in the lower troposphere). We know that climate models match surface and lower troposphere temperatures. The data for the mid-troposphere is less reliable and maybe models do not get the vertical distribution of temperatures correct.

 

[bit_pattern]

You missed the point, but that doesn't surprise me at all. I've been deeply involved in the climate science debate since the late 1980s and have no need of any instruction.



No. No misapprehension. It actually happened. The IPCC released a finding that showed there would be more cyclones and hurricanes.

That has since been shown to be false and they are now saying there will be more severe storms. They might even be right.

Nomenclature. Prove/display/show/provide evidence - take your pick.

You're shifting the goal posts. You said a "high degree of certainty". What the IPCC said was "more likely than not" - you've changed the meaning from a 50/50 chance to an 80% chance, then you have the chutzpah to hand wave it all away as "nomenclature". Yes, words mean things, they have very precise meanings in this case. And the reason that is important is that when it comes to heatwaves the confidence has ALWAYS been higher, modelling storms and rainfall is among the most complex tasks climate scientists have, but modelling heatwaves is relatively straightforward. That's why the confidence range for heatwaves is an actual (not a made up, as it was in your argument) "high". When it comes to attribution analyses, they also are able to fingerprint events like this with quite high rates of statistical confidence. So when someone links a heatwave event to climate change, that is nothing at all like a denier citing examples of cold weather as disproving climate change, and your tendency to start hand waving every time somebody mentions weather events in this thread is clearly an artefact of your very clear misunderstandings.

 

[Reality Check]

...repeat of three lying images snipped...

And we are back to spreading lies about climate science in images, Haig! I did think that you had learned about one denier lie but that is not the case:
11th May 2015 Haig: 2. A lie by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data.

A repeat of 11th May 2015 Haig: 3. The stupidity of thinking that climate projections are straight lines.

And now what may be a John Christy image lying about the reliability of climate models: 2 June 2015 Haig: Is that an image from John Christy that may be lying about the reliability of climate models?

ETA: Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing

John Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville is one of the fewer than 3% of climate scientists who publishes research suggesting that humans aren’t the primary cause of the current global warming. He’s thus become one of Republicans’ favorite expert witnesses. ...
Christy Manufactures Doubt on Model Accuracy
Given that the hearing was ostensibly about environmental policy, most of the witnesses were policy experts. John Christy was the lone climate scientist invited to testify. His testimony focused on manufacturing doubt about the accuracy of climate models, climate change impacts, and about individual American projects’ contributions to global warming. On the accuracy of climate models, Christy played rather fast and loose with the facts, saying in his written testimony (emphasis added),
...

 

[Reality Check]

Nope, here is the case ... ..snipped yet another link to a crank YouTube channel ...

Citing a crank YouTube channel run by Ben Davidson (an electric universe crank!) is a case for denial of climate science , Haig: 13 May 2015 Haig: The fantasies about climate or earthquakes of Suspicious0bservers are not scientific evidence!

That global warming is natural variability has been comprehensive debunked by the climate science that you are denying Haig. AGW has been going on for over a century now for a start
The slower rise in global surface temperatures lately is natural variability - and now the problem is the possibility for the variability to swing the other way as natural variability does! 2014 is agreed to have been the hottest year globally on record. 2015 is shaping up to be at least as warm.

 

[Reality Check]

Which is the exact equivalent of a denier saying there's no global warming because it snowed in Chicago.

I am curious, The Atheist.
Where in this post by bit_pattern which just consists of a link and a images does he state that it was caused by global warming?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...g-in-india-is-this-a-glimpse-of-earths-future...snipped image...

The news article makes it clear that is not the case

It is hard to say for sure whether any single extreme weather event is a result of manmade climate change, but this is a scenario we should get used to seeing more of, scientists say. As the effects of climate change take hold and global temperatures creep up, extreme heat events will become more common.

Though later posts suggest that you understand that this was an example of a possible effect of global warming.

 

[Reality Check]

More reason not to trust WUWT: Comment fakery at WUWT Posted by William M. Connolley on May 29, 2015 where a link was changed to point to another place in a web site, the original was restored, the fake came back and a complaint about this ignored.

 

[Reality Check]

A presentation of climate science: Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming

The slowdown in global warming is a subject of intense study. Is it a real physical effect, or a few chance cool years, or something more complex? Could it have been predicted? Can we understand it in retrospect? The following lecture and commentary from the Denial101x course attempt to summarize recent work on the subject. However it is a very fast-moving field, so this summary can only cover a small fraction of the material and will quickly become out-of-date (if it is not already so).

 

[Trakar]

A presentation of climate science: Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming

I tend to think that with respect to the so called "hiatus," we are looking more at an artifact of short-term natural variation (the "culprit" in many/most of these studies), which is why climate science prefers to look at climatically relevant periods. with 3 decades considered the minimal and multiple centuries considered the better standard for discussing climate. Of course this faces the problem that no standard geologic study of climate has a parallel for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 over a century and a half (much less the doubling time of several decades that we are approaching at our currently accelerating rate of emissions).

 

[The Atheist]

You're shifting the goal posts. You said a "high degree of certainty". What the IPCC said was "more likely than not"...

No. Their original position definitely included that phrase and if I cared enough I'd try to find the original statement, but as it's 10-15 years ago, I doubt it would be easy to find.

... your tendency to start hand waving every time somebody mentions weather events in this thread...

Strawman much?

I note that this thread is up to the third incarnation, with many thousands of posts and I have pointed out one instance.

Yeah, hand-waving every time.

On the other hand, the frequency of repeated information gives me a good idea as to the originality and perspicacity of the pro-science team in the thread.

The funny part is that you are achieving absolutely nothing. You haven't budged a single denier (I saw someone using the non-word "denialist" which did make me chuckle) from his or her position. You're essentially being played by trolls and think you're scoring points.

My interest in climate change these days is much more focused on why deniers deny the science than failing to persuade them they're wrong.

One point for you to think about is: how many countries have taken positive action on climate to date? Don't count China, because their actions have been to do with China's pollution and the benefits to the climate are ancillary to that. The number of people who actively care about the climate warming is vanishingly small, because doing something will require vast sums of money being spent for no short-term gain.

 

[Reality Check]

The number of people who actively care about the climate warming is vanishingly small, because doing something will require vast sums of money being spent for no short-term gain.

Which is not right, The Atheist, because you have only half the equation: "vast sums of money" with "vast amounts of profit".
If we look at carbon pricing: The economic impacts of carbon pricing

Climate economics research shows that in reality, we are harming the economy by failing to implement CO2 limits.

or the intermediate version:

Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.

(my emphasis added)

As for the number of people who actively care being "vanishingly small", I would say that the number of people just in environmental groups and Green political particles is a non-vanishing number .

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The number of people who actively care about the climate warming is vanishingly small, because doing something will require vast sums of money being spent for no short-term gain.

actually it's mostly a zero sum game ....say start by eliminating the 5+ Trillion in fossil fuel subsidies.....

Fossil fuels get global $5.3 trillion 'subsidy': IMF report ... - CBC
www.cbc.ca/.../fossil-fuels-get-global-5-3-trillion-subsidy-imf-report-1.307...
May 19, 2015 - The IMF estimates China is subsidizing fossil fuels $2.3 trillion a year by ... Only about one quarter of the damage the IMF estimates is from ...

It matters very little how many people "care" ( they do but you are swallowing koolaid ).....it matters how many people with the power to act on it do.

In the case of China...

China To Cap Coal Use By 2020 To Meet Game-Changing ...
thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/.../china-climate-target-peak-coal-2020/
Nov 19, 2014 - The Chinese government announced Wednesday it would cap coal use by 2020. This staggering reversal of decades of Chinese energy policy ...

US

EPA Rules To Force 85 Coal-Fired Generators To Close By ...
dailycaller.com/2015/.../epa-rules-to-force-85-coal-fired-generators-to-cl...
Mar 10, 2015 - EPA Rules To Force 85 Coal-Fired Generators To Close By The End ... of the 2015 and 2016 retirements are directly a result of EPA rules, we ..

Ontario - First Place in North America to End Coal-Fired Power
news.ontario.ca/.../ontario---first-place-in-north-america-to-end-coal-fire...
Nov 21, 2013 - Ontario is one step closer to being the first place in North America to eliminate coal as a source of electricity generation.

there are many many others......

Sweden will be carbon neutral by 2050 and is well on the way now.

Bottom line the world is moving on .....time for you to.

Investors and banks are pulling out of fossil...

No more fossil fuels, no more KfW funding for new coal ...
https://campaigns.gofossilfree.org/.../no-more-fossil-fuels-no-more-kfw-f...
No more fossil fuels, no more KfW funding for new coal projects! To: KfW - the biggest national development bank world wide and owned by the German ...

even the Rockefeller family...

Heirs to Rockefeller oil fortune divest from fossil fuels over ...
www.theguardian.com › Environment › Fossil fuel divestment
Sep 22, 2014 - Peter O'Neill, head of the Rockefeller family and ... But the Rockefellers' decision to cut their ties with oil lends the divestment ... looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in clean, renewable energy. ... 150 countries – also pulled its investments from fossil fuels on Monday.

the people with the power care......that's all that matters....

This might surprise you...

Where in the US Are People Most Worried About Climate Change?
by Shannon Hall, Staff Writer | April 20, 2015 08:08am ET
129

39

228
Submit
295
Reddit


Pin It Estimated percent of adults in each county who are worried about global warming.
Credit: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
View full size image
Residents in California are much more worried about the warming planet than those in parts of the central United States, according to a new set of interactive maps showing public opinion on climate change.

As a nation, 63 percent of Americans think the planet is warming and 48 percent of Americans think these changes are caused by humans. But "Americans don't speak with a single voice on the issue," said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and co-author of the new paper published online April 6 in the journal Nature Climate Change. "In fact, there's a tremendous diversity across the country about it."

http://www.livescience.com/50529-climate-change-opinions-map.html

as I said....time to put the failed What Me Worry meme to rest and move on to dealing with reality.

 

[bit_pattern]

No. Their original position definitely included that phrase and if I cared enough I'd try to find the original statement, but as it's 10-15 years ago, I doubt it would be easy to find.

You made a statement, you supported it with a source, that source very clearly said "more likely than not" and explained that the phrase means slightly more than 50/50. It really doesn't get any more straightforward.