• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
aleCcowaN said:
Contrary to others commenting here, I don't see a catastrophe in offices being closed and research resources being redirected, because there's a lot of "oracle syndrome" around. Just think the times we caught here the misdeeds of closeted denialists in official scientific institutions -for instance, the case of the polar sea ice comparison-. Well, there are hundreds or times more misdeeds coming from "warmers" in those.
Click to expand...

There is much more science coming from the warmers than the deniers. There is always going to be research that is wrong. Reducing the amount of product produced is not actually a recognised quality control method that I know of.

Over the long term science is self correcting in contrast to deniers who seem to just keep on putting out the same garbage over and over again.

It also comes down to the reasons for doing complete shutdown of entire areas of research. It wasn't because they are redundant or that they were producing so much poor science they had to be shut down. They were shut down purely for political reasons to keep the deniers and the big businesses happy.

If the Republicans win the Presidency you can guarantee they will do the same thing.
 
a_unique_person said:
There is much more science coming from the warmers than the deniers. There is always going to be research that is wrong. Reducing the amount of product produced is not actually a recognised quality control method that I know of.

Over the long term science is self correcting in contrast to deniers who seem to just keep on putting out the same garbage over and over again.

It also comes down to the reasons for doing complete shutdown of entire areas of research. It wasn't because they are redundant or that they were producing so much poor science they had to be shut down. They were shut down purely for political reasons to keep the deniers and the big businesses happy.

If the Republicans win the Presidency you can guarantee they will do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Denialist, like creationists, are out of the picture in any scientific endevour.

Among people doing climate science there are many overstating their work or the importance of their field of expertise. Just think in the many ways of following Antarctic sea ice. BOM has some people doing that and they published their findings, the database that was probably hacked. Now it is no longer available and I think I lost nothing, other sources get it better in my opinion. I can show you work I was doing to get the Antarctic sea ice extent and area departing from the data transmitted by the MWR instrument from the Argentine satellite SAC-D (the same one that brought to space the Aquarius instrument from NASA). The satellite stop functioning last June (it was expected to last until November 2014) and yet no more reliable nor faster data on sea ice was produced when compared with other groups.

You wouldn't see none of that in the Internet, because here in Argentina the custom is to publish what clearly excels other sources in the world -so we publish little outside the local scope-. On the contrary, I see a lot of one-legged work published from many sources in the Anglosphere, including official sites, so maybe that's the problem. And yet I have troubles finding from the BOM and related institutes new studies relating to Agulhas and West Australian Current and their mutual influence and influence over the WWBs that regulate ENSO (I'll appreciate any help on that).

I don't doubt some opportunistic politicians may take advantage of those defects for the pursue of their personal agendas, but that doesn't make some work less exposed to criticism.

The great mistake is believing that convincing Joe Public about doing something regarding global warming has anything to do with presenting him with better science and debating it with denialists. The path for that goes through education and cultural change, not science. That's why I tend to avoid discussing science here unless it is among well informed people -what doesn't include any denier- that can keep denialists out of their hair.

[By the way, total solar irradiance is now down to 1397.6 and Haig still hasn't explain why the Sun is warming less yet the Earth is going warmer in this very moment]
 
nota said:
how is our star ?

are they still predicting a weakening solar cycle ?

how much less recent heat input ?
Click to expand...

The energy delta from solar variation is quite low compared to what it takes to warm/cool the planet. Even if you only look at the top 100m of the world’s oceans. The amount of heat it takes to warm them 0.1 deg per decade are an order of magnitude large than the difference in energy received during the high and low half of the 11 year solar cycle.
 
Then why trot out old news.

New supercomputer to supercharge weather warnings and forecasts
21/07/2015

Weather forecasts and warnings across the country will be more accurate and delivered faster thanks to a new supercomputer for the Bureau of Meteorology. The signing of a US$59 million contract with global supercomputer leader Cray Inc was announced today.

Funding for the new supercomputer had been announced by the Australian Government in the 2014-15 Federal Budget.

The supercomputer will significantly increase the Bureau’s current supercomputing power, delivering about 16 times the capacity of the current computer.

This will enable the Bureau to issue forecasts and warnings more often and with greater certainty and precision than ever before, giving the community and emergency services unprecedented information, particularly prior to and during severe and extreme weather.

Bureau services are vital in warning of weather associated with bushfires, thunderstorms, tropical cyclones, flooding, rain, and dangerous winds; and providing the information people need to plan and act in response.

They are also essential to the economic livelihood of the nation, including for the construction, resources, agriculture and marine industries and those who keep our international trade routes open; and to the nation’s defence forces which depend on a wide range of the Bureau’s products, ranging from specialist forecasts for pilots to ocean forecasts for naval operations.

The purchase of the supercomputer will ensure the Bureau is well positioned to continue to provide these essential forecast and warning services.

Procurement and installation of this vital piece of national infrastructure is on track for delivery in mid-2016.
Click to expand...

BOM promises better seasonal forecasting
February 5, 2016

Better forecasting technology is more than just a whisper on the breeze, with the BOM’s new supercomputer set to be operational by the end of the year.
Better forecasting technology is more than just a whisper on the breeze, with the BOM’s new supercomputer set to be operational by the end of the year.
Farmers and growers often find themselves at the mercy of Mother Nature, but her movements are about to become easier to predict with improved seasonal forecasting.
The Bureau of Meteorology will invest $3.3 million to improve the accuracy and frequency of seasonal projections in order to aid agriculturalists in Australia.
Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Barnaby Joyce, said the new technology aims to give farmers more accurate and localised forecasting information.
“Accurate, detailed and frequent climate outlooks are a vital tool for our farmers in managing risk and informing business decisions, supporting better returns at the farmgate,” said Minister Joyce.
“It’s been estimated that the potential value to the agriculture sector of improved seasonal forecasts is more than $1 billion each year.” While currently relying on infrequent monthly updates, farmers can look forward to weekly forecasts at a higher modelling resolution.
Click to expand...

http://maranoaplusmore.com.au/bom-promises-better-seasonal-forecasting/

Perhaps staff levels are not the issue given there is a shift in focus.
You can cease beating on Abbott....he's gone and without his PM pension perks secured.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Denialist, like creationists, are out of the picture in any scientific endevour.

Among people doing climate science there are many overstating their work or the importance of their field of expertise. Just think in the many ways of following Antarctic sea ice. BOM has some people doing that and they published their findings, the database that was probably hacked. Now it is no longer available and I think I lost nothing, other sources get it better in my opinion. I can show you work I was doing to get the Antarctic sea ice extent and area departing from the data transmitted by the MWR instrument from the Argentine satellite SAC-D (the same one that brought to space the Aquarius instrument from NASA). The satellite stop functioning last June (it was expected to last until November 2014) and yet no more reliable nor faster data on sea ice was produced when compared with other groups.

You wouldn't see none of that in the Internet, because here in Argentina the custom is to publish what clearly excels other sources in the world -so we publish little outside the local scope-. On the contrary, I see a lot of one-legged work published from many sources in the Anglosphere, including official sites, so maybe that's the problem. And yet I have troubles finding from the BOM and related institutes new studies relating to Agulhas and West Australian Current and their mutual influence and influence over the WWBs that regulate ENSO (I'll appreciate any help on that).

I don't doubt some opportunistic politicians may take advantage of those defects for the pursue of their personal agendas, but that doesn't make some work less exposed to criticism.

The great mistake is believing that convincing Joe Public about doing something regarding global warming has anything to do with presenting him with better science and debating it with denialists. The path for that goes through education and cultural change, not science. That's why I tend to avoid discussing science here unless it is among well informed people -what doesn't include any denier- that can keep denialists out of their hair.

[By the way, total solar irradiance is now down to 1397.6 and Haig still hasn't explain why the Sun is warming less yet the Earth is going warmer in this very moment]
Click to expand...

You don't have to scan the internet much to realise that there is a lot of active debate going on among scientists who are all 'warmers' but disagree vehemently on the details of the science, such as what are realistic estimates of climate sensitivity. Hanson is not any sort of a god to them, either.
 
lomiller said:
The energy delta from solar variation is quite low compared to what it takes to warm/cool the planet. Even if you only look at the top 100m of the world’s oceans. The amount of heat it takes to warm them 0.1 deg per decade are an order of magnitude large than the difference in energy received during the high and low half of the 11 year solar cycle.
Click to expand...

yes in the recent past that was true

but if we go to a Maunder Minimum type event as some are predicting
then no

and all stars are subject to variation
and our's looks to be entering a period of increasing variation
after a time of minimum variation in recent history
 
nota said:
yes in the recent past that was true

but if we go to a Maunder Minimum type event as some are predicting
then no

and all stars are subject to variation
and our's looks to be entering a period of increasing variation
after a time of minimum variation in recent history
Click to expand...

This is kind of off topic so I'll be brief.

Which do you expect, a Maunder type minimum or increasing variation?

Can't have both.

But I think along the same lines as Lomiller, it won't make a difference in this years sea ice trajectory.
 
nota said:
yes in the recent past that was true

but if we go to a Maunder Minimum type event as some are predicting
then no

and all stars are subject to variation
and our's looks to be entering a period of increasing variation
after a time of minimum variation in recent history
Click to expand...

A Maunder Minimum is roughly comparable to the drop off between peak and minimum in the solar cycle, it just lasts longer. This change in energy flux is only enough to account for a couple hundredths of a degree per decade in ocean warming. This is consistent with Paleo-climate evidence which events like the Little Ice age had warming/cooling of 0.5 deg C over a couple hundred years. This is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the current trend.

The energy flux changes due to solar variation even a Maunder Minimum is simply far to small to be the cause of current trends. The energy budget simply doesn’t work.
 
lomiller said:
The energy flux delta just isn’t higher enough to melt ice sheets or warm oceans on a decadal scale let alone a yearly scale.
Click to expand...

Agreed,

let me say I understand there is a correlation between sun spot number and solar output.

And neither affect sea ice very much on a short or long term basis.
 
Arnold Martin said:
The politics of graph making.
Click to expand...
Actually, Arnold Martin: politics of denial about climate change leads to ignorance about climate science :p.
The graph in
Pixel42 said:
Just a reminder.

[qimg]http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm222/Pixel42/Global_Temperature_Anomaly_svg.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...
is a plot of temperature anomalies, not temperature. It shows the ~1.2°C increase in temperature since the 1880's. Using temperature anomalies is standard practice in climate science.
Positives and negatives of global warming
It takes a 2°C increase in temperature to produce adverse effects.
It takes a 4°C increase in temperature to produce catastrophic effects (up to 40% of global species will be at risk for extinction!).
 
bobdroege7 said:
This is kind of off topic so I'll be brief.

Which do you expect, a Maunder type minimum or increasing variation?

Can't have both.

But I think along the same lines as Lomiller, it won't make a difference in this years sea ice trajectory.
Click to expand...

a change to a lower state Maunder type minimum
is a variation from the resent normal regular cycle :confused:
 
Arnold Martin said:
.

18 minute documentary from 2014
....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/polar-bears-threatened-species-or-political-pawn-1.2753645

.
Click to expand...
.


Polar bears: Threatened species or political pawn?
Embeds a video with some rather dumb statements. Churchill has a lot of polar bears because they see the town as a source of food. Tourists come to see them and get lectures about the obvious fact that decreasing sea ice will impact polar bear numbers.
The journalistic "present both sides" fallacy with an obvious bias. The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group stance is that overall polar bear numbers are decreasing.
Andrew Derocher states out the obvious - a big population of bears around a town is suggestive of hungry bears. He points out the conservation efforts have increased at least one population of bears. But that decreasing sea ice will change that.
The reporter then presents dissenting and dubious opinions.
A web page stating no marked decline has been observed is not stating there has been no decline!
A Minister of Environment who is a hunter and wants his children to hunt has a bias.
Biologist Mitchell Taylor's ignorance of biology does not justify his opinion. Bears adapted to previous changes in climate because those changes were slow. They are less likely to adapt to the current warming because that is happening in scales of decades, not centuries. Paranoia about being exuded from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group? He is a climate change denier (our CO2 emissions are not causing warming). But this is more down to a biologist ignorant about climate science making ignorant statements.

The science is How will global warming affect polar bears?
Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species....
To get an idea of the potential impacts of future climate change on polar bears, we can look at subpopulations found at the bears’ southern range, where habitat changes have been most noticeable so far. A good example is the western Hudson Bay subpopulation, which is one of the best studied. Here, ice floe break-up is taking place earlier than 30 years ago, effectively reducing the feeding period by about three weeks. As a result, the average weight of female polar bears has dropped by about 21% between 1980 and 2004, and the population declined by 22% between 1987 and 2004. In Alaska, there is evidence of increased cub mortality caused by a decline in sea ice.

In conclusion, the reason polar bears have been classed as threatened comes from the impacts of future climate change on the bears’ habitat. Current analysis of subpopulations where data is sufficient clearly shows that those subpopulations are mainly in decline. Further habitat degradation will increase the threats to polar bears.
Click to expand...


Arnold Martin did not understand what the politics of polar bears is. It is the wish to project a picture of sustainable numbers of polar bears for hunting and tourism interests.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom