Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
While not entirely on topic this is a big change in C02 forcing source,

Under the plan, the EPA will adopt a rule that regulates carbon pollution from existing power plants for the first time, and in the video, Obama called it “the biggest, most important step we’ve ever taken to combat climate change.”Compared to the proposed rule, the new final version cuts more carbon pollution from the power sector, does it with more renewable energy and less natural gas, while providing more flexibility along the way to states trying to meet their targets.
The final version of the regulation, according to a senior administration official, will actually reduce power sector carbon pollution 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. This is more ambitious than the 30 percent reduction over the same period in the proposed rule.
Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/02/3687076/white-house-announces-final-carbon-rule/

Maybe we can start to contemplate the lower ranges of future C02 emmissions for modeling/forecasting purposes.
 
macdoc said:
While not entirely on topic this is a big change in C02 forcing source,

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/02/3687076/white-house-announces-final-carbon-rule/

Maybe we can start to contemplate the lower ranges of future C02 emmissions for modeling/forecasting purposes.
Click to expand...

Biggest problem is that EPA doesn't have global control, and a republican administration next year could completely reverse EPA measures in the US. Until we see global rates and levels, changing any projections need to be based the evidence that we are indeed changing these rates and levels, on a global scale.
 
Good optics tho and seems me I saw somewhere steps were being taken to make it difficult to reverse. Do you know if the Pacific Trade Pact is dealing with common approach to emissions???
That would make it very hard to cancel out
 
macdoc said:
Good optics tho and seems me I saw somewhere steps were being taken to make it difficult to reverse. Do you know if the Pacific Trade Pact is dealing with common approach to emissions???
That would make it very hard to cancel out
Click to expand...

Actually, it worsens the situation, to my understandings.

4 Ways Green Groups Say Trans-Pacific Partnership Will Hurt Environment
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...fic-partnership-free-trade-environment-obama/

The TPP Could Have Disastrous Results For The Climate, Environmental Groups Warn
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/15/3658901/the-tpp-could-be-bad-for-the-climate/

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: THE TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE (TPP) AGREEMENT MUST BE DEFEATED - http://www.sanders.senate.gov/downl...de-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

New Trade Agreements Gut Environmental Protections - https://www.audubon.org/magazine/july-august-2014/new-trade-agreements-gut-environmental
The most powerful tool the TPP gives to big multinationals is what's know as the "investor-state provision," which grants a foreign corporation the power to sue the government of any participating country where they do business if they believe that country's environmental safeguards are cutting into its bottom line. (Yes, you read that correctly.) Again, NAFTA and other agreements with similar language give us a very clear view of how the investor-state provision would probably play out if the TPP were passed: Under existing trade deals, roughly 500 such lawsuits are already before the WTO, including one brought by Lone Pine Resources, an oil and natural gas company incorporated in Delaware, against the Canadian government. That suit uses the provisions in NAFTA to demand in excess of $250 million in damages from Quebec for placing a moratorium on fracking operations beneath the St. Lawrence River pending an environmental safety assessment. (Yes, you read that correctly, too.)
Click to expand...


Seems that corporations are not only people, but in this treaty they are also nations, who can sue other nations, in an international forum if they feel their business interests are being harmed by inconvenient laws and practices within any of the signatory nations.
 
Last edited:
46 degrees air temperature + 32 degrees dew point temperature = an astounding 72 degrees "feels like" temperature :eek:

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...mperatures-to-74-degrees-20150802-gipzo3.html

The Iranian port city of Bandar-e Mahshahr recorded an apparent temperature of as much as 74 degrees on Friday. That remarkable reading came from a heat index that is calculated according to a formula that combines the air temperature - 46 degrees at its peak - with the top humidity or dew-point temperature reached of 32 degrees.

Dew point levels above 26 degrees are considered oppressive as the body struggles to lose heat through perspiration.

"That was one of the most incredible temperature observations I have ever seen, and it is one of the most extreme readings ever in the world," AccuWeather meteorologist Anthony Sagliani said in a statement.
Click to expand...
 
the big melt

ouch

The World Glacier Monitoring Service, domiciled at the University of Zurich, has compiled worldwide data on glacier changes for more than 120 years. Together with its National Correspondents in more than 30 countries, the international service just published a new comprehensive analysis of global glacier changes in the Journal of Glaciology. In this study, observations of the first decade of the 21st century (2001-2010) were compared to all available earlier data from in-situ, air-borne, and satellite-borne observations as well as to reconstructions from pictorial and written sources.

"The observed glaciers currently lose between half a metre and one metre of its ice thickness every year -- this is two to three times more than the corresponding average of the 20th century," explains Michael Zemp, Director of the World Glacier Monitoring Service and lead author of the study. "Exact measurements of this ice loss are reported from a few hundred glaciers only. However, these results are qualitatively confirmed from field and satellite-based observations for tens of thousands of glaciers around the world."
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150803083445.htm
 
macdoc said:
yup tho not so far toward the pole - 40s and 50s in between.
Click to expand...

yup!
:)
((Seasonal variation/weather - short-term climate variation - not saying there isn't a significant anthropogenic influence))
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
Isn't it the middle of winter in Sydney, roughly the equivalent of early Feb. in the Northern hemisphere?
Click to expand...


You and the other warmists are avoiding the points made by this article. Try reading this short quote line by line and see if you get it then ;)

Global Warming Alarmists Run Into Brick Wall Of Facts
Sydney, Australia, has snow for the first time since 1836. To put this in perspective: in 1836, Andrew Jackson was president of the United States, Victoria was a year away from being crowned Queen of England upon her 18th birthday, and Davy Crockett met his heroic end at the Alamo.

Needless to say, it has been a long time since Sydney has seen snow.

In other news, the Big Island of Hawaii had snowfall in July. Not to be outdone, the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California also had snowfall this July. Antarctica set a new record for ice extent in 2014 and continues to set records for how much ice covers the oceans surrounding this southern hemisphere continent as 2015 progresses.

And to confuse the science-is-settled-on-global-warming crowd even further, some solar scientists are now projecting that due to changes in the sun's cycles, the earth is likely to suffer from what is known as a "Little Ice Age" starting in 2030, as the heat-giving star settles into a very rare pattern of inactivity. Imagine their consternation at learning that the sun actually plays a role in the earth's temperature.

Alarmists are battling the climate record's showing an 18-year hiatus from warming by changing and erasing temperature data collection to create the results needed to justify their continued funding.

The church of global warming is also struggling to explain why the much more reliable satellite temperature data also continue to embarrass them by showing no new warming for almost two decades.
Click to expand...


They are not the only problems for the church of global warming ...

Pocket-calculator climate model outperforms billion-dollar brains
From Press Release:Four skeptical researchers’ new Chinese Academy paper devastatingly refutes climate campaigners’ attempt to criticize their simple modelIn January 2015, a paper by four leading climate researchers published in the prestigious Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences was downloaded more than 30,000 times from the website at scibull.com. By a factor of 10 it is the most-read paper in the journal’s 60-year archive.
The paper presented a simple climate model that anyone with a pocket calculator can use to make more reliable estimates of future manmade global warming than the highly complex, billion-dollar general-circulation models previously used by governments and weather bureaux worldwide.

The irreducibly simple climate model not only showed there would be less than 1 C° global warming this century, rather than the 2-6 C° the “official” models are predicting: it also revealed why they are wrong.

By April, climate campaigners had published a paper that aimed to rebut the simple model, saying the skeptical researchers had not checked it against measured changes in temperature over the past century or more.

Now Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr David Legates, geography professor at the University of Delaware, and Dr Matt Briggs, Statistician to the Stars, are back with a fresh Science Bulletin paper, Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model, which explains that the simple model had not been tested against past temperature change because it was designed from scratch using basic physical principles.

Unlike the complex climate models, each of which uses as much power as a small town when it is running, the new, “green” model – which its inventor runs on a solar-powered scientific calculator – had not been repeatedly regressed (i.e., tweaked after the event) till it fitted past data.

Lord Monckton, the inventor of the new model and lead author of the paper, said: “Every time a model is tweaked to force it to fit past data, one departs from true physics. The complex models are fudged till they fit the past – but then they cannot predict the future. They exaggerate.
Click to expand...
 
K.I.S.S. :)

Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model
Abstract
Richardson et al. (Sci Bull, 2015. doi:10.​1007/​s11434-015-0806-z) suggest that the irreducibly simple climate model described in Monckton of Brenchley et al. (Sci Bull 60:122–135, 2015. doi:10.​1007/​s11434-014-0699-2) was not validated against observations, relying instead on synthetic test data based on underestimated global warming, illogical parameter choice and near-instantaneous response at odds with ocean warming and other observations. However, the simple model, informed by its authors’ choice of parameters, usually hindcasts observed temperature change more closely than the general-circulation models, and finds high climate sensitivity implausible. With IPCC’s choice of parameters, the model is further validated in that it duly replicates IPCC’s sensitivity interval. Also, fast climate system response is consistent with near-zero or net-negative temperature feedback. Given the large uncertainties in the initial conditions and evolutionary processes determinative of climate sensitivity, subject to obvious caveats a simple sensitivity-focused model need not, and the present model does not, exhibit significantly less predictive skill than the general-circulation models.
Click to expand...
 
:dl: :dl: Monckton !!!!!!...you are proposing THAT as a science paper......wow - licking the bottom of the denier barrel.:rolleyes:

......

You DO understand that more snow is very consistent with AGW.....there IS more moisture in the atmosphere and in winter that means snow.
Do learn some meteorology please.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
You and the other warmists are avoiding the points made by this article. ...
Click to expand...
This is a science thread not a mindlessly repeating ignorant and paranoid news article thread, Haig :p! That quote from an investors web site Global Warming Alarmists Run Into Brick Wall Of Facts is deluded in so many ways :jaw-dropp
  • Weather is not climate.
  • Unusual precipitation (snow) is not a surprise to knowledgeable people.
    The climate science (that you should know Haig) is that global warming increases the amount of precipitation throughout the year - including snow.
  • The new Ice Age climate myth raises its ugly head yet again.
  • There was no hiatus from warming.
  • Paranoid ranting about temperature records being changed.
  • Insane language - "church of global warming", etc.
wattsupwiththat is a climate change denial web site. The press release includes the delusion that Monckton is a climate scientist when Monckton is an ex-economist with a track record of lying abut climate science. There are the usual inane statements that you would expect from Monckton, et al. when combined with wattsupwiththat.
  1. The stupidity of thinking that the amount of electricity used to run a computer model has anything to do with its validity.
  2. Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results was by Mark Richardson, Zeke Hausfather, Dana A. Nuccitelli, Ken Rice, John P. Abraham who are all climate scientists not "campaigners".
  3. Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results statements remain valid - "They select parameters for this model based on semantic arguments, leading to different results from those obtained in physics-based studies"! The original paper did not test to see if their model was valid. The established way to do this is to hindcast data.
  4. Actually testing their model is not refuting Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results - it is fixing an obvious flaw in their original paper.
  5. All climate models are "designed from scratch using basic physical principles".
    The difference is that valid climate models include as many of the basic physical principles as possible. They do not ignore the real world where clouds, volcanoes, etc. have effects on climate.
  6. The implied ignorance of thinking that climate models test a linear fit to existing data (a single number as in the press release) :jaw-dropp!
    Real climate models test to see if their data fits all of the existing data. A valid test is a graph of the existing data with what the model predicts for that data - a curve not a number.
  7. A paranoid ("well-funded and centrally-coordinated campaign") rant about Willie Soon's actual nondisclosure of conflicting interest in some of his papers submitted to journals that require acknowledgement of interest conflicts.
  8. Dr Matt Briggs has a long list of ignorant statements.
    • The inane "campaigners" label pops up again.
    • The libel of accusing Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results of cherry picking a scenario.
    • He goes on about not testing against past data when their "rebuttal" is testing their model against past data!
    • Lying about more complex models being less reliable than their "model".
      Nothing in their papers shows this.
    • He thinks that they magically know what physical processes are important in climate models and which ones are not.
    • A fantasy that pre-1979 data is unreliable.
    • A lie: Natural and manmade climate influences can be distinguished and have been distinguished. The evidence is that we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Run a climate model (maybe even theirs!) without that CO2 increase and it does not fit the data.
    • What may be a lie about "a single pulse of manmade forcing".
      Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results note that "M15 also conclude that climate has a near-instantaneous response to forcing, implying no net energy imbalance for the Earth" which violates the basic physical principles that M15 is supposed to include. The atmosphere and oceans do not physically respond quickly to changes in forcing.
    • ...
    • The lie of "since January 1997 there has been no global warming at all".
      The truth is that surface and ocean global warming has accelerated since 1997. It is global surface temperatures that had a "hiatus" over the last decade or so.
      Cherry picking 1997 is also a lie - 1998 was one of the warmest years on record and so biases any trend that starts close to it.
  9. Professor David Legates has an inane "profiteers of doom" statement!
In conclusion: This press release reveals that Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie W.-H. Soon, David R. Legates, William M. Briggs are writing quite deluded statements about climate, climate science and climate scientists.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
K.I.S.S. :)
Click to expand...
Scientific K.I.S.S. is Keep It Simple and not "Stupid" (obviously invalid)), Haig :jaw-dropp!

Repeating the violation of K.I.S.S is not good:
Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model[/QUOTE]
Announcing their paper in a quite deluded and paranoid press release is very bad, Haig: This press release reveals that Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie W.-H. Soon, David R. Legates, William M. Briggs are writing quite deluded statements about climate, climate science and climate scientists.
 
macdoc said:
:dl: :dl: Monckton !!!!!!...you are proposing THAT as a science paper......wow - licking the bottom of the denier barrel.:rolleyes:

......

You DO understand that more snow is very consistent with AGW.....there IS more moisture in the atmosphere and in winter that means snow.
Do learn some meteorology please.
Click to expand...


Is there ANYTHING that would falsify AGW in your view? :eek:

The Pause draws blood – A new record Pause length: no warming for 18 years 7 months
For 223 months, since January 1997, there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature shows the Pause setting a new record at 18 years 7 months.

It is becoming ever more likely that the temperature increase that usually accompanies an El Niño will begin to shorten the Pause somewhat, just in time for the Paris climate summit, though a subsequent La Niña would be likely to bring about a resumption and perhaps even a lengthening of the Pause.
Click to expand...

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 7 months since January 1997.

The hiatus period of 18 years 7 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.

The Pause has now drawn blood. In the run-up to the climate conference in Paris this December, the failure of the world to warm at all for well over half the satellite record has provoked the climate extremists to resort to desperate measures to try to do away with the Pause.

First there was Tom Karl with his paper attempting to wipe out the Pause by arbitrarily adding a hefty increase to all the ocean temperature measurements made by the 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys circulating in the oceans. Hey presto! All three of the longest-standing terrestrial temperature datasets – GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC – were duly adjusted, yet again, to show more global warming than has really occurred.

However, the measured and recorded facts are these. In the 11 full years April 2004 to March 2015, for which the ARGO system has been providing reasonably-calibrated though inevitably ill-resolved data (each buoy has to represent 200,000 km3 of ocean temperature with only three readings a month), there has been no warming at all in the upper 750 m, and only a little below that, so that the trend over the period of operation shows a warming equivalent to just 1 C° every 430 years.
Click to expand...

A growing body of reviewed papers find climate sensitivity considerably below the 3 [1.5, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling that was first put forward in the Charney Report of 1979 for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and is still the IPCC’s best estimate today.

On the evidence to date, therefore, there is no scientific basis for taking any action at all to mitigate CO2 emissions.

Finally, how long will it be before the Freedom Clock (Fig. T11) reaches 20 years without any global warming? If it does, the climate scare will become unsustainable.
Click to expand...

You DO understand that more fudging is very consistent with AGW :dl: :dl:
 
Haig: You already know that Monckton lies about "no warming for 18 years N months"

Haig said:
Is there ANYTHING that would falsify AGW in your view? :eek:
Click to expand...
Certainly not a mindless parroting of a lie about "no warming for 18 years 7 months" including images you have to support that lie and the previous "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" lie, Haig :jaw-dropp!
This was previously a lie about "no warming for 18 years 3 months" 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.
Christopher Monckton was lying about "no warming for 18 years 3 months", is lying about "no warming for 18 years 7 months" and soon may be lying about "no warming for 18 years 11 months" etc.
My guess is that in 4 months time you will repeat any new lie here, Haig.

No laughing dog for this post - repeating obvious lies is not a laughing matter.

ETA: The usual stupidity written by Monckton.
  • There is an uncited paper by Tom Karl which looks like Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus, described at The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus
    Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. Compared to ships, buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy. “In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data,” said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study’s authors. “In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis.”
    Click to expand...
    Monckton stupidly thinks that data from different instruments should not be adjusted to be compatible so that all of the data can be used :eek:! This is similar to the climate change denier idiocy that weather station data should not be adjusted when the stations change, e.g. moved from sea level to a cooler hill top.
  • "Then along came another paper ..." with ranting about its contents without a citation
    The real stupidity is that a paper about the GISS dataset (GISTEMP) based on surface station data needs to mention satellites!
  • A repeat of Monckton's delusion that models produce only linear trends.
  • Monckton cites The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures (September 22, 2014) by Dr Carl Mears the senior research scientist at RSS.
    This blog is about how denialists are misusing the RSS data, e.g. "The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope."
    Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid? The short answer is ‘no’. The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.

    The truth is that there are lots of causes besides errors in the fundamental model physics that could lead to the model/observation discrepancy. I summarize a number of these possible causes below. Without convincing evidence of model physics flaws (and I haven’t seen any), I would say that the possible causes described below need to be investigated and ruled out before we can pin the blame on fundamental modelling errors.
    Click to expand...
  • Monckton has a NOAA graph of the ocean heat content that shows that heat content growing during the "hiatus". The oceans contains ~90% of the Earth's heat. Monckton thus debunks his own assertion :eek:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom