Global warming discussion III

[greybeard]

.

The Financial Post has a good article showing the dilemma faced by IPCC as it twists in the wind trying to produce the Sept 27 2014 report

Some quotes:










Complete article here

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/

I'm not sure what you think an opinion piece by an economist and signatory of the Cornwall Alliance from one year ago adds to a science discussion Arnold?

 

[DC]

.

The Financial Post has a good article showing the dilemma faced by IPCC as it twists in the wind trying to produce the Sept 27 2014 report

Some quotes:








Complete article here

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/

lol funny where deniers get their science from. and then they wonder why they are not taken serious.

 

[Arnold Martin]

I'm not sure what you think an opinion piece by an economist and signatory of the Cornwall Alliance from one year ago adds to a science discussion Arnold?

About as much as IPCC using Mr Titanic as a spokesman

Leonardo DiCaprio has been tapped by the United Nations to be honored with the title of Messenger of Peace, and the actor has been asked to speak on Sept. 23 at the U.N. Climate Summit to address the topic of climate change, the international organization announced on Tuesday.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/united-nations-names-leonardo-dicaprio-733215

 

[Mikemcc]

That's the UN Goodwill Ambassador program, not the IPCC. The program is used to raise awareness about particular subjects. Funny how deniers like like AM love to conflate utterly irrelevant and barely related issues as if they are making serious points.

 

[DC]

About as much as IPCC using Mr Titanic as a spokesman




http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/united-nations-names-leonardo-dicaprio-733215

what do you care? you do not deal with any science anyway, you deal with myths and lies.

 

[CapelDodger]

And here is the trend in 2013, when I first told you the NH winters were getting colder.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

You say this and I bet you don't even know what the Theory of Global Cooling is.

 

[greybeard]

If anyone ever offered any evidence, and it showed something, I have no trouble changing my mind. But the irony is, that instead of providing evidence, there are just claims, lies, insinuations and insulting nonsense. None of which is convincing. You have to provide scientific evidence to be effective.

Everyone knows r-j that is pure psychological projection. You must realise that everyone knows it's you that it applies to, not the ones who debunk your nonsense continually. Which leaves the question hanging in the air of just why anyone would want to play at being the forum idiot. I really don't think you are stupid enough to think there is any validity to your posts or that you are doing it to discredit "sceptics". Which only leaves two possibilities as far as I can see. You are either a masochist who enjoys being humiliated or you are just trying to wind people up. If you are on a wind up then I have to tell you that you are so thoroughly discredited that it doesn't work any more.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Really? You actually don't know what that is? And where anyone can check for themselves?

That might explain a lot. I'm starting to actually believe it's just sheer ignorance at work. If you want to participate in a science discussion, you really really really should learn about the subject first.

I think abusing short term climate trends is a bad idea... on both ends of the argument. You CANNOT rely on short term trends to make definitive conclusions on how big an effect we're having on the climate because climate cycles span long periods of time beyond just decades. I've been skeptical of the climate change camp for some time now, but mostly only on the motivations and the degree to which the alarms are raised in proportion with what can be done about it.

there is no doubt, AGW is an observed fact.

An observed fact that apparently isn't fully understood by those raising the alarms on how to address properly. Full disclosure... at this point whether climate change is "real" or "fake" isn't a concern I have any more. I've said several times before that I'd support the technology to make our consumption more efficient and clean regardless (other anthropogenic issues besides AGW can be thanked for my stance). It's just ear splitting to have people want it enforced when the technology behind it has to be heavily subsidized in order for people to make it over the initial cost hump and break even on the raw investment. A good deal of that is politics... almost as bad as getting a face full of crap and flac (e.g. ad hominem conspiracy accusations) just for criticizing sustainable technologies just on that basis alone. And last time I made that criticism I had a old college professor of mine acting like I was opposing sustainable technology completely.

If anyone's interested in my whole critique I'll write it out but it has a lot to do with urban design in tandem with the science and the politics. The first of which I'm not sure how to do in a thread which isn't oriented towards design theory.

EDIT: What the hell... here's a partial. My professor has solar panels installed on his home, which I saw first hand when he was building it. He was arguing with me that solar panels are affordable and he paid a certain amount for his. Fine, I had no problem take his word at face value, but then again, he's in a position to be able to take on that initial cost, AND his house was built with numerous passive design elements that augment his solar power system. Most houses in my local aren't designed with that in mind and my experience is that solar power only had decent worth if the facility they're installed at has passive design strategies working in tandem with it to maximize the efficacy. It's a point I feel he missed when he lambasted me with his critique. In a residential application, we have a lot of cookie cutter homes, and it - in my opinion - requires a significant restructuring of the urban design to work with the efficiency of today's alternative energy options, not to forget either they need to work on the high cost issue still.

I can explain further if asked...

 

[DC]

I think abusing short term climate trends is a bad idea... on both ends of the argument. You CANNOT rely on short term trends to make definitive conclusions on how big an effect we're having on the climate because climate cycles span long periods of time beyond just decades. I've been skeptical of the climate change camp for some time now, but mostly only on the motivations and the degree to which the alarms are raised in proportion with what can be done about it.


An observed fact that apparently isn't fully understood by those raising the alarms on how to address properly. Full disclosure... at this point whether climate change is "real" or "fake" isn't a concern I have any more. I've said several times before that I'd support the technology to make our consumption more efficient and clean regardless (other anthropogenic issues besides AGW can be thanked for my stance). It's just ear splitting to have people want it enforced when the technology behind it has to be heavily subsidized in order for people to make it over the initial cost hump and break even on the raw investment. A good deal of that is politics... almost as bad as getting a face full of crap and flac (e.g. ad hominem conspiracy accusations) just for criticizing sustainable technologies just on that basis alone. And last time I made that criticism I had a old college professor of mine acting like I was opposing sustainable technology completely.

If anyone's interested in my whole critique I'll write it out but it has a lot to do with urban design in tandem with the science and the politics. The first of which I'm not sure how to do in a thread which isn't oriented towards design theory.

EDIT: What the hell... here's a partial. My professor has solar panels installed on his home, which I saw first hand when he was building it. He was arguing with me that solar panels are affordable and he paid a certain amount for his. Fine, I had no problem take his word at face value, but then again, he's in a position to be able to take on that initial cost, AND his house was built with numerous passive design elements that augment his solar power system. Most houses in my local aren't designed with that in mind and my experience is that solar power only had decent worth if the facility they're installed at has passive design strategies working in tandem with it to maximize the efficacy. It's a point I feel he missed when he lambasted me with his critique. In a residential application, we have a lot of cookie cutter homes, and it - in my opinion - requires a significant restructuring of the urban design to work with the efficiency of today's alternative energy options, not to forget either they need to work on the high cost issue still.

I can explain further if asked...

i absolutely don't care about your opinion on facts in the slightest.

 

[Reality Check]

.

The Financial Post ...
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/

Wow - you think that the Financial Post is a source of valid climate science commentary, Arnold Martin !

The idiocy of an economist (especially the climate change denier Ross McKitrick) commenting on the validity of climate science should be obvious to even you, Arnold Martin.

 

[ideogram]

It is impossible for the probability to drop to zero.

You fail math.

 

[ideogram]

This is a science forum.

Once again he is filling the forum with off-topic garbage.

 

[ideogram]

r-j if your purpose is to present an argument you need to cite your sources. Claiming you won't do it because anyone who can't do it for themselves is stupid doesn't cut it. That only proves you are here to call people stupid.

 

[a_unique_person]

He's using this utility: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

He's using it to cherry pick particular combinations of timescale and region which show a short-term cooling trend, despite the overall global longterm warming trend. You will always be able to find such combinations, of course.

To get the graph he obtained set:

Display trend: ticked, per century, start 1995, end 2014

Timescale: three month

Month: February

Start Year: 1990 End year: 2014

Latitude band: Northern Hemisphere

Surface: Land

To answer Reality Check's question about the odd choice of trend start date, this is the graph you get if you set the start date of "display trend" to 1990 to match the start date of the data.

I see a warming trend from 2011 on.

 

[r-j]

Which only leaves two possibilities as far as I can see.

I actually believe you. You can't imagine anything else. The thing is, your opinions are worthless. Don't bring belief to a science fight. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

Like when somebody just says, "there is no global warming theory", or "the term 'global warming theory' isn't used in scientific literature", it's just their claim, with no evidence. But even after a dozen sources showing clearly they are wrong are presented, it doesn't matter. This is belief at work, not science.

How can we reconcile the global warming theory with the reality of what we find when we step outdoors?

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

Implications for Global Warming Theory

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd14jul97_1/

“Since 1896, when Svante Arrhenius first postulated the theory of global warming due to carbon dioxide, control of carbon dioxide... "

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22724

This mythical claim was made in order to avoid answering the questions that came up when I first made the points about the boreal winter trend. The scientific paper that stated "current models predict" was argued against, based on three ideas. All of them wrong.

Myth #1 "winters are warming, not cooling"

Myth #2 "models are not based on theory"

Myth #3 "there is no theory"

These false claims are repeated ad nauseam, as if this will change anything.
I showed that Hansen was discussing why the winters are cooling, back in March 2013.

Here are a couple of Hansen papers where he mentions the theory.

From these three red herrings, or diversions. came about so many other wrong claims, it turned into a gish gallop. Even so, the theory remains

And the models based on it.


And the predictions made by both. In theory, winters are not expected to get worse, to become colder with more snow. That isn't in any of the papers, it isn't ever predicted by the theory.

In the mid 1800s, it may still have been appropriate to call the radiation transfer interactions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect the "CO2 hypothesis," it has, however, since then, amassed a compelling body of supporting evidences and interrelated understandings such that it has been considered an established and well evidenced scientific theory since the early 1900s.

Yes, which is why it's so idiotic to insist there is no theory.

So why all the evasion? Why the lies from the regulars here about what the theory predicts? In the context of studies, they are putting forth the idea that the colder winters might not be natural variation at all, but actually a result of the loss of arctic ice.

 

[r-j]

I think abusing short term climate trends is a bad idea... on both ends of the argument.

Two decades of change seems to be quite enough to start discussing the future, either warming or cooling.

But how does a colder winter support the idea of a warming earth? It's really simple when you look at the evidence.

Skepticalscience

Blizzards and extreme cold temperatures in the winters of 2009/10 and 2010/11 caused widespread travel chaos in parts of Europe and the United States, leading some to question whether global warming was real.

Judah Cohen, lead author of a study published on Jan. 13 in the journal Environmental Research Letters, and his team found there was a clear trend of strong warming in the Arctic from July to September.

Existing predictions would also expect a warming trend during winter as well. But Cohen and his team found this was not the case for some regions, in a counter-intuitive finding that reveals more about the complexity of the world's climate system than any flaws in the science of global warming.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/cl...e-colder-winters-scientists-say#ixzz3DgIUeatb

r-j if your purpose is to present an argument you need to cite your sources.

I always have, even linking to them at times.

More snow, especially early in the fall, has a feedback effect where the white snow reflects the sun, causing faster cooling, I've always clearly stated things, which leads to more snow, and the snow doesn't melt, so we get this amplification and it gets colder.

Colder, not warmer. And it is the warmer summers, and declining sea ice that may be causing the early snow.

So global warming has been making the winters colder (a clear trend), especially in February, which shows the most drastic decline of average temperatures. While this was obviously missed by almost every climate expert, a few have been predicting this. For decades.

Now that everybody knows it's happening, the climate experts are now switching, and publishing about how global warming is causing colder winters.

The sad thing is how this is being used to say all climate predictions mean nothing, when in fact it is how science advances. Once you know your theory is wrong, you change it.

That is science.

source sources and more sources

You have any trouble understanding that?

 

[greybeard]

R-j, who hates blogs selectively quotes from a blog in desperation and presumably thinks that when they say parts of the USA and Europe that means the whole of the NH. Here is the bits he didn't quote.

Using temperature, rainfall and snow and ice data, the team found that rising summer temperatures in the Arctic meant the atmosphere could hold more moisture, leading to an increase in autumn snowfall in high-latitude areas.

They even say that their findings have implications on improving long term weather forecasts rather than disproving existing climate science.

Existing predictions would also expect a warming trend during winter as well. But Cohen and his team found this was not the case for some regions, in a counter-intuitive finding that reveals more about the complexity of the world's climate system than any flaws in the science of global warming.

ETA he even quote mines Skepticalscience to support him which only a couple of days ago he said was pseudo science.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Like always... the climate trends we see from year to year are variable and can range from seasons, to years, decades, and so on. Judging conclusions based on the geologically short term cycles seems rather pointless to me... It's the reason I've continued being skeptical about the magnitude of effect we've had. I'd rather deal with working out the kinks in the means of reducing it rather than arguing about "how much" of it is "us". And that's rarely resolved in these types of AGW threads.

i absolutely don't care about your opinion...

If you don't agree or care about it, that's great, but then you have no reason to bother trolling me now do you? You didn't read the opinion to know what it concerns so... I have nothing further to discuss with you. Bye.

 

[DC]

Then dont respond and waste your time with me. Especially when you havent read what said opinion concerns. Bye

there is a special thread for solutions to AGW, this one is about the science of AGW.
i also don't care about your opinion in regards to solutions.

thread about solutions to AGW is found here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280435&page=5

 

[CapelDodger]

Ban Ki-moon to join climate change march
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/17/ban-ki-moon-climate-change-march

The secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, is to join a public march calling for action on climate change this weekend.

“I will link arms with those marching for climate action,” Ban told a press conference. “We stand with them on the right side of this key issue for our common future.”

This is going to get the Agenda 21 crowd into a right lather, I'll be bound. This is it. Endgame. So close is the triumph of the hidden World Gummint that they're coming out of the shadows at the head of their ecofascist storm-troopers. Oh Lord Monckton, heed our pleas, only you can save us!

Back in reality, China and India have sent their regrets regarding next week's climate word-fest so there's really nothing to see here, moving right along, sticking to the flight-path all the way to the crash-site.