Global warming discussion IV

[foophil]

This thread is continued from here.

Posted By: kmortis

So the posters on this thread who are well versed in the arguments countering Haig and Wattsupwiththat are not going to convince Haig because he's got to the point where the future looks bright without mitigating climate change, but they will get through to those who are going "hmmmm" and that, in itself, is worth the bandwidth.

A few years ago I stumbled across this forum (technically JREF's back then) in my search for knowledge and to satisfy my curiosity. I was one of those 'fence sitters' where I wasn't sure what to believe.

Since then, I have moved closer to town to shorten my commute, built a house that is powered by solar during the day and feeds in my excess power to the city. I have my garage set up to power electric vehicles. My plan is to now purchase the new Tesla's (assuming they can deliver on their promise of a mid $30K sedan in 2 years). Right now we have a hybrid we use. I'm in walking and biking distance for most of my needs. I now recycle that I'm in the city. I'm conscious about making decisions like flying. There is probably more I can't think of at the moment.

I can partially thank this thread (and the others) for this. In addition, I've been very vocal with my friends and family now that I'm much more knowledgeable and can attest to the general talking points for AGW. I'm sure I've influenced a few others in my life.

It may not be clear if one focuses just on the repeated deniers here, but threads like this one do impact the quiet lurkers and probably do a lot of good.

 

[kmortis]

This thread is for discussing the science of Clinate Change. If you wish to discuss the political ramifications of it, please start a thread in the appropriate section and do so.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[macdoc]

Thank you.


••••

Incredible things going on in the Arctic just now...the fires are going to be nuts....20 C and more above average !!!!

Arctic Heatwave Forecast to Crush Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover This Week
The Russian side of the Arctic is heating up.

A high amplitude ridge in the Jet Stream is forecast to develop atop the Yamal region of Russia, expand northward over the Kara and Laptev seas, inject a plume of anomalously warm air over the polar region, and then proceed on along the Arctic Ocean shores of Siberia. Beneath this ridge, temperatures over the Arctic Ocean will spike to +1 to +4 C above average while temperatures over land will hit extreme +20 C and higher anomalies.

more
https://robertscribbler.wordpress.c...ush-northern-hemisphere-snow-cover-this-week/

At least it's cooled a bit to average where we are headed on the motorcycles...was really in a quandary about riding gear....

 

[Haig]

This thread is for discussing the science of Clinate Change. If you wish to discuss the political ramifications of it, please start a thread in the appropriate section and do so.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

Understood.

A new article on the science of Climate Change that's worthy of consideration. Outstanding insight. Yet so simple.


An Inherently Stable System

In the tropical daytime system, once a certain temperature threshold is reached the cumulus clouds start to form. But often, the reduction in incoming sunlight is not enough to stop the daily warming. If the surface continues to warm, at some higher temperature threshold thunderstorms form. And if the surface warms even more and a third temperature threshold is surpassed, yet another phenomena will emerge—the thunderstorms will line up shoulder to shoulder in long serried rows, with canyons of clear descending air between them.

Thunderstorms are natural refrigeration cycle air-conditioning machines. They use the same familiar evaporation/condensation cycle used in your air conditioner. But they do something your air conditioner can’t do. They only form exactly when and where you need them. When there is a hot spot in the afternoon on a tropical ocean, a thunderstorm soon forms right above it and starts cooling the surface back down. Not only that, but the thunderstorm cools the surface down below the starting temperature. This can not only slow but actually reverse a warming trend.

And if there are two hot spots you get two thunderstorms, and so on … do you see why I argue against the entire concept of “climate sensitivity”? When you add additional forcing to such a system, you don’t just get additional hot spots.

You also get additional thunderstorms working their marvels of refrigerational physics, so there is little surface temperature change.

 

[The Don]

Thank you.


••••

Incredible things going on in the Arctic just now...the fires are going to be nuts....20 C and more above average !!!!

Bin taters here. The garden's weeks behind.

 

[CapelDodger]

A new article on the science of Climate Change that's worthy of consideration. Outstanding insight. Yet so simple.

And by a simpleton for simpletons. Storms move heat around in the troposphere, they don't cool the planet. Nor are they a new phaenomenon, and they haven't prevented inter-glacials in the past or present.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

denialist grammar tyranny

The funny part is that you are achieving absolutely nothing. You haven't budged a single denier (I saw someone using the non-word "denialist" which did make me chuckle) from his or her position. You're essentially being played by trolls and think you're scoring points.

I'm not sure what kind of point you thought you were scoring by referring to "denialist" as a "non-word".

Your denial of that word's existence is contradicted by empirical evidence including dictionary entries and its frequent use in both serious and academic literature. "Denialism" was the one-word title of a scholarly article published in 2004 by the South Atlantic Quarterly, a journal founded in 1901 by Duke University Press. That same year, the journal Transformation published an article whose title was AIDS Discourses and the South African State: Government denialism and post-apartheid AIDS policy-making; here's an excerpt:

Early into Mbeki's presidency, in 2000, it became obvious that he and some key ministers had adopted denialist views....

In 2007, the Director of the AIDS and Society Research Unit at the University Cape Town came out with a book whose subtitle was AIDS Denialism and the Struggle for Antiretrovirals in South Africa. In 2009, a book published by Springer-Verlag began with a chapter titled "HIV/AIDS Denialism is Alive and Well".

Denialism, a book written by Michael Specter, was published that same year. According to its subtitle, that book tries to explain "how irrational thinking hinders scientific progress, harms the planet, and threatens our lives." From a review of that book at the CDC web site:

Persons picking up this book may be surprised by the lack of discussion about some prominent topics of science denialism, including evolution and global warming. Likewise, Specter does not discuss HIV/AIDS denial, a topic he has covered previously....

The reviewer, a professor of epidemiology, had previously used the word "denialist" in her own research papers. She obviously regards denialism as a real thing and "denialist" as a legitimate adjective.

There are countless other books and articles that use the word. Your ignorance of that word is not a point to be scored in your favor.

 

[Trakar]

There was no Hiatus.

There was no “Hiatus”
Most of the climate scientists I read and communicate with have been making this case since the idea of a “hiatus” was first discussed 5 years ago. It has taken this long, however, to gather enough published support for them to compellingly make the case that has been discussed and debated among the climate science community for at least the last half decade.
http://www.reportingclimatescience....revision-eradicates-global-warming-pause.html

The authors of the paper state that their results "do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature" in the twenty-first century.
Climate change sceptics have slammed the analysis, reported in a paper published in the journal Science Express, as an attempt to eliminate the so called pause in global warming that has been apparent in surface and satellite datasets for the last 15 years or so.
The authors, led by NOAA climate scientist Thomas Karl, state that they present "an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century".
Warming trend
The authors of the Science Express paper say their analysis demonstrates that there has been warming this century: "for 1998–2014, our new global trend is 0.106± 0.058°C dec−1, and for 2000–2014 it is 0.116± 0.067°C dec−1." They add: "This is similar to the warming of the last half of the 20th century".
Read rest at link above.

Full text of paper: "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.full

 

[Reality Check]

A new article on the science of Climate Change that's worthy of consideration.

Sorry, Haig, but articles on WUWT are rarely worthy of consideration given that WUWT allows ignorant people such as Monckton (who actually lies about climate science!) to write for them. You know this:
11th May 2015 Haig: 2. A lie by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data.
11th May 2015 Haig: 3. The stupidity (from Monckton) of thinking that climate projections are straight lines.

This is an article by the ignorant Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach, blogger with a certificate in massage and a B.A. in Psychology.Has worked recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. A profile can be found at desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach. Has produced no peer-reviewed papers on climate science according to the criteria set by Skeptical Science- although see Willis Eschenbach comment [at the bottom].

with a hint of Big Oil bias !

The article itself is just Eschenbach musing and forgetting essential facts
* the climate record shows that it is not "inherently stable"! There have been things called Ice Ages. Geologic temperature record.
* climate is trends over decades, not days (that is weather!)
* a fantasy about an imaginary "albedo control" and thunderstorms.
Climate scientists know about albedo and its effects on climate: The albedo effect and global warming

The long term trend from albedo is that of cooling. In recent years, satellite measurements of albedo show little to no trend.

 

[a_unique_person]

Understood.

A new article on the science of Climate Change that's worthy of consideration. Outstanding insight. Yet so simple.


An Inherently Stable System

I think a more appropriate word would be 'simplistic'. He has over simplified the climate and waved away one of the direct threats that scientists have been earning about. Those storms will be more frequent and devastating, exactly as predicted. The areas that were predicted to warm the most were the areas away from the tropics, which is exactly what is happening.

 

[bit_pattern]

In which NOAA further reinforces the mythical nature of the "pause"

ETA: Trakar beat me to it!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10691661&postcount=8

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming

A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.

The study is the work of a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information* (NCEI) using the latest global surface temperature data.

"Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends," said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., Director, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. "Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."

ABSTRACT

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

 

[Trakar]

addendum

In which NOAA further reinforces the mythical nature of the "pause"

ETA: Trakar beat me to it!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10691661&postcount=8

It's not like we're field hands in a troll farm!!!

Whole Grains!

ethanol!

It's a subliminal monkey thing.

eh, eh,...eh, eh!


"addendum - taste testing of ethanol is not an approved federal qualitative fuel assessment guideline factor."

 

[bit_pattern]

 

[macdoc]

The Atheist
The funny part is that you are achieving absolutely nothing. You haven't budged a single denier (

Wrong ...when I was going to leave this forum due to modding issues ( generally now corrected ) a couple of people asked me to stay as my posts had moved them from skeptical of AGW to convinced.
The evidence is very clear...has been for a long time.

At this point only the wilfully blind can deny AGW. This was a while back...

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

So you are wrong on that point. There are many lurkers here and on other forums. We don't expect to "convert" a hard core climate change denier at this point in time. If they are that wilfully blind....well you can't sure stupid.

You can tho constantly counter the well funded disinformation campaign from the likes of WUWT, Jo Nova etc ad nauseum so the casual reader understands there are not two scientific views on AGW,

There is only the scientific evidence which is overwhelming in confirming AGW and a political/obfuscation stance funded by the fossil fuel interests.

 

[Mikemcc]

In which NOAA further reinforces the mythical nature of the "pause"

ETA: Trakar beat me to it!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10691661&postcount=8

Tamino has been saying this for a while over on Open Mind. There hasn't been any statistical evidence to support even a slowdown, never mind a 'pause' or 'hiatus'.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Tamino has been saying this for a while over on Open Mind. There hasn't been any statistical evidence to support even a slowdown, never mind a 'pause' or 'hiatus'.

That has been pointed out here as well. Even the graph Haig keeps posting with that flat horizontal line doesn't show a hiatus or a slowdown, it was cleverly manipulated data showing a reduction in the acceleration of warming. Instead of an accelerating warming rate, for a time the warming increased at a more linear steady rate. It's all increasing though, even taking temporary blips like that into account.

 

[The Atheist]

Science:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nclimate2664.pdf

 

[Trakar]

Science:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nclimate2664.pdf

indeed, the enhanced uptake of moisture due to CO2 induced warming is partially offsetting some of the early effects of increased temperatures and the drift of wind patterns tied to the widening equatorial zone as the pole-ward compression of the Hadley cell circulations continues. Good news of a potential respite even if temporary and much reduced from historic norms.

What do climate scientists think about this study? following excerpts from:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...earch-on-climate-change-and-african-rainfall/

Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre -

The authors show new evidence for why rainfall in the Sahel region of Africa has recovered partially from the devastating drought of the 1970s and 80s and the resultant famine with increasing greenhouse gases behind much of the recovery.

However, this does not mean that continuing greenhouse gas emissions are good for Africa or elsewhere. Further emissions are projected to lead to substantial reductions in rainfall in Southern Africa and the Mediterranean region, but substantial increases in the frequency of downpours and floods worldwide.

Dr Matthew Watson, Reader in Natural Hazards at the University of Bristol,

It is an interesting paper that makes an important contribution to the thinking on climate change. However, it will be read by some as an opportunity to cast doubt on the negative impacts of climate change. This would be a mistake. Whilst there will be positives to climate change, almost all research suggests most will be short lived if we continue on our current path. The authors themselves are exceptionally careful when describing these results in context and cite the fact that what they have really shown is that these accidental improvements were not well understood and that we are already having profound influence on the climate system, particularly in the Sahel.

Prof. Doug Parker, Professor of Meteorology at the University of Leeds -

“This study re-emphasizes the sensitivity of the Sahelian climate to global change. But I would treat the results with great caution because we know that our global models have fundamental biases in their representation of rainfall and atmospheric circulation in this region – as in all the monsoon regions. In fact, the authors themselves note the caution which must be applied to interpreting these results."

"Yes, the rainfall has recovered somewhat from the droughts of the 70s and 80s; but there is also evidence of much more severe storms, causing big flooding events and crop damage. It’s a complicated story."

Prof. Piers Forster, Professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds -

This is an interesting study with a global-scale model, confirming that climate change will bring – and may already have caused – complex regional changes in rainfall. However, I would view their conclusions about the Sahel with extreme caution. Work done at Leeds has shown that better models which explicitly represent convection have very different patterns of rainfall change. In particular, such global models fail to capture the afternoon convective storms that are so important for rainfall in the region.

Additional reading from earlier paper looking at particulate contributions to Sahel issue: "Sensitivity of Twentieth-Century Sahel Rainfall to Sulfate Aerosol and CO2 Forcing"
full paper viewable at - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00019.1

 

[macdoc]

Atheist: Science:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...limate2664.pdf

Generally in a science DISCUSSION forum it's appropriate to comment on a paper and it's significance. Most dropped in like this means the poster doesn't understand it at all and its implications.

In your own words...what are the implications..hint some aerosols are anthro also and can be a primary driver....but of course you knew that.

 

[The Atheist]

Generally in a science DISCUSSION forum it's appropriate to comment on a paper and it's significance.

I can't add anything to the points in the article, but I'll note briefly that it's about increased rainfall in a previously arid area.

It gives the measured data on rainfall across northern Africa above the equator, showing that the warming climate has brought more rain to that reason, possibly on a permanent basis.

The reason for the significance is the size of the area - a huge belt of a million square km or so.