Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[DC]

Avoiding reality! that's pure projection

You love stick up your little graph based on how many data points? Here's some cold water for you ... The oceans are not warming either unless you count the guesstimates from before accurate measurements were available. This unexpected anomaly of non-warming of the ocean is precisely why the “missing heat” problem was first raised by Trenberth. Now sure he proposes the heat is going in the deep ocean and sure someone has bodged up a 700m to 2000m ocean temperature graph that purports to show this deep ocean heat capture based on roughly 3 data points but only the pessimistic/gullible are fooled. In reality, as Pielke said in his fuller statement, it is utterly unphysical to suggest that heat can bypass the top layers of ocean and head straight to the murky depths. Remember that when they tell you it’s all based on “simple” physics. Simple physics tells us the 700m-2000m graph MUST be wrong. Occams razor suggests there is no missing heat because the hypothesis is wrong.

Man-made global warming it's just nature ...

Antartic http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/antarctic.seaice.color.000.png

Artic http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicennowcast.gif

Antarctica Has Sea Ice Rabbit Ears, a V for Victory or Maybe It’s a Peace Sign?…

ironic, you talk about projection and denial of relity.... then go on to deny reality LOL.

all the evidence Shows the oceans are warming. you have nothing to Counter that at all.

 

[Haig]

Climate Change - It's the Sun stupid

S0 News January 20, 2014: Cosmic Connections, Spaceweather http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNGVK-iMuss&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ&feature=share

Energy from Space http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yy3YJBOw_o

 

[DC]

Climate Change - It's the Sun stupid

S0 News January 20, 2014: Cosmic Connections, Spaceweather http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNGVK-iMuss&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ&feature=share

Energy from Space http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yy3YJBOw_o

no ist not the sun, we know that beyond any doubt, only ignorant fools and denier Clowns Claim otherwise but have no science to backup their Claim. no theory to explain it not even a mechanism.....

the science is clear on this, the sun cannot explain the observed warming, and no amount of YT Videos will ever Change that fact.

 

[DC]

AGW Deniers are funny, they would deny decades of data from all around the globe, from different Independent scientific institutions, tons of datapoints all showing a consitent Picture of AGW. but the Deniers see a YT Video talking vaguely about some Quasar and they believe it instantly, no doubts. they accept whatever fits their Agenda. they don't care one bit for evidence or reality.

 

[macdoc]

Haig

Simple physics tells us the 700m-2000m graph MUST be wrong. Occams razor suggests there is no missing heat because the hypothesis is wrong.

MUST be wrong!!!???....physics of scale are not your strong point. Why MUST it be wrong? We know very well the ocean is
layered ( submarines hide under them )
pools of anomalous warm water ( Indian warm pool and El Nino )
vertical currents ( http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130909/ncomms3419/full/ncomms3419.html)
Deep sea waves ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ep-sea-waves-discovered-in-Pacific-Ocean.html)

Your "must be wrong" - stinks.

So let's apply Occam here since you brought it up..
We have a known phenomena here

It's getting warmer
We're responsible due to fossil fuel use
accepted by all the science bodies on the planet.

or some
sun changes without a mechanism or even a magnitude scale portrayed on youtube, fomented by cranks.

How's your cred doing there Haig??.....tattered perhaps is appropriate.

 

[Haig]

Your "must be wrong" - stinks.

So let's apply Occam here since you brought it up..
We have a known phenomena here

It's getting warmer
We're responsible due to fossil fuel use
accepted by all the science bodies on the planet.

or some
sun changes without a mechanism or even a magnitude scale portrayed on youtube, fomented by cranks.

How's your cred doing there Haig??.....tattered perhaps is appropriate.

macdoc in what predictions have the 97%, IPCC or the computer models been right or even close? They have been overblown and alarmist - admit it!

Nature ie our variable star, has shown them all to be wrong by easily overturning the near 400 ppm CO2 level heating effect that you ALL claim was the cause of it all.

Scientists are being proved right in their predictions who said the Sun drives the climate ...

Amazingly, the alarmist scientists are looking at everything except what’s really obvious: the sun. Solar activity during the 20th century was at it’s highest level in 500 or more years, but today it is at its lowest level in some 200 years. Gee, you think that could matter? The data clearly show that it did in the past.

Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age
http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/2329-6755/2329-6755-2-113.pdf

Habibullo I Abdussamatov
“we can predict beginning of the Grand Maunder-type minimum of the TSI of the quasibicentennial cycle in the year 2043 ± 11 and the deep 19th Grand Maunder-type minimum of the temperature
for the past 7,500 years in the year 2060 ± 11 (Figure 7). Now we witness the transitional period from warming to deep cooling characterized by unstable climate changes when the global temperature will oscillate (approximately until 2014) around the maximum achieved in 1998-2005. The epoch of the new Little Ice Age is expected to begin around the year 2014 after the maximum of solar cycle 24, and begin the phase of deep cooling the Little Ice Age-in around the year 2060 ± 11”

 

[jobberone]

While remaining a tad skeptical about both sides of the equation, we need to be concerned about rising CO2 levels which mankind is very likely involved in. What remains to be seen is the consequences beyond ice is melting and the sea will rise X amount.

We are at the beginning of understanding so caution is necessary without alarm.

Shutting down fossil fuel use is nonsensical, problematic and counter productive though. We need that for numerous reasons. We just need to channel the resources from increased production into presently viable alternative energy production which should be fusion based. If we throw enough money at that as we waste trying to provide a long term solution to fossil fuels we could be rid of the majority of fossil fuel use in 100 years or less.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek a balanced approach in the interim in reducing greenhouse gases including more funding into basic climate research. That science will pay off in spades.

 

[macdoc]

Global dimming in China...

Jobber one - while I agree in principle that fossil fuel will be around - your time frame is off.
If we continue BAU for 100 years we are literally toasted.
Fortunately the scales are tipping towards carbon neutral and reduced carbon ( natural gas ) away from first world use of coal which is the primary threat both to health and contribution to AGW.

Solar is accelerating beyond all expectations both in cost and deployment.
Nuclear can continue and is being developed with some 30 + reactors being built, more planned and a few mothballed due to age and a few too many mothballed due to stupidity.

Fusion is still far away and not soon enough at the most optimistic.

Micro-nuclear tho is showing good progress and ideal for remote regions and areas not suitable to wind or solar.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Small-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/

After all there are numerous nuclear powered ships in use.

There is no one answer but rather a combination.
Low hanging fruit is using less electricity while still maintaining a first world life style.
Germany and France use far less electricity per person than North America.

Carbon taxes can ease the cost of transition to carbon neutral but it's gotta be far sooner than 100 years...and in my view will be for the first world.

••
J1

We are at the beginning of understanding so caution is necessary without alarm.

We are well beyong the beginning of understanding - we don't know everything about aerodynamic theory but we build and fly in planes....there is more than a century of understanding of AGW and enough to act on.
And there is more than enough cause to alarm without sensationalism.

Even Exxon head admitted "serious risk".....finally and the world largest mining company BH Billiton is taking steps to reduce exposure to climate change in their operations ......they are being forced to by shareholders, insurance companies, investors and pending legislation as well as commonsense.

How consequences will play out regionally is indeed a work in progress. Climate extremes is one of the early consequences as well as hydrology and we are seeing that in spades.
There are some known risks but the big ones are the unknown but suspected like impacts on the monsoons which feed billions.
Interruption there would be dire and that includes the growing evidence of more intensity. Too much rain is in some ways worse than too little as floods are incredibly damaging on infrastructure.

 

[macdoc]

Haig

macdoc in what predictions have the 97%, IPCC or the computer models been right or even close?

It gets tiresome repeating things to people that do not read the science and use youtube and tabloids as sources.

This 1981 prediction for global temps was accurate if a bit on the conservative side since there is no predicting how much C02 humans will put into the atmosphere.
Only ranges can be given.

This was published before there was much concern globally....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

For nth time ...we do NOT have a variable star.

IN addition to the 1981 projection. The IPCC has done well also since the 1990s

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Global warming since 1990 has fallen within the range of IPCC climate model projections

figure below from the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report compares the global surface warming projections made in the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports to the temperature measurements.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/1/1380599335494/ProjvsObs450.jpg

_{IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red). IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red).}

Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. As the IPCC notes,

"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...t/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

 

[DC]

Occams razor suggests there is no missing heat because the hypothesis is wrong.

what exactly do you think is wrong?
an object does not have to radiate off the energy it receives in order to NOT warm up?

what exactly did they get wrong about black body radiation?

or could it be that you are clueless as to how we know there was missing heat?

as i said earlier, we know that our planet receives more energy than it radiates off. and thus we knew for a fact the heat they were looking for is here. we just didn't know where in the system it was.

so what did they get wrong about black body radiation?
explain in detail.

 

[macdoc]

I suspect once more by "hypothesis" that he thinks C02 does not trap IR so that there can be no missing heat by some convoluted process.

Hey Haig does atmospheric C02 absorb IR? we'll see how bendy the physics gets

 

[Haig]

I suspect once more by "hypothesis" that he thinks C02 does not trap IR so that there can be no missing heat by some convoluted process.

Hey Haig does atmospheric C02 absorb IR? we'll see how bendy the physics gets

Hey macdoc does atmospheric CO2 mix consist of 97% naturally ocurring and ONLY 3% man-made ????

The climate is changing, but it's not changing the way the climate change crowd predicted it would. Nature has made a mockery of global warming, so who are the real climate deniers?

Global Cooling: Is an Ice Age Coming?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av_DAeTP6r4

 

[Pixel42]

Hey macdoc does atmospheric CO2 mix consist of 97% naturally ocurring and ONLY 3% man-made ????

Before the industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm and it went over 400 ppm for the first time last spring. That's a 40% increase, and we know from isotopic analysis that the extra is from fossil fuel.

That's a 'no', btw.

 

[macdoc]

Answer the question Haig

does atmospheric C02 absorb IR?

 

[Belz...]

Hey macdoc does atmospheric CO2 mix consist of 97% naturally ocurring and ONLY 3% man-made ????

Assuming that it did, what makes you think that a 3% increase cannot make a huge difference ?

The climate is changing, but it's not changing the way the climate change crowd predicted it would.

Yeah, it's worse.

Global Cooling: Is an Ice Age Coming?

Unlikely.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It looks like Haig is going to drop here every link he gets from somebody else. If he drops 20 links a day he will be right: project Astrometria is "the secret of life" and we are in the verge of an ice age ... that is, epistemological hedonism poppycock.

The general public must be aware of the lack of a rule in these fora binding any poster to give some modicum of a reply to any criticism to his or her statements before starting any new point -in fora where such a rule applies denialists quickly vacate the place-. That's why you will see here posters dropping crazy links and feigning discussions -they just change constantly the subject like a child with attention deficit that needs to be entertained constantly-.

 

[Belz...]

It looks like Haig is going to drop here every link he gets from somebody else.

And then some.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hey macdoc does atmospheric CO2 mix consist of 97% naturally ocurring and ONLY 3% man-made ????

That's entirely meaningless. CO₂ doesn't come in two types. Burn some coal today and the CO₂ could go into a plant tomorrow then get metabolised by a slug - where's the distinction between man-made and natural? More intriguingly : where on Earth did you get this notion?

As has been pointed out, we've increased CO₂ by 40%, principally by burning fossil fuels. That would be about 28% of current content.

The climate is changing, but it's not changing the way the climate change crowd predicted it would. Nature has made a mockery of global warming, so who are the real climate deniers?

People who say ridiculous things like that.

Global Cooling: Is an Ice Age Coming?

Not for tens of thousands of years. The El Nino of your nightmares is coming much sooner than that, though.

 

[Reality Check]

It has been said on this forum that when we discuss unusual cold weather it is not related to climate change

Wrong, Arnold Martin: the obvious climate science has been stated on this forum, that when we discuss an unusual cold weather event it cannot be attributed to climate change.

This is a result of the simple fact that climate change causes changes in the frequency of extreme weather events over a period of time. Thus we can never say that a given event is because of climate change. What we can say is that if the frequency of weather events changes then we can attribute that to climate change.

 

[CapelDodger]

It looks like Haig is going to drop here every link he gets from somebody else. If he drops 20 links a day he will be right: project Astrometria is "the secret of life" and we are in the verge of an ice age ... that is, epistemological hedonism poppycock.

An imminent ice age is the heliophile's Rapture - the signs are always there that it's just coming. The Pause is a poor substitute, but apart from squirrels that's what they've got for now.

2013 seems to have been about 6th for surface temps, and finished on a rising note; with no sign of a La Nina, 2014 should be an even warmer one. The Pause will be looking pretty bedraggled by 2015.