Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[!Kaggen]

You could start by learning to use the quote function so we can see what you are about.



It's just a compendium of nonsense from a dug in denier.

Are you sure you want to bother??

It's a rant with no focus. There are better things to spend your time on,



One obvious error...the IPCC does not do research



He's trying to put his denialism on a equal basis of the concensus without presenting any evidence.....sounds like a clip from Fox News.



Tell him the evidence proves him wrong and move on.

You could ask him why Exxon now acknowledges climate change as a serious risk.







and ask him to explain this ...since he is under the mistaken impression the globe as not continued to warm



[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qVJmzQUsUmY/UslmNaaIIsI/AAAAAAAADiM/Gia5kYvJr-8/s566/heat_content2000m.png[/qimg]



and what is causing the increase in ocean heat.



[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ZCHz1c8hRTk/UsloSbBUNSI/AAAAAAAADi8/G-qm4-Vzjv8/s720/Total_Heat_Content_1024.jpg[/qimg]



make him explain the increase in terms of science.



If he dodges....move on. He's just a misguided troll.

Not quite a dodge but a link to a Anthony Watts blog post

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/

 

[Trakar]

Not quite a dodge but a link to a Anthony Watts blog post

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/

Tell him, them to quit going by what drawn graphs look or don't looklike to untrained eyes, tell them to look at the actual numbers as reported and analyzed in the paper they cite as support.

From Lyman paper discussion:

...We estimate a warming rate of 0.63+/- 0.28 W m^-2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level) for 1993–2003, which is slightly (but not significantly) higher than the value of 0.5 +/- 0.18W m^-2 stated in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The fit to the entire 16-yr record, including the well-sampled Argo years, yields a more robust warming rate of 0.64+/- 0.11W m^-2. The large uncertainties in OHCA introduced by the XBTs would undoubtedly have a similar effect on trends in
thermosteric sea level (not shown).
Since the Fourth Assessment Report, the discovery of a time-varying
bias in XBT data has prompted re-evaluations of the rate of upperocean
warming. We have carried out an intercomparison of these
estimates of ocean warming and made a comprehensive estimate of
the total uncertainty. We find that uncertainties in XBT bias corrections
are the dominant error source over the period 1993–2008, which
limits our ability to resolve interannual changes in ocean heat content.
However, despite these uncertainties, we still find a robust warming
over the 16-yr record...

(http://www.oco.noaa.gov/resources/Documents/Lyman_OceanHeat_Nature2010.pdf)
The denialists would actually make much stronger cases if the science they cited as support for their beliefs, actually, well, supported their beliefs.

 

[macdoc]

Not quite a dodge but a link to a Anthony Watts blog post

tell him to explain the warming cause and ask why graph only stops at 2008 - thats 5 years ago - the ocean has warmed faster in those 5 years

the surface rate of increase has slowed but in no way stopped stress that agw includes ocean and air ,,,ask where is additional energy coming from to cause the increase.

 

[a_unique_person]

From that APS meeting.

DR. BEASLEY: Judy, you talked about solar influences.... for example, the magnetic field, I can't resist picking that one. Do you have a physics notion of what --
DR. CURRY: Okay, this is known/unknown. Some people with publishing papers speculating.
DR. ROSNER: This is based on they are certain that there is an effect or they have a physical process in mind that actually would do something?
DR. CHRISTY: There is the cosmic --
DR. CURRY: Well, that is one example. I can't recite all the arguments off the top of my head. But people are publishing papers that present some intriguing possibilities. These are obviously not in the mainstream. But we have only really started looking at these kind of topics. If you are interested, I can send you a list of papers I have been recently. But this is known/unknown category.
DR. LINDZEN: They all relate to particle processes influencing cloud condensation.
DR. ROSNER: Right.

IOW, Curry says "I'm making **** up".

 

[macdoc]

These are obviously not in the mainstream.

in other words the concensus is correct and she does not deny C02 and is wriggling

But we have only really started looking at these kind of topics.

and THAT is a load of horsepucky.....in other words she reeeeeaaallllly hopes someone might find something to overturn the obvious

Since the fossil fuel companies have for the most part caved on the reality and risk of AGW the funding is drying up maybe Judith will get back to real science.
One can hope.

Christy of course beleives in ID and Lintzen is way past best by date and an embarrassment at MIT.

Richard Lindzen - Infamous embarrassment for MIT: Off Topic Forum ...
www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52247598‎
Sep 30, 2013 - Richard Lindzen - it could have been predicted with even more certainty than global warming. He has become an infamous embarrassment for MIT who also ...

Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record — gavin @ 6 March 2012
digg 26EmailShare
Richard Lindzen is a very special character in the climate debate – very smart, high profile, and with a solid background in atmospheric dynamics. He has, in times past, raised interesting critiques of the mainstream science. None of them, however, have stood the test of time – but exploring the issues was useful. More recently though, and especially in his more public outings, he spends most of his time misrepresenting the science and is a master at leading people to believe things that are not true without him ever saying them explicitly.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...esentation-from-lindzen/#sthash.isER4JP3.dpuf

One of these front groups has been the Cato Institute which has paid scientists and their own experts to contest the dangers of cigarettes in the 90s and now the dangers of global warming (see Patrick Michaels). - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek/#sthash.6IveJjbC.dpuf

 

[greybeard]

The last APS policy statement said:

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

If they are going to change from that to "AGW is a hoax" or even "we don't know" then that would be a huge turnaround. If they were to do that after setting up a committee where half the panel was chosen from a small minority of "sceptical" climate scientists then it would just give the impression that the lunatics had taken over the asylum. Personally I can't see it happening.

 

[macdoc]

Not good news from the Antartic...a positive feedback.

Deep ocean current may slow due to climate change
Date:
March 21, 2014
Source:
University of Pennsylvania
Summary:
Far beneath the surface of the ocean, deep currents act as conveyer belts, channeling heat, carbon, oxygen and nutrients around the globe. A new has found that recent climate change may be acting to slow down one of these conveyer belts, with potentially serious consequences for the future of the planet's climate.

more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140321164911.htm

••• and Australia to get hammered....

http://images-2.domain.com.au/2014/03/23/5286446/2303heat-620x349.jpg

Fire seasons, particularly in southern Australia, will extend in high-risk areas.

Australia's multibillion-dollar mining, farming and tourism industries face significant threats as worsening global warming causes more dangerous and extreme weather, the world's leading climate science body will warn.

A final draft of a five-year assessment by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - seen by Fairfax Media - details a litany of global impacts from intensifying climate change including the displacement of hundreds of millions of people, reduced crop yields and the loss of trillions of dollars from the global economy.

The report is the second part of the IPCC's fifth major assessment and focuses on climate change's impacts and how the world might adapt. It will be finalised at a meeting in Japan next weekend before its release on March 31.

The final draft Australasia chapter also outlines significant local threats if human-caused climate change gets worse, in particular high confidence that fire seasons, particularly in southern Australia, will extend in high-risk areas.

There is also significant risk of increased damage and death from heatwaves resulting from more frequent extreme high temperatures. Flood risk too would be worse.

The draft says these new extremes imply Australia's mammoth mining industry is increasingly vulnerable without adaptation measures. The report points to significant loss of coal exports revenue of $5 billion to $9 billion when mines were flooded in 2011.

Tourism also faces some significant threats, the draft says. The Great Barrier Reef is expected to degrade under all climate change scenarios, reducing its attractiveness to visitors.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/n...o-australia-20140323-35b1r.html#ixzz2wmIUePHg

 

[Arnold Martin]

In 2007 Scientist models indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free by summer 2013.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

Did it happen ?

 

[Arnold Martin]

These guys say arctic sea ice volume is up 50% for 2013

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-1.2465952

Anyone disagree ?

 

[Arnold Martin]

Sounds like Polar Bear populations are stable with possible increases in some areas.

Some areas are data deficient (not surveyed) but overall it sounds like good news Bears

http://polarbearscience.com/2014/03...13-deconstructed-with-a-map-to-the-good-news/

 

[Arnold Martin]

More good news

Great Lakes under second largest amount of ice cover ever reported

The highest was during our 1970's mini-ice-age

Climatologists say the extensive ice may help to keep temps a bit cooler and less humid this summer.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...-per-cent-may-cause-cool-dry-summer-1.2559101

.

 

[CapelDodger]

In 2007 Scientist models indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free by summer 2013.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

Did it happen ?

No.

These guys say arctic sea ice volume is up 50% for 2013

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-1.2465952

Anyone disagree ?

Not me (although I'd use the past tense; 2013 is so last year). In turn, I'm sure you'd agree that 2012 was a record low. Currently PIOMAS has 2014 about equal to 2013.

Sounds like Polar Bear populations are stable with possible increases in some areas.

Some areas are data deficient (not surveyed) but overall it sounds like good news Bears

http://polarbearscience.com/2014/03...13-deconstructed-with-a-map-to-the-good-news/

When a scientist begins a piece with "You can’t figure out what’s going on with status updates from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) without deconstructing the spin" it gives me pause. You're depending on an outlier source here.

The possibility of an ice-free Arctic in 2013 was from an outlier source, and that didn't turn out well, did it?

More good news

Great Lakes under second largest amount of ice cover ever reported

Weird weather, isn't it? There's been a lot of that all over.

The highest was during our 1970's mini-ice-age

The what now? I was there, and I'm sure I'd have noticed a mini ice-age.

Climatologists say the extensive ice may help to keep temps a bit cooler and less humid this summer.

Around the Great Lakes. Most of the world is nowhere near the Great Lakes. My bit, for instance; there's an ocean in-between. California doesn't seem to be seeing much benefit either. As for Siberia, it's positively toasty already.

 

[CapelDodger]

If they are going to change from that to "AGW is a hoax" or even "we don't know" then that would be a huge turnaround ... Personally I can't see it happening.

The APS isn't new to this sort of effort, of course; the last time it was tried they actually strengthened their statement in, as I recall, 2010. Nope, ain't going to happen.

 

[riptor]

Actually, almost all the actual skeptics regarding global warming are climate scientists who support AGW.

Skeptic - "...The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion...The scientific method is central to skepticism. The scientific method requires evidence, preferably derived from validated testing. Anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies generally don't meet the qualifications for scientific evidence, and thus won't often be accepted by a responsible skeptic; which often explains why skeptics get such a bad rap for being negative or disbelieving people. They're simply following the scientific method..."
https://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php

I agree, that's why I put skeptics in quotes. They are skeptics in name only, like how 9/11 Truthers are skeptics.

 

[Trakar]

The last APS policy statement said:



If they are going to change from that to "AGW is a hoax" or even "we don't know" then that would be a huge turnaround. If they were to do that after setting up a committee where half the panel was chosen from a small minority of "sceptical" climate scientists then it would just give the impression that the lunatics had taken over the asylum. Personally I can't see it happening.

These people (APS) are the scientist's scientists and this is their professional opinion we are talking about, not political druthers, nor special interest camouflage. Whether they realize it or not, those three scientists have just become the figureheads of a hardcore scientific examination of the best arguments that there are against AGW. The mainstream science is both solid and very conservative in its expression regarding AGW, and has only grown more robust and compelling since the statement was last revised. There is no reason at all to think that there will be any "walking back" from previous overly conservative findings and statements.

Rather than looking at Christy, Lindzen and Curry, you only need look at the three mainstream science representatives to see that this is a playoff caliber major league team who is going to be forcing them to present hardcore specific professional support for any reasons Christy et al might have to express or flavor the expression of the APS AGW statement. It is their professional reputation among their peers that is on the line.

In case you didn't see who the Mainstream science panel members are:

Dr. William Collins is an internationally recognized expert in climate modeling and climate change science. His personal research concerns the interactions among sunlight, heat, the coupled climate system, and global environmental change. He serves as a senior scientist, head of the Climate Sciences Department, and director of the Center at LBNL for Integrative Modeling of the Earth System (CLIMES) at the Lawrence Berkeley National laboratory (LBNL); a Professor in Residence in the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at the University of California, Berkeley; and chief scientist for the Department of Energy's Enterprise in Climate and Earth System Modeling. Before joining Berkeley and Berkeley Lab, Dr. Collins was a senior scientist and Chair of the Scientific Steering Committee for the DOE/NSF Community Climate System Model project. He was a Lead Author on the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for which the IPCC was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and is also acting as a Lead Author on the forthcoming Fifth Assessment.(http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-bios.pdf)

Isaac Held is head of the Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics Group at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton University. The goal of his research is to gain a better understanding of such basic aspects of the atmospheric circulation as the pole-to-equator temperature gradient, the climatic distribution of surface easterlies and westerlies, and the location and strength of the jet stream. In this work he uses a hierarchy of models ranging from comprehensive and realistic numerical circulation models to very idealized dynamical systems that capture some aspects of the relevant physics. Examples of topics he has focused on include: how best to think of the atmosphere as a whole as a “heat engine” and how best to understand the relatively low efficiency with which the atmosphere generates kinetic energy; how changes in the water vapor distribution in the atmosphere as climate warms produce a positive feedback on this warming; factors that control how the poleward energy transport is partitioned between the atmosphere and the ocean; the way in which large-scale mountain ranges and landsea heating contrasts create the stationary waves, or deviations from longitudinal symmetry, that we see in the planetary-scale tropospheric wind field, the response of tropical cyclone activity to warming, and the distinctions between transient and equilibrium responses to perturbations in the Earth's energy balance. Most recently, Dr. Held has begun working on idealized models of the organization of turbulent moist convection in the tropics with the aim of improving our understanding of the temperature, relative humidity, and cloud profiles in the tropics. (http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-bios.pdf)

Dr. Benjamin Santer is an atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Ben’s early research contributed to the historic “discernible human influence” conclusion of the 1995 Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His recent work has attempted to identify human factors in a number of different climate variables. Ben holds a Ph.D. in Climatology from the University of East Anglia, England. He spent five years at the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology in Germany, and worked on the development and application of climate fingerprinting methods. Ben served as convening lead author of the climate-change detection and attribution chapter of the 1995 IPCC report. He was the convening lead author of a key chapter of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s report on “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere”. His awards include the Norbert Gerbier–MUMM International Award, a MacArthur Fellowship, the U.S. Department of Energy’s E.O. Lawrence Award, a Distinguished Scientist Fellowship from the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, a Fellowship of the American Geophysical Union, and membership in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
(http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-bios.pdf)

 

[Trakar]

I agree, that's why I put skeptics in quotes. They are skeptics in name only, like how 9/11 Truthers are skeptics.

I felt that was your intent, it is important to defend the established and mainstream meanings of words lest they lose all real meaning. Likewise it always helps to repeat these understandings often as there are people who have never heard or been brought to mainstream understandings of such terms and meanings.

 

[greybeard]

In 2007 Scientist models indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free by summer 2013.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

Did it happen ?

Here is a quote from the same article but a different scientist to the one who said it could be ice free by 2013.

Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.

"My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."

These guys say arctic sea ice volume is up 50% for 2013

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-1.2465952

Anyone disagree ?

The article goes on to say "but 2013 volume still among lowest of past 30 years, study finds"

 

[greybeard]

These people (APS) are the scientist's scientists and this is their professional opinion we are talking about, not political druthers, nor special interest camouflage. Whether they realize it or not, those three scientists have just become the figureheads of a hardcore scientific examination of the best arguments that there are against AGW. The mainstream science is both solid and very conservative in its expression regarding AGW, and has only grown more robust and compelling since the statement was last revised. There is no reason at all to think that there will be any "walking back" from previous overly conservative findings and statements.

Yes that's a very good point Trakar, thanks.

 

[!Kaggen]

tell him to explain the warming cause and ask why graph only stops at 2008 - thats 5 years ago - the ocean has warmed faster in those 5 years

the surface rate of increase has slowed but in no way stopped stress that agw includes ocean and air ,,,ask where is additional energy coming from to cause the increase.

Now he acknowledges there is an effect by humans on the climate, but claims it is so small as to be irrelevant and not worth doing anything about...

 

[Trakar]

In 2007 Scientist models indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free by summer 2013.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

Did it happen ?

Always works better when you go directly to the science instead of the popsci translations of popular press. The prediction comes from a survey of existent studies by researchers (Wieslaw Maslowski, Jaclyn Clement Kinney, Matthew Higgins, and Andrew Roberts) of the Department of Oceanography, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

The name of the study: The Future of Arctic Sea Ice, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences,Vol. 40: 625-654 (Volume publication date May 2012)

The money quote from which the author of the article derives his message is:

Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3 (Kwok et al. 2009), one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover.

(bolding = my emphasis)

So, what was actually stated was that we could see a "nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in the summer" as early as the 2013 - 2019 time frame. As we've already been seeing such (mostly aggregated clumps of flows and floating slicks of slushy chunks) in the summers, with very little multi-year ice left in the Arctic Ocean and increasing little recovery in the winter, it looks to me like these researchers made some very astute projections that seem closely reflective of reality.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105345

These guys say arctic sea ice volume is up 50% for 2013

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-1.2465952
Anyone disagree ?

As stated in the article, 2012 was a record low amount of Arctic sea ice, that there was some modest recovery with new ice formation in 2013 is neither unexpected nor in any way unusual with respect to the normal year to year variations that are the norm of annual weather patterns. Meanwhile, 2013 continues the declining trend of Arctic sea-ice over the last 3 decades. From the same article you offer into evidence:

...“It’s estimated that there was around 20,000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” said Andrew Shepherd, a co-author of the study, in a statement. Shepherd, who is a researcher at University College London, was part of a team that presented the study last week at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco...
...In September, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre reported that Arctic ice cover at its summer minimum this year was 5.1 million square kilometres. That was also up 50 per cent from last year's record low, but the sixth lowest on record. The seven lowest levels have all been recorded in the last seven years...
..."The Arctic caught a break, if you will, in 2013," said Martin Jefferies, the University of Alaska geophysicist who edited the report card, at the AGU conference. "But one year doesn't change the long-term trend toward a warmer Arctic."

Sounds like Polar Bear populations are stable with possible increases in some areas.

Some areas are data deficient (not surveyed) but overall it sounds like good news Bears

http://polarbearscience.com/2014/03...13-deconstructed-with-a-map-to-the-good-news/

Ah, the blogosphere is wonderfully full of imaginative people promoting their personal agenda, how about we actually look at what the science that this individual bases his claims upon:

http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

Looks to me like we have four areas of fairly long-term stability, three new areas of good data (one stable, two declining), and four areas of long-term and accelerating decline, with one small population area that was reduced which seems to have marginally improved over the last couple of years giving it a slight increase for one small sub-population.

It should be noted that the single area of increase is a capture-release zone where polar bears roaming into more populated areas in search of food to make up what is disappearing from their diet are being relocated. It is good news that such programs seem to be helping to increase that local population, but I'm not sure how you torture and tease "good news" out of the overall reported science.

More good news

Great Lakes under second largest amount of ice cover ever reported. The highest was during our 1970's mini-ice-age Climatologists say the extensive ice may help to keep temps a bit cooler and less humid this summer.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...-per-cent-may-cause-cool-dry-summer-1.2559101

.

Not sure of how or why you consider the above to be "good news" but to each their own. The ice this year is unusual in its extent, but it really has little or no impact on overall climate considerations or understandings. Not sure of the relevance of your "mini-ice-age" fantasies, but they don't enhance your factual, scientific credibility on these issues.

BTW, your posted graph demonstrates the anomalous nature of this local phenomena, demonstrating a negative trend for great lakes ice in a generally warming climate.

If you'd like to look at what climate science has to say about such issues, all you need to do, is a little research:

(from the Researcher quoted in your newspaper article)
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/archive/Task_rpts/2008/epwang09-1.html
"Is the Relationship between Great Lakes Ice Cover and Climate Patterns Statistically Significant?"

"Analysis of Great Lakes ice cover climatology: Winters 2006-2011"
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/ftp/publications/tech_reports/glerl-157/tm-157.pdf

and if you have access to a good public or university library system, this series on each of the Great Lakes and the Great Lake basin area:

"Model-simulated interannual variability of Lake Erie ice cover, circulation, and thermal structure in response to atmospheric forcing 2003-2013." Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 118:19 pp. (2013).