Global warming discussion III

[greybeard]

Rather this appears to be a trumped up charge that blows what's been discussed out of proportion (another example of the "political" aspect of the discussion - don't worry, I'm not singling you out). Regardless, I'll let him either speak for himself or dig his own grave on what you're asking for. I'm only pointing out that I have reasons to agree with the sentiment, but have my own reasons (care to comment?).

I have to admit myself that having spent too much time in the CT section has made the shock value of claims elsewhere most underwhelming by comparison.

I'm not heavily into politics Grizzly. This isn't about politics though. I mentioned libertarian websites because that is usually the type of website that is quoted. Probably 100% of those sites say that AGW is a scam. 100% of scientific institutions say it's not. Which one of those two examples are taking that stance because of science and which is taking it because of politics? It's pretty obvious really isn't it? I really really would like to believe that AGW isn't going to be a problem in the future but I haven't seen any argument yet that holds water. The quality of the argument from the most prolific "sceptic" poster/s in this forum as well as that from "sceptictal" websites only makes me realise all the more that there is no valid argument against the scientific consensus. If they had a valid scientific argument it would be submitted for peer review, published in a reputable journal and they would be hailed as heroes.

 

[Kestrel]

The free market solves all problems. If arthroprogenic climate change was real, the free market would have solved the problem. Therefore the theory that mankind is causing the climate to change must be a hoax.

 

[CapelDodger]

El Niño is Kinda Sorta Maybe Here
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2014-el-nino-may-be-here-18043

On Tuesday, researchers at the International Research Institute for Climate and Society said a borderline El Niño is upon us, with the odds for further development increasing throughout the fall and winter.

This El Niño has played a game of hide and seek since an El Niño Watch was declared way back in March. After picking up steam in the spring and early summer, El Niño conditions essentially disappeared in July and much of August.

But the telltale signs of El Niño are starting to re-emerge. Ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific, which tend to warm during an El Niño, have reached the threshold last week typically used to declare El Niño has arrived.

“Borderline El Niño conditions have now returned in both ocean and atmosphere, after a 2-month hiatus,” said Tony Barnston, IRI’s chief forecaster.

Yup, the hiatus is over.

For IRI (well, I had to look it up ) see
http://iri.columbia.edu/

IRI’s forecast, which is issued in conjunction with CPC, shows the odds of El Niño fully developing and persisting from November-March are between 70-75 percent, up a few notches from their forecast issued earlier this month. Most models are still showing a weak-to-moderate event is likely. The main wrinkle that could put the kibosh on an El Niño is a shift in low level winds that could dissipate the warm surface waters. Barnston said that forecasters aren’t expecting that to happen, though.

Expectations have been rather confounded so far this year.

The other quirk to this year’s burgeoning El Niño is where the warmest waters are located. They currently sit in the central Pacific, a little west of where El Niño typical forms. If El Niño does form there, it would be a different flavor, known as El Niño Modoki. Some research has indicated that climate change could be upping the odds of Modoki – Japanese for similar but different – events.

El Nino Modoki
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d1/iod/enmodoki_home_s.html.en

The name " El Niño Modoki " was first coined by Prof. Yamagata in various press releases. Researchers of the Climate Variations Research Program of Frontier Research Center for Global Change (FRCGC) lead by Prof. Yamagata documented this phenomenon for the first time. This phenomenon appears as second dominant mode of interannual variability in the tropical Pacific.
The El Niño Modoki phenomenon is characterized by the anomalously warm central equatorial Pacific flanked by anomalously cool regions in both west and east. Such zonal SST gradients result in anomalous two-cell Walker Circulation over the tropical Pacific, with a wet region in the central Pacific.

the USA rainfall impact chart is interesting; it suggests reduced rainfall in California.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Enjoyable article by respected computational physicist Steven Koonin in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days back. Link:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

It's a nice article, and the sort of thing I would expect from a good scientist. I have only one quibble - the feedbacks are highly non-linear and as such climate sensitivity is unlikely to be constant, but otherwise the article seems pretty sensible to me and well grounded. Highlights include:

The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere's energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate's inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right.

Of course, no more than one can be right, but it is very possible (in fact very likely) none of them are right.

I'm sure the activists will smear him on the grounds he once worked for BP (doubtless while ignoring the fact that he was a undersecretary for science in the energy dept during Obama's first term), but it's great to see some high profile scientists taking a stand against the nonsense coming out of the highly politicised climate activist community, including the IPCC.

 

[DC]

Enjoyable article by respected computational physicist Steven Koonin in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days back. Link:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

It's a nice article, and the sort of thing I would expect from a good scientist. I have only one quibble - the feedbacks are highly non-linear and as such climate sensitivity is unlikely to be constant, but otherwise the article seems pretty sensible to me and well grounded. Highlights include:


Of course, no more than one can be right, but it is very possible (in fact very likely) none of them are right.

I'm sure the activists will smear him on the grounds he once worked for BP (doubtless while ignoring the fact that he was a undersecretary for science in the energy dept during Obama's first term), but it's great to see some high profile scientists taking a stand against the nonsense coming out of the highly politicised climate activist community, including the IPCC.

not very interesting.
a huge red herring in my opinion. i have never seen anybody claim climate science is settled, it always was only about the question if AGW is real or not, and today, as the article points oit, we know AGW is real.
but i guess that is what happens when you get your science from a the Wall Street Journal....

 

[CoolSceptic]

not very interesting.
a huge red herring in my opinion. i have never seen anybody claim climate science is settled, it always was only about the question if AGW is real or not, and today, as the article points oit, we know AGW is real.
but i guess that is what happens when you get your science from a the Wall Street Journal....

He say an awful lot more than just "the science isn't settled", so I'm guessing you either didn't bother reading it, or have no response to the substantive points raised there.

Do you think Steven Koonin gets his science from the Wall Street Journal? Do you think I do? In that case you are very ignorant. Michael Mann writes opinion pieces for the Daily Kos, using your logic can we conclude that Mann supporters get their science from the Daily Kos? How ridiculous. Of course that isn't the case. Why would anyone who claimed to be a critical thinker even consider that to be a sensible response?

 

[greybeard]

If they had a valid scientific argument it would be submitted for peer review, published in a reputable journal and they would be hailed as heroes.

Or of course they could just get there views posted in a sceptic friendly Murdoch newspaper. Do Murdoch's papers ever allow articles from the vast majority of climate scientists who believe AGW is a problem?

Enjoyable article by respected computational physicist Steven Koonin in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days back. Link:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

It's a nice article, and the sort of thing I would expect from a good scientist. I have only one quibble - the feedbacks are highly non-linear and as such climate sensitivity is unlikely to be constant, but otherwise the article seems pretty sensible to me and well grounded. Highlights include:



Of course, no more than one can be right, but it is very possible (in fact very likely) none of them are right.

I'm sure the activists will smear him on the grounds he once worked for BP (doubtless while ignoring the fact that he was a undersecretary for science in the energy dept during Obama's first term), but it's great to see some high profile scientists taking a stand against the nonsense coming out of the highly politicised climate activist community, including the IPCC.

My quibble with him would be that to the best of my knowledge he is not a climate scientist and has no peer reviewed research that disproves the majority scientific view that AGW will cause enough global warming by the end of this century to cause very serious problems. That doesn't of course mean that we shouldn't listen to his views but they carry no more weight than anyone else not directly involved in climate research.

 

[DC]

He say an awful lot more than just "the science isn't settled", so I'm guessing you either didn't bother reading it, or have no response to the substantive points raised there.

Do you think Steven Koonin gets his science from the Wall Street Journal? Do you think I do? In that case you are very ignorant. Michael Mann writes opinion pieces for the Daily Kos, using your logic can we conclude that Mann supporters get their science from the Daily Kos? How ridiculous. Of course that isn't the case. Why would anyone who claimed to be a critical thinker even consider that to be a sensible response?

He rised not a single point that is not known.
we know that humans are the main cause of Climate Change since the mid 20th century.
we know that models have several problems. we know that several topics are not well understood, like clouds for example. etc etc.
we knew that already.

when he wants to adress any of those problematic topics, he should do so in the scientific literature. he needs to go to the experts, not the WSJ.

 

[greybeard]

He say an awful lot more than just "the science isn't settled", so I'm guessing you either didn't bother reading it, or have no response to the substantive points raised there.

Do you think Steven Koonin gets his science from the Wall Street Journal? Do you think I do? In that case you are very ignorant. Michael Mann writes opinion pieces for the Daily Kos, using your logic can we conclude that Mann supporters get their science from the Daily Kos? How ridiculous. Of course that isn't the case. Why would anyone who claimed to be a critical thinker even consider that to be a sensible response?

For all I know Michael Mann might also write for the National Enquirer. It doesn't matter. What does matter is he is one of the most eminent climatologists on the planet and author of 160 peer reviewed (and edited) publications under his belt. He is also convinced that AGW is real problem.

 

[CoolSceptic]

He rised not a single point that is not known.

I never said he did. What he did was list the sorts of topics climate sceptics have been discussing for years. But his reputation means you cannot just dismiss him as a science denier as you can with an anonymous person on the internet (e.g. you and me).

we know that humans are the main cause of Climate Change since the mid 20th century.

We know humans influence climate, which is acknowledged in the article. Your statement they are the "main" cause cannot be known until your very next statement:

we know that models have several problems. we know that several topics are not well understood, like clouds for example. etc etc.

... is adequately resolved, so your comment fails on this.

(aside from the fact that claiming the "main" cause is a horribly woolly and unscientific anyway)

when he wants to adress any of those problematic topics, he should do so in the scientific literature. he needs to go to the experts, not the WSJ.

Plenty of papers in the peer reviewed literature that already support his position, from the various papers highlighting the failures of models (which you yourself already refer to above), plus papers showing low climate sensitivity (e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1 amongst many others).

So the points he raises already are discussed in the peer reviewed literature. Furthermore, the peer reviewed literature has no unique claim to truth; it is entirely possible to publish true and correct works outside of the literature. So your point is irrelevant on two counts.

 

[CoolSceptic]

For all I know Michael Mann might also write for the National Enquirer. It doesn't matter.

Err yeah, that was kinda my point. But thanks for backing it up.

 

[greybeard]

Since I always include a link when I quote someone, just click on the little icon. It will take you directly to your post.

It's actually against the rules here to quote a post with out a link to the source.

I think what we are seeing here is the mentality of "the debate is over and we won" crowd, because there is never any response, much less evidence presented.


It's a good tactic if you don't have to ever actually discuss the science, or deal with the unknowns, of which even the IPCC states there are many.

This idea that most everything is done, and there is nothing that can be said to change anything, it's very unscientific.

Since asking what is meant by "AGW", what do you mean by that term, is greeted with the most persistent evasion, and a multitude of wrong answers, accusations and smarmy nonsense, it's doubtful actual scientific disputes have a chance.

I would quickly edit your post if I where you r-j as it it's making you out to be a liar when you said only a day or to ago.

Since I always include a link when I quote someone, just click on the little icon. It will take you directly to your post.

It's actually against the rules here to quote a post with out a link to the source.

There are two quotes without links.

ETA edited at 10:30. you can thank me later r-j.

 

[DC]

I never said he did. What he did was list the sorts of topics climate sceptics have been discussing for years. But his reputation means you cannot just dismiss him as a science denier as you can with an anonymous person on the internet (e.g. you and me).

We know humans influence climate, which is acknowledged in the article. Your statement they are the "main" cause cannot be known until your very next statement:

... is adequately resolved, so your comment fails on this.

(aside from the fact that claiming the "main" cause is a horribly woolly and unscientific anyway)

Plenty of papers in the peer reviewed literature that already support his position, from the various papers highlighting the failures of models (which you yourself already refer to above), plus papers showing low climate sensitivity (e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1 amongst many others).

So the points he raises already are discussed in the peer reviewed literature. Furthermore, the peer reviewed literature has no unique claim to truth; it is entirely possible to publish true and correct works outside of the literature. So your point is irrelevant on two counts.

we are the main cause, and that is expressed very carefully
i would argue that since the 1960, we are the sole cause of global warming. and the evidence supprts that conclusion.


http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

and as i said, we knew already what he raised. so sure the scientific literature also points out those topics we know little about. actually, those are the main topics in the scientific literature. because a paper on stuff we know already are not intersting to publish (see Lennart Bengtsson for example)

what is your point?
we should wait with AGW mitigation? the IPCC report pointed out much more detailed what topics are well udnerstood and which aren't.
for people that do not want to read the IPCC reports , this article might be intersting.
but for people that are informed about the topic already, he brought nothing new to the table.
to me it jsut comes across as an article attempting to cause doubt about the science and we see that just too often in the bussines newspapers as the WSJ.

 

[greybeard]

Err yeah, that was kinda my point. But thanks for backing it up.

No my point went right over your head. 97% of peer reviewed science backs up the claim that AGW is a problem. Against that an article in a sceptic friendly newspaper by someone who hasn't conducted any climate research doesn't carry much weight.

 

[DC]

from the WSJ article

• Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.

counteracts? pls? so he can explain the Hiatus? strangely, when i used google scholar to see what papers he published in recent years- not one paper came up about the cause of the hiatus.....

oh dear.

 

[CoolSceptic]

we are the main cause, and that is expressed very carefully
i would argue that since the 1960, we are the sole cause of global warming.

You are welcome to believe / argue whatever you like

and the evidence supprts that conclusion.

Nope, but let's have a look anyway.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

I searched for the words "main cause" in there and they occur twice, but neither of them in the context that you used them.

The problem here is that you are using vague terms which need layers of interpretation, rather than straightforward statements that can be tested. Furthermore, it is unclear why any of this actually refutes what Koonin wrote.

So if you think Koonin is wrong, can you please directly quote him, explain why he is wrong. If you have clear and unambiguous claims, references that support this are good, but not essential if you can provide a complete definition here. Otherwise we are just going to go around in circles or down rabbit holes that have nothing to do with the original article.

 

[CoolSceptic]

No my point went right over your head. 97% of peer reviewed science backs up the claim that AGW is a problem.

I think you'll find the strange research that you are mis-citing here did not assess in any way whether "AGW is a problem". This point does not "go over my head" - I'd rather not bother with people who think this is how a scientific debate takes place.

 

[DC]

You are welcome to believe / argue whatever you like


Nope, but let's have a look anyway.


I searched for the words "main cause" in there and they occur twice, but neither of them in the context that you used them.

The problem here is that you are using vague terms which need layers of interpretation, rather than straightforward statements that can be tested. Furthermore, it is unclear why any of this actually refutes what Koonin wrote.

So if you think Koonin is wrong, can you please directly quote him, explain why he is wrong. If you have clear and unambiguous claims, references that support this are good, but not essential if you can provide a complete definition here. Otherwise we are just going to go around in circles or down rabbit holes that have nothing to do with the original article.

LOL, really? that is how you go about that? this btw, is not a conclusion that changed since AR4, i guess you did not read either of them?

yes the IPCC AR's are a bit complicated and it needs a bit more than a word search try reading it one day.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg

btw: i already pointed out one of the claism in the article that lacks evidence. He seems to be saying that Nature counteracted AGW. speaking of "vague terms"

 

[CoolSceptic]

from the WSJ article



counteracts? pls? so he can explain the Hiatus? strangely, when i used google scholar to see what papers he published in recent years- not one paper came up about the cause of the hiatus.....

oh dear.

This is better. At least you are directly quoting and asking questions.

Natural variability is the correct null assumption when analysing climate change, until it is shown to be not natural variability. I can't speak for Koonin as I am not him, but this is an entirely reasonable position to adopt.

Of course the complex dynamics in climate mean there are many spurious and nonsense correlations which are often mistaken for causality, and we already have a plethora of papers claiming to explain the pause. For those of us experienced in complex dynamics (and I'm sure Koonin has such experience as a computational physicist), such an outcome is not a surprise; I would call it self-delusion, or drinking one's own bathwater. Again, I can't speak for Koonin.

 

[greybeard]

I think you'll find the strange research that you are mis-citing here did not assess in any way whether "AGW is a problem". This point does not "go over my head" - I'd rather not bother with people who think this is how a scientific debate takes place.

I think you are beginning to show your true colours. You are happy to bother with and sympathise with people who think that scientists are fiddling temperature data to show warming where there is none. And happy to see scientific debate take place on the pages of Murdoch newspapers (or rather lack of debate as they only print articles authored by the "sceptic" minority). Your extreme bias is showing.