Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Trakar]

Clearly I have stated multiple times that large scale cooling trends for the NH winters is not a prediction of the current climate models.

Please provide supporting evidence for "large scale cooling trends for NH winters."* The major error in your statement primarily revolves upon the manner of your statement which implies that climate models should be able to accurately predict specific regional and seasonal anomalies within a greater overall global range within at scales smaller than climatically relevant periods.

*((note there is a major substantive difference between "some isolated areas in the NH that experience cooler than expected sporadic episodes within the last decade," and "large scale cooling trends for NH winters."))

 

[macdoc]

Hurricanes and cyclones...

Global warming may fuel stronger hurricanes whose winds whip up faster, new research suggests.

Hurricanes and other tropical cyclones across the globe reach Category 3 wind speeds nearly nine hours earlier than they did 25 years ago, the study found. In the North Atlantic, the storms have shaved almost a day (20 hours) off their spin-up to Category 3, the researchers report. (Category 3 hurricanes have winds between 111 and 129 mph, or 178 and 208 kph.)

"Storms are intensifying at a much more rapid pace than they used to 25 years back," said climatologist Dev Niyogi, a professor at Purdue University in Indiana and senior author of the study.

http://www.livescience.com/23003-hurricanes-increase-intensity-global-warming.html

 

[DC]

More lies.

The "assertions" are actually from the links, not the other way around. Just as the commentary about how some people here denied there was a "Theory of Global Warming", (Or AGW theory, theory of AGW,)



That's why the complete avoidance of discussing it is so funny. You can't very well say it isn't true, I post the links to right where it was clearly stated.


Yet over and over again the regulars, who simply never stop posting, are quiet about it.


All the goings on about it all, yet the basic theory, and how we know it is true, are ignored.


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004january/

you are the one here doing the ignoring, ignoring of questions posed to you and the evidence for AGW or that people actually explained to you several times what AGW means.......

 

[macdoc]

hi-lo records

You know what would be really useful for something like this? A chart giving the global percentage of high/low temperature readings that are records, organized by year. If it increases over time (or even if it remains relatively stable, since the length of the historical record and therefore the number and range of old readings against which you are comparing them are also increasing), that would go a long way towards proving an increase in extreme weather events. Otherwise you simply have too much of a recency effect.

Some nations like Australia have very extensive records going back a long ways and even the US does as well.

The difficulty is in teasing out for any specific region an AGW signal that overides natural variability when it comes to weather.

Generally NASA/NOAA GISS etc can give global picture but even there there are some limitations as to coverage especially in the Arctic where AGW is magnified.

There is some information here
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/

 

[lomiller]

Now there is the kind of thing that should be simple to just show. Show the data.

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.full

Sunspots don't tell the whole story.

Indeed they don’t. You realize that Sunspots are one of those proxies you just finished telling us to ignore?

You also realize that going from 0 Sunspots to 200 Sunspots on only represents a change of ~1W/m^2 at the top of atmosphere? After accounting for geometry and albedo this is less than 0.2 W/m^2 equivalent greenhouse forcing, or an order of magnitude smaller than what current human activity has caused.

 

[Yerushalmi]

I'm not sure I would count Al Gore as the idiotic fringe. He got it mostly right in his film, although as far as I know, he presented the worst case scenario in many instances.

Presenting the worst case scenario as the most likely scenario makes you the idiotic fringe. Particularly because, given that the worst case scenario is by its very nature unlikely, it makes you look like Harold Camping when it repeatedly doesn't come true, and discredits all of global warming theory in the public eye.

That's when you trust the consensus. If you do not have time, cannot be bothered, or do not have the necessary eucation to read and understand the science, the fact that almost all of the scientists in the relevant field agree upon the basic facts of AGW is overwhelming reason to accept it.

Usually, yes. It's difficult to do so, though, when I'm politically right-wing, and so am exposed to (but do not have the time to investigate) a constant bombardment of anti-AGW arguments.

If you look back though this topic I think you will have a hard time finding examples of people pointing to a warm weather event as evidence for global warming.
(...)
In cases where no such evidence is present I think you will find the people defending the science suggesting AGW are in fact the same people doing the reminding that weather isn’t climate EVEN FOR WARM EVENTS.

I was referring to the media, not this thread. Global warming advocates on the op ed pages are always using warm events to claim weather = climate when it is convenient for them. Since I read right-wing opinion pieces, I see such claims quoted and ridiculed on a near-daily basis.

Since the best evidence suggests global warming will not increase hurricane frequency, this seems doubtful.

Search Google for ""global warming" "more hurricanes"". You'll find dozens of people making that very claim (interspersed with the occasional scientist trying to protest that "stronger" is not the same thing as "more").

Bad example. Sandy hitting New York was the direct result of something called a blocking event. While blocking events do occur naturally, they are rare, rare enough that probability one occurring at the same time as a hurricane is near zero. Blocking events are expected to be, and have been observed to be much more common, as has the severe weather they can bring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_(meteorology) doesn't make this sound very rare. Got a source?

 

[lomiller]

[qimg]http://www.godzillafacepalm.com/1.jpg[/qimg]

So anecdotes, even correctly used, are suddenly an issue for the guy who’s been pushing anecdotes for 20 pages?

Ironically, your faceplam was accurate, even if it wasn’t quite the way you intended

 

[Yerushalmi]

Some nations like Australia have very extensive records going back a long ways and even the US does as well.

The difficulty is in teasing out for any specific region an AGW signal that overides natural variability when it comes to weather.

Generally NASA/NOAA GISS etc can give global picture but even there there are some limitations as to coverage especially in the Arctic where AGW is magnified.

There is some information here
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/

It wouldn't be perfect, but if you weighted the results based on how long a given temperature station showing a record had been active prior to that record, you'd probably get some useful data.

(ETA: I opened the Royal Society link you provided earlier, will read through during lunch tomorrow unless I get bored and have time to read it earlier.)

 

[Haig]

So modulation of the Sun is the reason for the pause and climate change - not us

"What modulates our Sun? The majority of science work on the principle that the Sun is self modulating and each solar cycle is a product of a random number generator. There are others that suspect the Sun is modulated by the planets with a special emphasis on Uranus & Neptune."

Are Uranus & Neptune Responsible for Solar Grand Minima and Solar Cycle Modulation?

ABSTRACT
Detailed solar Angular Momentum (AM) graphs produced from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) DE405 ephemeris display cyclic perturbations that show a very strong correlation with prior solar activity slowdowns. These same AM perturbations also occur simultaneously with known solar path changes about the Solar System Barycentre (SSB). The AM perturbations can be measured and quantified allowing analysis of past solar cycle modulations along with the 11,500 year solar proxy records (14C & 10Be). The detailed AM information also displays a recurring wave of modulation that aligns very closely with the observed sunspot record since 1650. The AM perturbation and modulation is a direct product of the outer gas giants (Uranus & Neptune). This information gives the opportunity to predict future grand minima along with normal solar cycle strength with some confidence. A proposed mechanical link between solar activity and planetary influence via a discrepancy found in solar/planet AM along with current AM perturbations indicate solar cycle 24 & 25 will be heavily reduced in sunspot activity resembling a similar pattern to solar cycles 5 & 6 during the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830).

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513&#reference

 

[Haig]

Watch the USA in ‘polar vortex’ deep freeze – live

Can you believe 18F in Atlanta (midday) at the time of this writing? Low temperature records are being shattered in many USA cities with cold records outnumbering warm records almost 5 to 1.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/watch-the-usa-in-polar-vortex-deep-freeze-live/#more-100660

 

[lomiller]

Sure, SC24 is much weaker than predicted and SC25 is forecast to be weaker still.

The new solar minimum has been named The Landscheidt Minimum and as it has in previous minimums earth's climate is expected to fall into another LIA like it did in the Maunder Minimum.

Well that explains "the pause" and it does seem they have it right ...
[qimg]http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sunssbam1620to2180gs.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.landscheidt.info/images/powerwave3.png[/qimg]
http://www.landscheidt.info/

None of this supports your claim for a climate impact. No one questions that sunspot activity changes over time, what you need to do is show how dark spots on the sun are changing climate here on earth.

 

[macdoc]

Except as been shown before innumerable times the solar swings and roundabouts are a magnitude below GHG influence so at best the sun has a 10% or so influence that is cyclical and is certainly not responsible for either the pause in atmospheric warming ( the ocean has not paused - in reality it has sped up in warming ).

Nor is slightly weak sun responsible for GW. You are just grasping at straws with this thesis of solar dominance of climate change.

IN fact they are moving in opposite directions...

 

[Haig]

Nearly right

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That is a very interesting point, and quite different than the issue of evidence for AGW theory. But, and this is massively interesting, what you pointed out is also evidence that it isn't CO2 forced warming we are observing.

Not really. In fact it varies only in the slightest detail from AGW. CO2 most certainly is a primary driver. The difference only being that Natures way of dealing with an increase of atmospheric CO2 has been compromised. With a correlation specifically to changes made in agriculture during the "green revolution".

Therefor the solution is to fix to the best of our ability those ecological biomes that have an ecosystem service of sequestering CO2, develop new agricultural biomes that mimic that ecosystem service, or reduce emitting CO2 in our fossil fuel use.... or preferably and most likely a combination of all three.

 

[uke2se]

Are you going to engage in discussion over any of the many many refutations of your links, Haig, or are you going to continue your mindless spamming?

 

[macdoc]

Watch the USA in ‘polar vortex’ deep freeze – live
Quote:
Can you believe 18F in Atlanta (midday) at the time of this writing? Low temperature records are being shattered in many USA cities with cold records outnumbering warm records almost 5 to 1.

so what?? it's a cold excursion from a wavering jet stream. It's called weather. You know it DOES get cold when there is no sun in the Arctic.

The one aspect of AGW is the stalling highs which allow the cold to build and then when events like this happen it's severe.

There have been other deep cold records set in the last decades as highs stall out.

I notice Haig doesn't attirbute the Steve Goddard crank site. typical fudge.

 

[Yerushalmi]

Here's an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. I got linked to this by a right-wing blog I read:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/time-magazine-goes-both-ways-on-the-polar-vortex/

I'm of course aware that progress made in science over four decades often turns things on their head, but it really reflects badly on AGW. What am I supposed to do with this sort of information? The natural conclusion is that Time Magazine is full of it. (This is not of course an unfamiliar statement.) But how much do actual scientists back what Time is trying to claim here?

 

[Trakar]

How is a scientifically-minded person supposed to see through all this nonsense to the truth?

Go to scientific sources and investigate how climate science understands and explains what you seem to find perplexing. The problem with many different scientific explanations is that they are calibrated to be comprehended by a variety of groups of people with varying levels understandings and scientific acumen. While general lay explanations may actually be somewhat incorrect in how they represent the basic science, they do provide an understandable approximation of the science formatted for an audience who really has no scientific education or training beyond what they did or did not pick up in a sixth grade general science class forty years ago.

People capable of pointing out the flaws in this general explanation however, sometimes try to give the impression that pointing out these general explanation inaccuracies somehow refutes or indicates serious flaws in the actual science instead of grasping that they are merely pointing out explanation simplifications that were made in order to get the general gist of their understandings across to people who have little or no real science education or background. The main issue is that in order to really understand any complex scientific issue, you have to be willing to devote a lot of time and effort into researching the topic. For issues such as climate change, even for an interested lay person, this can easily amount to years of reading books, papers and even taking classes on the topic in order to get a good handle on the science and the data that come together in climate science.

One doesn't have to go this far to understand the basics, but if you don't expend at least this amount of time and effort researching such a topic, it is, at best, hubris to think that you understand such a topic better than the professionals who have devoted the previous 3-4+ decades of their lives being educated in, performing research in, and working within, a specific field of science.

If you'd like some references to help improve your understanding, I'd be happy to share some with you.

 

[Belz...]

[qimg]http://www.godzillafacepalm.com/1.jpg[/qimg]

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to admit that you misrepresented my post. No shame in that. I'm quite willing to do the same with you, if you can similarily demonstrate that I've misrepresented you.

Wouldn't that be nice and civil ?

 

[Belz...]

Watch the USA in ‘polar vortex’ deep freeze – live

[qimg]http://models.weatherbell.com/drudge_usa.png[/qimg]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/watch-the-usa-in-polar-vortex-deep-freeze-live/#more-100660

And ?