Global warming discussion IV

[CapelDodger]

This laughing matter will be over in the not too distant future.

I doubt any of the figures behind the AGW denial campaign will face prosecution unless someone can be directly linked to criminal hacking, which is practically impossible. I don't think anyone was prosecuted for the tobacco industry's campaign which has been so thoroughly revealed, but we might perhaps see governments elected which will conduct a formal investigation with subpoena rights, perjury liability and such like. First witness : John Mashey.

In the realm of the possible, I do wish the Mann v Steyn et al case would get into court, it promises to be most entertaining.

 

[CapelDodger]

Originating with Haig

Actually later this decade SC24 solar activity will plummet down and merge into the next prolonged “Grand Minimum” – by that stage the game will be over for the “Warmists” because no one will be listening anymore to their “warmist rants” as the charge of the “Meridonal Jet Streams” torpedo the “Theory of AGW” once and for all via “prolonged bitter winters” that everyone will be dreading, especially those living in the high latitude northern hemisphere.

So why don't you hush your wisht until 2020 when you can explain to us why it didn't happen?

 

[macdoc]

What I'm hoping is one of the lawsuits for damages ala the tobacco companies will "take".
Especially the coal barons.
They have so much death and destruction on their hands not only from CO2 but from particulates and environmental disasters.

Time to erase their billions in profits and funnel it back into clean air and a water and lower emissions.....could not happen to a more deserving bunch.

 

[macdoc]

Haig predicted

charge of the “Meridonal Jet Streams

Oh I fully expect there will be invasive cold in some regions thanks to the breakdown in the Polar vortex in the Arctic...

That's inside the box Haig and as it's been for decades Northern Hemisphere winters will continue to get warmer....it's already 3.5C warmer in Canada Haig, most of the multi-year ice is gone, all of the ice ledges from the last ice age are gone in the last decade.

Climate science, physics and the record are all saying you are wrong. Nothing you claim will change that as you have nought but bluster and hot air from the shrinking deniosphere...not one smidgeon of evidence.

 

[logger]

What I'm hoping is one of the lawsuits for damages ala the tobacco companies will "take".

It won't

They have so much death and destruction on their hands not only from CO2 but from particulates and environmental disasters.

Lol
You've used every bit of energy they've produced, you're just as guilty!!

Time to erase their billions in profits and funnel it back into clean air and a water and lower emissions.

The billions have already been spent, you won't be able to steal a dime.

could not happen to a more deserving bunch.

They already got what they deserved, billions. They also produced prosperity for billions.

By the way you're still publicly losing this argument, badly.

 

[Corsair 115]

Numerous (seven is it?) investigations have concluded exactly that, as indeed have I. Have you reached a different one?

Yes. It was seven separate, independent investigations, including ones done by the British Parliament, Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce, and the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation.

These all, as best I recall, have been pointed out to Haig in the past. They remain studiously ignored, it seems.

 

[macdoc]

ol
You've used every bit of energy they've produced, you're just as guilty!!

well you got that wrong didn't you...my particular jurisdiction eliminated coal in a decade....and yes I voted for that government the entire decade. So no I don't ....I do however have to breathe the crap Ohio spews.

Ministry of Energy » Clean Energy in Ontario
www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/clean-energy-in-ontario/
Ontario is the first jurisdiction in North America to fully eliminate coal as a source of electricity generation. Getting off coal is the single largest climate change ..

Lawsuit....well...you got that wrong too.

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
Dutch court orders state to reduce emissions by 25% within five years to protect its citizens from climate change in world’s first climate liability suit

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling

By the way you're still publicly losing this argument, badly.

you really are washing out of training camp - here ....three strikers yer out ...

Let's just take one rather current survey...

http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-polling-the-american-public-on-climate-change-2015

I suspect your drinking the Faux News Koolaid has distorted your ability to perceive reality in any meaningful way.

Just to hammer it home

WASHINGTON — An overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future.
In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They were less likely to vote for candidates who questioned or denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming.

Among Republicans, 48 percent say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called “the most powerful finding” in the poll. Many Republican candidates question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/u...action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html?_r=0

Now do you have some climate science to contribute discuss???.... before I ask that your post be binned to the correct forum which is NOT this one.

 

[Haig]

Originating with Haig



So why don't you hush your wisht until 2020 when you can explain to us why it didn't happen?

Well because it's started already (The Pause) and we need to prepare for it heading to a Maunder Minimum like climate

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.

 

[macdoc]

Moving right along to some climate science instead of denier fantasies.

On the trail of the Arctic’s carbon time bomb

Not good for climate (Image: NASA)
https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/mg22730344.500-1_800.jpg

ON A July afternoon in the eastern Siberian town of Cherskiy, 220 kilometres north of the Arctic circle, it is a warm 27 °C. The vista features silver-blue rivers bisecting green swathes of boreal forest – Earth’s biggest ecosystem. But drive a metal rod into the soil and roughly 75 centimetres below the surface you hit a layer that’s as hard as steel – and perhaps as dangerous as dynamite.

Arctic permafrost holds more than twice as much carbon in its frozen soil as Earth’s atmosphere. Which is what brings me here, accompanying seven US scientists from various labs, led by the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts. We have travelled 7000 kilometres and 15 time zones to Cherskiy to study a phenomenon that might hasten the release of that carbon: the rise of Arctic wildfires.

“Welcome to Cherskiy,” our host Nikita Zimov says minutes after we disembark the Antonov-24 propeller plane that brought us here. Zimov directs the Northeast Science Station. “I understand you want me to take you to that hellhole,” he says as he points to a ghost of a forest that will soon enchant the scientists, despite its bugs, muck and fallen trees.

The trees at Hellhole – the moniker sticks – were burned a decade ago and could provide an important clue in the debate over the impact of Arctic fire (see diagram). There is no question that warmer temperatures, drier conditions and, possibly, an uptick in lightning are catalysing a rise in blazes across the Arctic. This summer over 9 million hectares of forest in Alaska and Canada have burnt – a record – drawing thousands of firefighters to help.


Fires devour the organic layer of leaf litter and shrubs on the floor of boreal forests and tundra alike. As this layer offers insulation during the summer, burned sites could see an increase in the depth of the soil that thaws in summer, before refreezing in winter. More thawed soil could mean more microbial respiration of ancient Arctic carbon into the atmosphere, eventually turning the boreal forest from a carbon sink into a source.

more

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730344-500-on-the-trail-of-the-arctics-carbon-time-bomb/

 

[uk_dave]

I suspect your drinking the Faux News Koolaid has distorted your ability to perceive reality in any meaningful way.

That is surprisingly good news.

I think the perception of the US is that people there either,

• Don't want to believe it is happening
• Believe it is happening but it's not anything to do with them
• Believe it is happening but there's nothing anyone can do about it
• Believe it is happening but aren't bothered because it'll all sort itself out in the end and besides they've always wanted a beachside property fnaar fnaar

So to see those sorts of results is very encouraging, though the question about 'greenhouse gas' will be accused of being loaded.

Just sayin'

 

[CapelDodger]

Well because it's started already (The Pause) and we need to prepare for it heading to a Maunder Minimum like climate

If you mean it started after the '97-98 El Nino you must be expecting even larger amounts of heat to be stored in the oceans during a Grand Solar Minimum, which is not going to be good for coastal areas. The physics behind such a process are not immediately obvious, and you'll have noticed that the accumulated ocean heat is already powering a strong (and growing) El Nino. 2014 was the warmest year on record at the surface (where most of us live), 2015 will almost certainly be warmer, and presumably the same will happen in future. And it's not as if you can blame the current solar cycle for being too energetic, since it's actually been very quiet.

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

There may indeed be a Grand Solar Minimum - the science certainly doesn't preclude it - but the effects wil be minor. Meanwhile AGW will continue and the positive phase of the PDO will kick in. This decade will be the warmest yet (as the last one was in its day), the decade after will be warmer again, and if there is a solar minimum somebody will be blaming it for the warming. It might even be you.

 

[macdoc]

Why don't you actually absorb what you so freely quote

However, many scientists are not convinced. Georg Feulner, the deputy chair of the Earth system analysis research domain at the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research, has studied the effect a solar minimum might have on Earth's climate. His research has shown that temperature drops correlated to a less intense sun would be insignificant compared with anthropogenic global warming, according to the Washington Post.

Regarding the Maunder Minimum predicted by Zharkova, Feulner said, "The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030," Feulner told the Post. Furthermore, this isn't the first time research has predicted waning heat from the sun, to which experts also said that man-made global warming won't be trumped.

You have been shown time and again that solar activity is a magnitude below GHG influence and you do not accept the basic physics of the optical properties of CO2 which are incontrovertible and have been known since 1800s

.....so give it up because it is completely tiresome and repetitious.....

If you want start a thread about "solar magnetic activity" which has a small infuence on solar output but presents a serious risk to spacecraft and technological civilization, by all means......but don't try and use it to refute AGW because it does not.
That stance is factually incorrect and needs to be assigned to the woo bin where it belongs.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think demographic change in the US is being very unhelpful to AGW denial. On the propaganda front the last ten years have been the best deniers will ever get and they've just gone backwards. Just look at the dreary re-hashes being churned out at WUWT. Not at all a movement ready and prepared for a positive PDO phase, not by a very long shot.

Coming up we have a couple of major speeches by Frankie da Pope, then Paris, then the 2016 Presidential Election campaign (the part which takes place in 2016, I mean, not the early years), all of which will keep climate change in the public eye. Droughts in California and Sao Paolo are looking increasingly problematic; while not directly attributable to climate change, of course, we don't have to impress that on people, do we? It's not, like, our job, y'know? AGW deniers will do that, making it seem like they're belittling the subject, and putting themselves in the public eye - never good for deniers, frankly.

Through it all we'll hear the old refrains : that we're losing the public opinion battle, all the models have failed dismally, and an ice age cometh any minute now. So it goes.

 

[macdoc]

The delicious irony is that every climate scientist alive wishes this were true

all the models have failed dismally, and an ice age cometh any minute now

 

[acementhead]

I think demographic change in the US is being very unhelpful to AGW denial. On the propaganda front the last ten years have been the best deniers will ever get and they've just gone backwards. Just look at the dreary re-hashes being churned out at WUWT. Not at all a movement ready and prepared for a positive PDO phase, not by a very long shot.

Coming up we have a couple of major speeches by Frankie da Pope, then Paris, then the 2016 Presidential Election campaign (the part which takes place in 2016, I mean, not the early years), all of which will keep climate change in the public eye. Droughts in California and Sao Paolo are looking increasingly problematic; while not directly attributable to climate change, of course, we don't have to impress that on people, do we? It's not, like, our job, y'know? AGW deniers will do that, making it seem like they're belittling the subject, and putting themselves in the public eye - never good for deniers, frankly.

Through it all we'll hear the old refrains : that we're losing the public opinion battle, all the models have failed dismally, and an ice age cometh any minute now. So it goes.

Wow. Strewth. Blimey. Way to show your true agenda. And prove the deniers correct. Actually, yes, it is the job of scientists to be truthful. A lie by omission is still a lie. Century long droughts are normal for California. I'm sure that you are aware of that.

 

[macdoc]

He stated it exactly as climate scientists do ....AGW overlays normal climate swings and sometimes exacerbates them.

In the case of California tho there is good evidence that the Ridiculous Resilient Ridge now in place for 4 years is a consequence of the breakdown of the polar vortex and wavering jet spread as it was modelled as a consequence a decade ago.
That topic has been covered in this thread.

So yeah, some California droughts are part of long term cycles.....there is a distinct anthro hand print on this one. If you read some climate science you would know that.

A new study in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) takes the warming link to the California drought to the next level of understanding. It concludes, “there is a traceable anthropogenic warming footprint in the enormous intensity of the anomalous ridge during winter 2013-14, the associated drought and its intensity.”
The NASA-funded study is behind a pay wall, but the brief news release, offers a simple explanation of what is going on.

The research provides “evidence connecting the amplified wind patterns, consisting of a strong high pressure in the West and a deep low pressure in the East [labeled a ‘dipole’], to global warming.” Researchers have “uncovered evidence that can trace the amplification of the dipole to human influences.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/15/3426810/california-drought-climate-change/

The Arctic dipole was not a new phenomena but was rather rare in the past. Now it is beginning to appear as a near permanent feature and that spells problems in the mid-latitudes as the highs stall in place.

The East coast has been hammered with very cold intrusions as the polar Vortex has busted out two years in a row.....while at the same time the west coast cooked as did SIberia with numbers off the charts.

You'll find the dipole has been discussed here a number of times ...now do YOU have some relevant climate science to contribute instead of offering up something to be shown to be factually incorrect rather easily.

Better not toss stones when you haven't a clue about the subject of the thread.

 

[CapelDodger]

Wow. Strewth. Blimey. Way to show your true agenda. And prove the deniers correct. Actually, yes, it is the job of scientists to be truthful.

It is.

A lie by omission is still a lie.

Not if you're not asked the question. It isn't part of a scientist's job to communicate with the public; in contrast, PR is the job of people like Chris Monckton and Senator Inhofe, so let them do it. It sounds right up their street.

The problem they have is that by denying a link between the California drought and AGW they actually create an association between the two in people's minds, and this happens without scientists or other honest commentators telling a lie.

Century long droughts are normal for California. I'm sure that you are aware of that.

If century long droughts were common in California they wouldn't be droughts - they'd be normal climate. The intervening periods would be anomalously wet.

The current droughts in Sao Paolo and California are the sort of events which will become more frequent with AGW, so they can't be directly attributed. Which is a fine thing for deniers, since it takes a very long time for the frequency of five-year droughts to be determined with the sort of certainty they demand before action even be considered as necessary. We'll all be long dead and our graves underwater before the quibbles over that are done.

 

[CapelDodger]

The delicious irony is that every climate scientist alive wishes this were true

Life would be so much easier without Nature's cruel CO₂ trick. Poor countries really could use coal to follow our development path using modern, clean equipment that was developed to sort out the mess we made during the process. And it would bring some prosperity to my area; there's still a lot of quality coal in the Valleys.

As it is, of course, it's one damn' thing on all the others we're not quite coping with. It'll all end in tears, mark my words.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Well because it's started already (The Pause) and we need to prepare for it heading to a Maunder Minimum like climate

But according to your previously source there will be no maunder minium climate.

 

[acementhead]

Watt's political machinations aren't just funny to dogs, they verge on the criminal and most often seem pathological in nature.

Trakar is English your second Language?

Anyway could you give a couple of examples of Watts' "political machinations"?

Would the following comment posted there today be an example? It stands uncorrected at the time I type this.

Gary H August 14, 2015 at 1:59 pm
Meanwhile . . while we’re sweating bullets worrying about a couple inches of SL rise over the next 100 years . . something else is brewing that should be on the front burner. Something you can taste.

The Cascadia fault along the Pacific Northwest, is due to “really” past due. Estimates are in the range of 9.0, and note: this is a thrust fault. The resulting ( from recent Atlantic article) “tsunami will be moving more than twice that fast when it arrives. Its height will vary with the contours of the coast, from twenty feet to more than a hundred feet. It will not look like a Hokusai-style wave, rising up from the surface of the sea and breaking from above. It will look like the whole ocean, elevated, overtaking land. Nor will it be made only of water—not once it reaches the shore. It will be a five-story deluge of pickup trucks and doorframes and cinder blocks and fishing boats and utility poles and everything else that once constituted the coastal towns of the Pacific Northwest.”

Will do wonders to the “coastal wetlands.” FEMA estimates that the destruction will extend all the way to Interstate 5.

But that’s not all. Just before that 100 foot wall of ocean arrives . .

A 2004 study conducted by the Geological Society of America analyzed the potential for land subsidence along the Cascadia subduction zone. It postulated that several towns and cities on the west coast of Vancouver Island, such as Tofino and Ucluelet, are at risk for a sudden, earthquake initiated, 1–2 m subsidence.

So . . first, you drop 3 to 6 feet, and face that wall of water coming in . . and then the big one comes at you.

Everything in the wetlands will be instantly destroyed – every plant uprooted. Every creature pushed miles inland. What wasn’t pulverized on the way in, will be shredded on the way out.

But somehow, the media is going to be more frightened about the 100 year prediction of a couple of inches of SL rise, than that which will destroy the region in only a few minutes time.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/...eat-game-with-sea-level-rise/#comment-2008144

It's just absurd to worry about such nonsense, as the quote above, when there has been sea level rise of circa 120 metres in the last ten thousand years. And it is still rising at the rate of 25 centimetres per hundred years.