Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Arnold Martin]

.

OOPS

This is gonna be embarrassing for "settled science"

Did you folks know the IPCC is about to confess their science was drastically wrong ?

The report will make the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.

lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uters-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

.

 

[r-j]

.Anyone here going to deny these South Pole temperatures ?

You bet your sweet bippy they will

So I am going to stop here and let you catch up on the actual science behind what I was saying. Feel free to ask any questions.

If there was a working plan, and it would reduce CO2 levels, but it doesn't involve stopping fossil fuel use, do you think the alarmists would even consider doing it?

What if it actually makes money for those doing it, rather than trying to tax people using fuels? Would they even consider that an option?

 

[macdoc]

ahh the daily fail...pretty scummy company there...

PUBLISHED: 21:01 GMT, 14 September 2013 | UPDATED: 15:00 GMT, 19 September 2013

bit dated aren't you?

Serial disinformer David Rose from the tabloid rag the Daily Mail doesn't care about facts, only headlines. He's come out with another "not even wrong" article (archived here) as a follow up to his last one.

David starts with a false headline: Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

Unsurprisingly, David doesn't cite any of the world's top scientists so I figure he just made that up. It's what he does - see here and here and here and here and here and here and here (and more here).

you can follow more of David Rose's disinformation here
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/disinformer-david-rose-of-daily-mail.html

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

Can we now put the IPCC into the denier category ?

They are 75% of the way there now.

Cant wait to see the spin the warmists will put on this latest report. The ice they stand on is getting pretty thin.

Sorry to be so harsh , but it comes from years of abuse directed at guys like me who are firm deniers .

But if truth wins in the end it has been worth it.

 

[r-j]

The truth usually wins. usually about 20 years after the discoverer dies.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.
Why attack David Rose ?? .... it is the IPCC who are going to admit their settled science was 75% wrong

 

[macdoc]

Because Rose is a make it up as he goes shyster as you are and why the long delay? - the arricle is 4 months old and not a peep about this ground shaking announcement...

did we hurt your feelings exposing one of your shysters?

Meanwhile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAMN3a6u91M

and

Mon, 2013-09-23 12:37KEVIN GRANDIA
Kevin Grandia's picture
Global Warming Hasn't Stopped - It's the Hottest Decade on Record

With the release of a major climate science report by the United Nations coming this week, the self-proclaimed climate "skeptics," better referred to as the climate deniers or flat-earthers, are kicking it into high gear for their fossil fuel clients and right wing ringleaders.

The likes of Tom Harris, better known for his lobbying work on behalf of the Canadian energy industry, and Fred Singer, formally a tobacco company expert-for-hire, are trying to make headlines again claiming that the warming of our planet has significantly slowed down. As Harris, a man with absolutely no scientific background in climate change, reassures us like a bunch of schoolchildren, "don't be scared."

I wish it were the case that the rate of global warming has significantly slowed and that we don't have to "be scared" of more extreme weather events, droughts and flooding.

But according to the scientific community, the experts who have decades of training in the field of atmospheric and climactic study, our planet continues to warm. In fact, we just came through the hottest decade ever recorded. Not only was it the hottest decade recorded, it has occurred despite the presence of major cooling factors, like La Nina's and reduced solar activity. Such events should result in a significant dip in the earth's temperature, but they are only having a relatively slight cooling effect.

I guess one Sept story deserves another

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/23/global-warming-has-not-stopped-hottest-decade-on-record

He got this right that week

the climate deniers or flat-earthers, are kicking it into high gear for their fossil fuel clients and right wing ringleaders.

 

[r-j]

.lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007

The processes leading to warming are unclear, but appear to be correlated with atmospheric circulation (van den Broeke and van Lipzig, 2003) and particularly with changes in the Southern Annular Mode caused by anthropogenic influence (Marshall et al., 2004; Marshall et al., 2006). The winter warming on the west coast also appears to be related to persistent retreat of sea ice (see Figure 15.2; Parkinson, 2002) and warming in the Bellingshausen Sea (Meredith and King, 2005). The spring depletion of ozone over Antarctica (the Antarctic Ozone Hole) has also been implicated in driving circulation change (Thompson and Solomon, 2002), but this has been disputed (Marshall et al., 2004). Current general circulation models (GCMs) do not, however, simulate this observed warming over the past 50 years (King, 2003) and we cannot predict with confidence whether rapid warming will continue in future.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch15s15-6-3.html

June 13, 2008

Atmospheric scientists note in a new study published in Science that sewing up the rift in the ozone (a type of oxygen) layer may help heal another environmental woe: climate change.

The reason: closing the gash may affect the flow of winds known as the westerlies around Antarctica, which impact everything from the extent of sea ice to the location of deserts in the Southern Hemisphere. According to scientific studies and mathematical models developed for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—which last year determined that the changing climate is largely a man-made danger—global warming has shifted these winds toward the poles, altering weather patterns throughout the Southern Hemisphere. The new research shows that mending the ozone may reverse warming in Antarctica and, potentially, the globe.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mending-ozone-good-for-global-warming

Мarch 2013

"In 30 years of observing what we have on the satellite data, we increase the ice cover in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica, more than 4%," — said the scientist. At the same time, the number of floating ice at the North Pole has been steadily declining, and in 2007-2008 was recorded historic low Arctic sea ice on record. At this time at the South Pole to the contrary processes.

Klepikov noted that the increase in the amount of ice was uneven in different areas of the Antarctic coast, and the most significant increase in ice area was observed in the Ross Sea in the western part of the Pacific sector of Antarctica. At the same time, in the Bellingshausen Sea opposite trend: reduction of the ice cover.

British researchers said Klepikova, with the help of mathematical models and analysis of meteorological data showed that the growth trend of ice may be linked to the so-called ozone anomaly in the South Pole. Reducing the concentration of ozone over the South Pole leads to a cooling of the upper atmosphere and, ultimately, to strengthen circumpolar vortex — winds blowing along the coast of Antarctica. The winds of the protected zone of Antarctica from the effects of the environment, warmer, air. This mechanism, according Klepikova, explains, in particular, abnormally rapid destruction of the Larsen Ice Shelf:

http://survinat.com/2013/03/the-ozone-hole-and-the-ice-of-antarctica/

September 19th, 2013

For the time being, scientists are unable to explain why southern winds are now considerably stronger than they used to be. Some say global warming might be to blame, others point the finger at the ozone hole in the Southern Hemisphere.

The possibility that these winds naturally change every once in a while is also being investigated.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Wind...a-Ice-Increase-in-the-Antarctica-384090.shtml

 

[Trakar]

The truth usually wins. usually about 20 years after the discoverer dies.

Atmospheric CO2 induced warming is an understanding that has been building supporting evidences for nearly 200 years, dating back to Joseph Fourier in the 1820s. The truth has won, when will you learn to accept reality?

 

[CapelDodger]

While this may be true, the issue is determining and demonstrating it. As I said, weather occurs within a particular range under a specific climate regime. A shift in that climate regime would be a shift in that range. Any weather events that occur in the overlapping regions (however you define them) wouldn't count as evidence for climate change by themselves--or at least, wouldn't count as GOOD evidence by themselves. They would at best be ambiguous, as they could support multiple conclusions.

One spin hardly determines if a roulette wheel is balanced .

As you say, climate is the envelope within which weather occurs. It takes a lot of weather to determine if the envelope has changed - at least 30 years worth is the commonly held minimum.

 

[Trakar]

.

OOPS

This is gonna be embarrassing for "settled science"

Did you folks know the IPCC is about to confess their science was drastically wrong ?

The report will make the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.

lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uters-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

.

Your tabloid's fairy tales no more support your conspiracy fantasies than they support the existence of Bat-boy.

 

[CapelDodger]

Personally I hope we are at the end of the ice age we're currently in, rather than merely in yet another interglacial; glacial periods are fairly horrifying in terms of civilization.

Civilisation has never encountered a glaciation, and the one we have already would cope perfectly well with one. Apart from anything else we know how to prevent one.

Last time the ice sheets started in the Hudson Bay and extended down to central Ohio--meaning that Canada would basically be wiped out, and many of the cities in New England would be piles of rubble sitting in Pennsylvania. Not quickly--we'd have generations to prepare--but inevitably.

"Generations" is hardly adequate - we're talking thousands of years. The cities of New England will be long gone as we presently know them anyway.

The loss of human life could be catastrophic if we're not careful.

Nobody gets out alive anyway.

 

[CapelDodger]

.
Why attack David Rose ?? .... it is the IPCC who are going to admit their settled science was 75% wrong

Do let us know when they actually do.

 

[Trakar]

If there was a working plan, and it would reduce CO2 levels, but it doesn't involve stopping fossil fuel use, do you think the alarmists would even consider doing it?

What if it actually makes money for those doing it, rather than trying to tax people using fuels? Would they even consider that an option?

Fossil fuels are not the problem, the CO2 their combustion releases is.

Present your solutions which fulfill these promises they would be a great boon to all mankind and undoubtedly earn you great renown as well as a great deal of wealth. I, as well as many others, have searched diligently for such solutions over much of the last 30 years or so without much success.

 

[CapelDodger]

You bet your sweet bippy they will

Do let us know when they do.

If there was a working plan, and it would reduce CO2 levels, but it doesn't involve stopping fossil fuel use, do you think the alarmists would even consider doing it?

Re-forestation and prevention of deforestation have widespread support as a policy and have nothing to do with fossil fuels. Carbon capture also has widespread support, but sadly appears to be impracticable or at least not economically viable.

For you, political ideology and AGW denial are so closely linked that you can't consider AGW as anything other than political, even though it's actually a scientific matter. Hence your assumption that support for the science and concern for the consequences is actually political, and for some reason that political position is one of hostility to fossil fuel companies (and their workers and shareholders) on principle. This assumption is incorrect (although I'd be interested to hear what political principle you think specifically targets fossil fuels).

The fact that fossil fuels come with a faustian slip is not something anybody wanted. If we could carry on regardless it would be great, given all the other problems in the world; the same development model that worked so well for the West would serve for the up-and-coming world and (apart from smog and acid rain, which aren't game-changers, they're just a phase) there'd be no problem. Sadly this is not the case, and the gods are laughing again.

What if it actually makes money for those doing it, rather than trying to tax people using fuels? Would they even consider that an option?

I'd invest.

 

[CapelDodger]

Fossil fuels are not the problem, the CO2 their combustion releases is.

It's a bitch, ain't it? Fossil fuels have been such a boon, and I'm not one for believing that the Universe always extracts a price for increased happiness. But there it is in this case and we'll just have to live with it.

 

[Trakar]

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch15s15-6-3.html

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 2013
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter04.pdf

4.2.3 Antarctic Sea Ice
The Antarctic sea ice cover is largely seasonal, with average extent varying from a minimum of about 3 ×106 km2 in February to a maximum of about 18 × 106 km2 in September (Zwally et al., 2002a; Comiso et al., 2011). The relatively small fraction of Antarctic sea ice that survives the summer is found mostly in the Weddell Sea, but with some perennial ice also surviving on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula and in small patches around the coast. As well as being mostly first-year ice, Antarctic sea ice is also on average thinner, warmer, more saline and more mobile than Arctic ice (Wadhams and Comiso, 1992)...

4.2.3.2 Antarctic Sea Ice Thickness and Volume
Since AR4, some advances have been made in determining the thickness of Antarctic sea ice, particularly in the use of ship-based observations and satellite altimetry...

4.2.3.7 Decadal Trends in Antarctic Sea Ice
For the Antarctic, any changes in many sea ice characteristics are unknown. There has been a small but significant increase in total ice extent of 1.5% per decade between 1979 and 2012, and a greater increase in ice area, indicating an increase in concentration. But there are strong regional differences within this total, with some regions increasing in extent/area and some decreasing. There are also contrasting regions around the Antarctic where the ice-free season has lengthened, and others where it has decreased over the satellite period. There are still inadequate data to make any assessment of changes to Antarctic sea ice thickness and volume...

Overall, there is high confidence that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is currently losing mass. The average ice mass change to Antarctica from the present assessment has been –97 [–135 to –58] Gt yr–1 (a sea level equivalent of 0.27 mm yr–1 [0.37 to 0.16] mm yr–1) over the period 1993–2010, and –147 [–221 to –74] Gt yr–1 (0.41 [0.61 to 0.20] mm yr–1) over the period 2005–2010. These assessments include the Antarctic peripheral glaciers...

June 13, 2008
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mending-ozone-good-for-global-warming

Your cherry-picking of the popsci article skipped some pretty inconvenient to your rhetoric qualifications by the primary author of the paper on which that article is based:

..."The winds drive everything," says study author Lorenzo Polvani, an atmospheric scientist at Columbia University, "locations of storms, dry zones and deserts, the ice and the ocean circulation as well as the carbon uptake of the oceans." For decades, these winds have been speeding up near Antarctica; repairing the ozone would weaken the winds, he says, and shift them back toward the equator, affecting weather in the entire Southern Hemisphere, including Antarctica as well as Australia, parts of Africa and South America.

This also means Earth's southernmost continent might experience warming in future as the winds continue to shift and allow relatively warmer air to cover it, potentially speeding the melting of ice shelves. In addition, if there were no hole, the replenished ozone would trap even more heat as greenhouse gas concentrations also rise, according to Polvani...

Мarch 2013
http://survinat.com/2013/03/the-ozone-hole-and-the-ice-of-antarctica/

The source is peculiar but the content contradicts your assertions and claims

September 19th, 2013
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Wind...a-Ice-Increase-in-the-Antarctica-384090.shtml

Increased sea ice is a long-known effect of global warming

Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions - http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

 

[CapelDodger]

The truth usually wins. usually about 20 years after the discoverer dies.

Do let us know when your truth triumphs.

 

[CapelDodger]

I rely on evidence that 10 years ago the warming agenda and politicians were almost successful in getting their way ... carbon trading et al. ... scarry stuff freedom wise and cost wise

You must have been alarmed, but there was never any need for it. Concerted action on AGW has never been closer than it is now, and it's still not close.

Ten years ago Bush was in the White House and Cheney was running the show - just how alarmed could you have been?

Just take a look at what they did manage to squander .... the billions of dollars wasted on solar and other failing ideals.

Far from failing, solar power is doing very well.

And those folks want to control all the energy output of the world ??? ... Save the planet ??? .... they cannot even save themselves nor their fully subsidized feel good "renewal ideas"

Which folk are those? Not the fossil fuel mega-companies, presumably, nor the oil-states - they're very used to controlling it. Who do you imagine is trying to usurp their righteous role?

 

[CapelDodger]

Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions - http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

Antarctica has long been marked out by deniers as the site for their Final Redoubt. When Central England temperatures go native the Antarctic will become the new global representative, with a rapid fall-back on East Antarctica (what with the West being a tad problematic already). Frankly, I doubt it'll be worth the trouble of rooting them out.