Global warming discussion IV

[Belz...]

If I understand this correctly, you've read some conspiracy-oriented nonsense about "climategate", then read some popular explanation that you, as a layman, found convincing, and now you loof for data that fits that newer conviction. Don't you see a problem with that process?

*look.

 

[macdoc]

tut tut you altered the data

 

[Reality Check]

Oh dear!

Oh dear, Haig, you cannot recognize an ignorant rant on a blog that has nothing to do with climate !
The blog entry is about the economics of energy efficiency programs. The author stupidly thinks that a study on household programs can be compared to the EPA’s "Clean Power Plan" for power generation utilities.
Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

 

[Reality Check]

Looking at the TOA ... there is NO agreement about:

There is nothing in the post you reply to about the TOA !
The ranting on a climate change denial web site does not reflect the real world. We have the climate denier Bob Tisdale thinking that his ignorance means that a range in the TOA modeling means that "...all suggesting, among the models, there is little agreement in the modeled processes and physics that contribute to global warming now, contributed to it in the past and might contribute to it in the future".
What is really stupid is that Tisdale cites papers explaining why there are differences in the TOA model results, e.g. the modeling of clouds.

 

[Reality Check]

Fair question and I'll give you a fair reply imo.

So

• A few stolen emails that contain valid climate science make you think that climate science is invalid.
• You read a single paper and ignore thousands of other climate science papers.
• You start a thread here Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100? on 17 February 2010.
  It starts with the bad science from an astrophysicist who thinks that the Sun is the only driver of climate .
  There is a derail into you basically advertising the services of Piers Corbyn and his long range weather "forecasts". Piers Corbyn has never published the science behind his weather forecasting method and calculations say he is wrong (24th February 2010).
  I point out the science that invalidates the entire thread on 19th February 2010: What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?. You ignore this up until the present (5 years of denial!).

And now you repeat your denial of the real world where the Sun's output has been constant for the last 35 years while global temperatures have increased.. That needs a

 

[CapelDodger]

Project Astrometria appears to lack an active blog but I'm sure Haig can enlighten us on its progress five years on. If there's been any.

In the normal world of solar research things have been going great guns recently, with all the fine instruments and vast amounts of data now available. The mysteries of solar cycles are much less mysterious than they were even in 2010. However, Abdussamtov's pulsating Sun has yet to be observed. That, it seems, was rather a bad guess on his part.

 

[Trakar]

*look.

I think you had it right the first time.

 

[Haig]

*look.

You look ... start another thread if you want to pick over Climategate and continue hunting hypocrisy, corruption, bias and unprofessional behaviour,. You go ahead I'll try to join you ... HERE

tut tut you altered the data

So

• A few stolen emails that contain valid climate science make you think that climate science is invalid.
• You read a single paper and ignore thousands of other climate science papers.
• You start a thread here Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100? on 17 February 2010.
  It starts with the bad science from an astrophysicist who thinks that the Sun is the only driver of climate .
  There is a derail into you basically advertising the services of Piers Corbyn and his long range weather "forecasts". Piers Corbyn has never published the science behind his weather forecasting method and calculations say he is wrong (24th February 2010).
  I point out the science that invalidates the entire thread on 19th February 2010: What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?. You ignore this up until the present (5 years of denial!).

And now you repeat your denial of the real world where the Sun's output has been constant for the last 35 years while global temperatures have increased.. That needs a

Just Pause there a min RC

Just think Why is The Sun Going Quiet?

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict

The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.

The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.

Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.

Project Astrometria appears to lack an active blog but I'm sure Haig can enlighten us on its progress five years on. If there's been any.

In the normal world of solar research things have been going great guns recently, with all the fine instruments and vast amounts of data now available. The mysteries of solar cycles are much less mysterious than they were even in 2010. However, Abdussamtov's pulsating Sun has yet to be observed. That, it seems, was rather a bad guess on his part.

It was a joint Russian-Ukrainian project and the partners have had a bit of a falling out

The project Astrometria on the monitoring of temporal variations of the shape and diameter of the Sun and of the fine structure of the active and quiet regions of the solar photosphere on 2006-10-14 by an international agreement it was included in the international "Scientific program of the Russian-Ukrainian research and experiments on the Russian segment of the ISS".

Try an keep it on topic guys moving on ...


An analysis of BEST data for the question: Is Earth Warming or Cooling?

Something to consider is whether the predictions of future heat waves are reliable, given that it is the low temperatures that have shown the greatest and most consistent increase over the last 125 years.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Haig, why do you only put up one data set, a set that doesn't measure temperature directly and doesn't measure the temperature at the surface? Why do you ignore the BEST set, which was actually set up by a sceptic after Climategate?

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

From the above: "Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend."

 

[Haig]

Haig, why do you only put up one data set, a set that doesn't measure temperature directly and doesn't measure the temperature at the surface? Why do you ignore the BEST set, which was actually set up by a sceptic after Climategate?

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

From the above: "Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend."

Well there is lots I could put up and the BEST set just seems to confirm the natural recovery in temperature from the last Little Ice Age.

Climate Change Pyramid by Clive Best

However if there are natural variations at play which are causing warming such as a continuing recovery from the little ice age, these effects are of course not included in the models.

Also see HERE

Happy now

 

[macdoc]

What a crock..the Milankovich cycle is in a cooling phase leading to the next ice age, - the Holocene optimum was 8k years bp

That next ice age is delayed or cancelled by our altering the atmosphere.
http://scribol.com/environment/next-ice-age-delayed-by-burning-of-fossil-fuels

 

[Haig]

That next ice age is delayed or cancelled by our altering the atmosphere.
http://scribol.com/environment/next-ice-age-delayed-by-burning-of-fossil-fuels

The next ice age delayed or cancelled !!! What a crock..

 

[macdoc]

Shows exactly how little you understand about orbital mechanics. You laugh but you have no science to base the laughter on .....just a misguided and unproveable notion that it's not CO2 as both a driver in the current era and a feedback in non-AGW eras.

Can you actually explain in your own words what leads to the onset of an ice age, and the exits from?? Why the slopes in and out are different???

Humanity has to date burnt about 300 gigatons of carbon of fossil fuels. This work suggests that even if only 1000 gigatons are eventually burnt (out of total reserves of about 4000 gigatons of carbon) then it is likely that the next ice age will be skipped.

Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages.

Ice ages occur around every 100,000 years, due to the change in Earth’s orbit.

Via :: University of South Hampton

Perhaps you should email the scientists involved and inform them how misguided they are.
Occam's Razor and the record of your posts would suggest that it is your understanding that is greatly flawed.....not theirs.

 

[Pixel42]

If you're past the peak of the current interglacial period and you burn enough fossil fuel to increase the amount of CO2 - a greenhouse gas - in the atmosphere by 40% you're bound to at least delay the onset of the next period of glaciation, and possibly cancel it out altogether. This isn't rocket science, Haig, it's simple cause and effect.

 

[Belz...]

You look ... start another thread if you want to pick over Climategate and continue hunting hypocrisy, corruption, bias and unprofessional behaviour,. You go ahead I'll try to join you ... HERE

I don't understand your response. You started by saying you would give me an honest answer, but you didn't address my interpretation of that answer. Do you agree with my assessment and, if you do, do you not see a problem with this approach?

 

[uke2se]

If you're past the peak of the current interglacial period and you burn enough fossil fuel to increase the amount of CO2 - a greenhouse gas - in the atmosphere by 40% you're bound to at least delay the onset of the next period of glaciation, and possibly cancel it out altogether. This isn't rocket science, Haig, it's simple cause and effect.

Can we just ignore the denier and get on with the actual discussions about AGW? You're letting him steer the conversation again, which is precisely what he wants.

 

[Pixel42]

Can we just ignore the denier and get on with the actual discussions about AGW? You're letting him steer the conversation again, which is precisely what he wants.

I see the main purpose of threads like as this as demonstrating that the denier propaganda encountered elsewhere is wilfully ignorant drivel. I don't expect to convince Haig, he's obviously unteachable, the patient demolition of the nonsense he parrots is for the benefit of any lurkers. Leave it unchallenged, and it might fool others as it has fooled Haig.

 

[ehcks]

If you're past the peak of the current interglacial period and you burn enough fossil fuel to increase the amount of CO2 - a greenhouse gas - in the atmosphere by 40% you're bound to at least delay the onset of the next period of glaciation, and possibly cancel it out altogether. This isn't rocket science, Haig, it's simple cause and effect.

The problem is that Haig ignores CO2 as a concept. To him, the sun is the only cause of temperature change, in the same way that it's his only cause for earthquakes. Solar output is decreasing, thus the world is actually decreasing in temperature. All data to the contrary is somehow false.

There is no debating with that.

 

[uke2se]

I see the main purpose of threads like as this as demonstrating that the denier propaganda encountered elsewhere is wilfully ignorant drivel. I don't expect to convince Haig, he's obviously unteachable, the patient demolition of the nonsense he parrots is for the benefit of any lurkers. Leave it unchallenged, and it might fool others as it has fooled Haig.

I'd say putting up actual science and treating AGW denial the way it ought to be treated - by ignoring it fully - would do more to convince lurkers. Any lurker reading this thread might be fooled into thinking there is a legitimate debate about the existence of AGW. If we feel the need to shoot down any of the crap that flies out of the deniers' pie-holes, we should refer to it as one would refer to a particularly disgusting laboratory specimen and then move on. Let's not get dragged into endless discussions with a denier where every time he gets a response, he wins just a little.

 

[CapelDodger]

2015 global temperatures are right in line with climate model predictions
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions

The graph shows the latest computer model simulations (from the CMIP project), which were used as input to the IPCC, along with five different temperature datasets. The comparison to be made is of the heavy dashed line (annotated in the graph just below the solid black line) and the colored lines. The heavy dashed line is the average predicted temperature including updated influences from a decrease in solar energy, human emitted heat-reflecting particles, and volcanic effects.

The dashed line is slightly above the colored markers in recent years, but the results are quite close. Furthermore, this year’s temperature to date is running hotter than 2014. To date, 2015 is almost exactly at the predicted mean value from the models. Importantly, the measured temperatures are well within the spread of the model predictions.

When someone declares that, for instance, models are failing dismally something has to be said, although I do often feel that can be left to the inexorable RealityCheck.