Global warming discussion IV

[Haig]

A problem for COP21 is that IF developed countries are really the major cause of Climate Change then they should pay the undeveloped countries for it ....

India’s Priority is Poverty – Not Climate Change

India estimates the cost of the assistance they request to be $2.5 trillion.

 

[Trakar]

A problem for COP21 is that IF developed countries are really the major cause of Climate Change then they should pay the undeveloped countries for it ....

Not a problem for COP21, but it is the primary reason that many special interests in US refuse to acknowledge and accept any responsibility for Climate Change. The US is responsible for most of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 130 some odd years. As to actual direct cash transfers, that's up to the negotiators the main thing that the developing world needs from the developed world is the technological methodologies of carbon-free power, manufacturing, and technology.

 

[lomiller]

Haig isn’t going to like this one

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806

Apparently Greenland or at least Western Greenland wasn’t all that warm during the MCA, in fact Greenland glacier advanced and were at or near their Little Ice Age maximums during this “warm” period.

We use cosmogenic beryllium-10 dating to develop a moraine chronology with century-scale resolution over the last millennium and show that alpine glaciers in Baffin Island and western Greenland were at or near their maximum LIA configurations during the proposed general timing of the MWP.

They go on to say

Complimentary paleoclimate proxy data suggest that the western North Atlantic region remained cool, whereas the eastern North Atlantic region was comparatively warmer during the MWP—a dipole pattern compatible with a persistent positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation.

IOW what you have in Europe and the North Atlantic isn’t consistent with global warming, rather it looks like an extended positive phase of the NAO. This may be a symptom of something larger going on in the earths climate but it doesn’t appear to be a general warming trend or at least not much of one.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Judith Curry is a paid shill of the fossil fuel interests and she just made an ass of herself once again.
Your fellow travelers are only slightly less ignorant of climate science than you...at least they are getting paid for it.

Thats not the "Energy Weapons Brought Down WTC"-Judith Curry?

 

[Haig]

Not a problem for COP21, but it is the primary reason that many special interests in US refuse to acknowledge and accept any responsibility for Climate Change. The US is responsible for most of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 130 some odd years. As to actual direct cash transfers, that's up to the negotiators the main thing that the developing world needs from the developed world is the technological methodologies of carbon-free power, manufacturing, and technology.

"Not a problem" you say How about when (now or in the near future) China, Russia, Africa, S.America & all the small nations of the Pacific put in their compensation claims in !!!! will it be a problem then for COP21 ? Can't see this ending well !

Haig isn’t going to like this one

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806

Apparently Greenland or at least Western Greenland wasn’t all that warm during the MCA, in fact Greenland glacier advanced and were at or near their Little Ice Age maximums during this “warm” period.


They go on to say


IOW what you have in Europe and the North Atlantic isn’t consistent with global warming, rather it looks like an extended positive phase of the NAO. This may be a symptom of something larger going on in the earths climate but it doesn’t appear to be a general warming trend or at least not much of one.

Thanks lomiller for that link to a well argued paper. Yes, it doesn't fit with my spin but it's not infallible. I did enjoy ALL the causes they suggest which many Skepics argue are due to our variable star - "but possible mechanisms include variations in solar irradiance (3), the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (4), volcanism coupled with sea ice/ocean–related feedbacks (5), and internal modes of atmospheric variability (6, 7)."

It didn't deal with the ending of the Norse settlements in much detail. I still find this Paper a much better study for that !

Cultural adaptation, compounding vulnerabilities and conjunctures in Norse Greenland my bold

Summer sea ice increased around the Eastern Settlement, with direct impacts on navigation, harbor seals, and quality of pasture along shores (48). The increasing sea ice would also have affected the coordination of communal labor during the vital summer months. The cumulative effects of reduced summer growing seasons (sometimes occurring in strings of successive summers) (43) and rising sea levels (42) would have both reduced grazing and fodder production and increased winter byring time and overall fodder need. Increased North Atlantic storminess (especially after A.D. 1425) would have increased hazards to sailing, threatening voyages to the Northern hunting grounds for walrus and the vital communications with Norway, the lifeline for both exports and imports.

A general reduction in summer temperatures would have had adverse impact on stock survival, while sharpening vertical zonation effects to the disadvantage of all upland farms, especially those farms in the more arctic Western Settlement. As Fig. 3 indicates, in the early 14th century, the overall cooling trend was associated with alternating extremes of warm and cold that far exceeded the range of the prior decadal-scale experience and therefore, fell outside the expected range of Norse TEK.

Collectively, these environmental changes would have degraded subsistence flexibility, decreased environmental predictability, and driven threshold crossing in the marine ecosystems related to the Eastern Settlement. The small Western Settlement (with a maximum likely population of 600–800) failed sometime in the late 14th century. Although the end of the Western Settlement is not completely understood, a likely proximate cause was isolation combined with late winter subsistence failure, plausibly connected to climate change (25, 43).

The much larger Eastern Settlement did not go extinct along with the Western Settlement, enduring until the mid-15th century.

 

[Haig]

This is the ritual Trakar

Quelle Surprise! The #COP21 climate talks are deadlocked

 

[Belz...]

This is the ritual Trakar

Quelle Surprise! The #COP21 climate talks are deadlocked

Nice sicency graph. At least you can't cherry-pick your data from that one.

I also notice you link to denier sites, who have a vested interest in not posting anything that goes against their dedicated conclusions.

Quelle surprise, en effet.

 

[lomiller]

Thanks lomiller for that link to a well argued paper.

No doubt you will ignore the example and continue to cite youtube and woo-woo blogs instead of actual science as your primary sources...

 

[macdoc]

Skepics argue are due to our variable star -

out star is not variable in human scale terms - the radiative output is consistent - get over it.

"but possible mechanisms include variations in solar irradiance (3),

none

the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (4),

inside the box..is a local phenomena and limited time frame

volcanism coupled with sea ice/ocean–related feedbacks (5), and internal modes of atmospheric variability (6, 7)."

are not primary drivers of global climate, they are inside the box phenomena that are LOCAL and time limited.

Just now, it's getting warmer rather rapidly, glacial melting has accelerated as has sea level rise in the past 30 years because of the fossil fuel use.

Stick this in your denier pipe and inhale....might clear your foggy notions...

ExxonMobil Warns of ‘Catastrophic’ 9°F to 12°F Global Warming Without Government Action
BY JOE ROMM DEC 7, 2015 9:10 AM

t’s a Through-The-Looking-Glass world. The Washington Post reports Sunday that ExxonMobil has a far saner view of global warming than the national Republican party.
Fred Hiatt, the paper’s centrist editorial page editor, drops this bombshell:
With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible.
This is indeed basic climate science.
Of course, thanks to excellent reporting by InsideClimate News, we now know ExxonMobil had been told by its own scientists in the 1970s and 1980s that climate change was human-caused and would reach catastrophic levels without reductions in carbon emissions. Yes, this is same ExxonMobil that then became the largest funder of disinformation on climate science and attacks on climate scientists until they were surpassed by the Koch Brothers in recent years — but that is a different (tragic) story.
Hiatt’s point is to show “how dangerously extreme the Republican Party has become on climate change,” and that that “Republicans’ ideologically based denial is dangerous and cowardly.” After all, the oil giant ain’t Greenpeace.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/

 

[Belz...]

Nice sicency graph.

*sciency.

 

[Haig]

out star is not variable in human scale terms - the radiative output is consistent - get over it.


none

inside the box..is a local phenomena and limited time frame


are not primary drivers of global climate, they are inside the box phenomena that are LOCAL and time limited.

Just now, it's getting warmer rather rapidly, glacial melting has accelerated as has sea level rise in the past 30 years because of the fossil fuel use.

Stick this in your denier pipe and inhale....might clear your foggy notions...

NASA don't agree with you macdoc They say our Sun is a variable star

Solar Dynamics Observatory: The 'Variable Sun' Mission

SDO: The Variable Sun Mission (Continued)

Finally – and of most immediate relevance for Earth--SDO will observe the sun at wavelengths where the sun is most variable, the extreme ultraviolet (EUV). EUV photons are high-energy cousins of regular UV rays that cause sunburns. Fortunately, our atmosphere blocks solar EUV; otherwise a day at the beach could be fatal. In space, solar EUV emission is easy to detect and arguably the most sensitive indicator of solar activity.

"If human eyes could see EUV wavelengths, no one would doubt that the sun is a variable star," says Tom Woods of the University of Colorado in Boulder.

click to play a movieDuring a solar flare, the sun's extreme ultraviolet output can vary by factors of hundreds to thousands in a matter of seconds. Surges of EUV photons heat Earth's upper atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to "puff up" and drag down low-orbiting satellites. EUV rays also break apart atoms and molecules, creating a layer of ions in the upper atmosphere that can severely disturb radio signals. According to Judith Lean, "EUV controls Earth's environment throughout the entire atmosphere above about 100 km."

"EUV is where the action is," agrees Woods.

NASA also say this ...

Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth's Upper Atmosphere

New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth's thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere.

NASA are still learning about the Sun - Earth connection

NASA - Sun-Earth Connection

The Sun's plasma is so hot that the most energetic charged particles can escape from the Sun's gravity and fly away, out into space. We call this plasma the solar wind because it blows out away from the Sun and past the planets, interacting with their magnetic fields and/or atmospheres. Along with the solar wind comes the Sun's magnetic field, which reaches from the Sun out to past Pluto and Neptune.

Charged particles and magnetic fields influence each other. So when the solar wind, which is made up of charged particles, blows past Earth's magnetosphere, the shape of the magnetic field changes from the dipole magnetic field - shown on Earth's Magnetosphere page - to a plasma-swept magnetosphere that looks more like someone's hair got blown in the wind. This interaction between the Sun's plasma wind and Earth's magnetosphere is known as the Sun-Earth Connection.

Then in 2013 NASA said this

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.
One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.
Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

So you see macdoc the more we look at our VARIABLE STAR the more we see how it affects Earths climate and the rest of the solar system too

*sciency.

Careless mistake Blez try not to make any more

How do you like NASA's view of Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate ?


So how do you make Global Warming disappear from 1881 to 2013 ?

How Global Warming Looks On Your Thermometer!!!!!

 

[Reality Check]

Quelle Surprise! The #COP21 climate talks are deadlocked

Why is linking to a climate denier web site yet again not a surprise? I know: Haig: Greenhouse effect denier - what more need be said ! Except that he has 56 posts of parroted ignorance, delusions and lies from climate change deniers with some of his ignorance, delusions and a lie or two

You seem to think that an imaginary political deadlock that might mean less mitigation of the effects of global warming is a good thing !

 

[Reality Check]

NASA don't agree with you macdoc They say our Sun is a variable star

Irrelevant science from Haig: Greenhouse effect denier - what more need be said ! Except that he has 56 posts of parroted ignorance, delusions and lies from climate change deniers with some of his ignorance, delusions and a lie or two
Haig thinks that scientists (and posters here?) are so ignorant that they do not know that the Sun's output varies and thus affects the climate
Haig cannot understand a graph from a web site confirms Global Warming from 1881 to 2013 of ~1 or 2 degrees ! It is a quite bad graph with absolute temperatures rather than anomalies though.

 

[Reality Check]

More comment on Cruz's subcommittee hearing:
The Latest Embarrassing GOP Attacks on Climate Change Science By Phil Plait which points out the credibility gap between the Republican and Democrat witnesses.

As you’d expect, in the Senate hearing the Republican majority empaneled four deniers of various stripes (or at the very least “lukewarmers”, people who know the planet’s warming up but don’t think it’s all that big a deal, or may even be a net positive). The Democratic minority got to call one person, but they empaneled a beauty: Navy Rear Admiral David Titley. I love this choice; he has been a clear voice about the dangers of climate change, even rightly calling it a threat to national security. Also, as a high-ranking military man it’s harder for the GOP to paint him as an “alarmist” (though note that in the hearing he was referred to as “Dr.” Titley, which I think was done on purpose to downplay his military rank).

Admiral Titley was asked by Cruz about the pause, and basically told Cruz he was full of it ...

Not that Cruz's ignorance abut climate science is new:
Everything Senator Ted Cruz said about climate change in this NPR interview was wrong.

On December 9th, National Public Radio broadcast an interview between NPR’s Steve Inskeep and Senator Ted Cruz on the subject of climate change. Below is an annotated transcript of that interview with my [bracketed] responses to the consistently false scientific claims made by Senator Cruz. Effectively, every single scientific point he made was wrong – a classic “Gish Gallop” of long-debunked talking points of those who dispute the unambiguous scientific evidence of climate change. In these bracketed annotations I have provided a few hyperlinks to each of the myths he repeats. I have tried not to address the many other political and ideological points he made about climate change and scientists during this interview, though a few seem to have snuck in.

AP FACT CHECK: Most GOP candidates flunk climate science

When it comes to climate science, two of the three Democratic presidential candidates are A students, while most of the Republican contenders are flunking, according to a panel of scientists who reviewed candidates' comments.

At the request of The Associated Press, eight climate and biological scientists graded for scientific accuracy what a dozen top candidates said in debates, interviews and tweets, using a 0 to 100 scale.

To try to eliminate possible bias, the candidates' comments were stripped of names and given randomly generated numbers, so the professors would not know who made each statement they were grading. Also, the scientists who did the grading were chosen by professional scientific societies.

Cruz gets 6/100. The best Republican candidate was Jeb Bush with 64/100. Cruz knows 10% of the climate science that Jeb Bush knows and 6% that of Hillary Clinton !

ETA: This comment by Michael Mann on the unknown individual who got 6/100 could explain why the Mann-hating Mark Steyn was called:

"This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner," Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University meteorology professor, wrote of Cruz's statements. "That sort of ignorance would be dangerous in a doorman, let alone a president."

ETA: My impressions of the Ted Cruz Climate Denial Circus Posted by Greg Laden

Obviously this was a partisan hearing designed to insert a bunch of climate science denial into the Congressional Record. One part of the hearing, though, failed in that respect, because minority members are allowed to invite a witness or two. The minority wisely chose Admiral David Titley, a climate scientists and meteorologist and an excellent communicator. To give a flavor of Admiral Titley’s contribution, check out this segment in which he discusses satellite data collection and interpretation:
...
Note the contemptuous last stand of Mark Steyn and Judith Curry (starting about 8:20). I didn’t know it was OK to talk to Senators that way during a hearing. I also didn’t know it was OK to lie to Congress.

The video is also commented on at Admiral David Titley on Satellite Temperature by Peter Sinclair

 

[Belz...]

Careless mistake Blez try not to make any more

Was that deliberate irony, I wonder?

 

[lomiller]

Not that I’m not up for a little Ted Cruz debunking, but in this case it’s probably a distraction from the real interesting information. Tamino shows how the Satellite data has recently diverged quite dramatically from the balloon data that measures the same thing with actual thermometers rather than microwave intensity and black box formulas.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/ted-cruz-just-plain-wrong/

 

[Haig]

Nice sicency graph. At least you can't cherry-pick your data from that one.

Looks like you're wrong again !




Climate talks officially delayed until Saturday

China has strong objections on differentiation as it thinks the second text that came on Thursday night was an attempt to dilute this provision. Egypt on behalf of African Group, on the other hand, wants the 'greenhouse gas neutrality' should be removed from the second version of the text.

Reacting to second version of the draft, Adriano Campolina, ActionAid Chief Executive, said, "In the closing hours of the Paris talks we have been presented with a draft deal that denies the world justice.

"By including a clause for no future claim of compensation and liability, the US has ensured people suffering from the disastrous impacts of climate change will never be able to seek the justice owed to them.

"This unfair and unjust draft deal won't face up to the realities of climate change and will only serve to widen the chasm between rich and poor. Rich countries have a responsibility to ensure a fair global deal for everyone, not just themselves, and as we move into these final hours of negotiations poorer countries must not settle for anything less."

 

[macdoc]

moving right on to some climate science and the consequences of our warming the planet....


Good explanation of why this may be an enduring and increasingly dangerous pattern

More Signs of Gulf Stream Slowdown as Floods Devastate Cumbria, England
Back in 2009 heavy rains fell over the Northern UK. The rains, abnormally intense, pushed river levels to heights never before measured. A wall of water built-up. Surging over banks, it inundated the town of Carlisle, Cumbria, England — forcing many to flee to higher ground.

At the time, weather forecasters and climatologists wondered if there might have been a global warming link to the freak Cumbria floods. There was certainly risk. Risk that the North Atlantic would become a mess of storms as the Gulf Stream slowed down and cold air masses collided with warm — developing a raging storm track to the west of the UK. A climate situation with the potential to draw in never-before-seen rivers of moisture and set off flooding the likes of which the UK has never known. Flood defenses were shored up. New commitments were made to shift the country away from carbon emissions.

But in just six short years many of those commitments have lagged. Funding for flood defenses was cut by conservatives in the UK parliament even as similar funds for wind and solar energy were targeted in favor of fracking the countryside for natural gas. The usual litany of climate change denial spewed out of the regular conservative mouthpieces in the politics and the media. It was the height of hubris and mismanagement. And again we have a ‘never before seen’ rainstorm roaring up out of a greatly troubled North Atlantic.

the collision zone

worth the read

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/12/...slowdown-as-floods-devastate-cumbria-england/

 

[Haig]

Looks like you're wrong again !

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_38236566b2587de831.jpg[/qimg]


Climate talks officially delayed until Saturday

Seems the deadlock might be broken with another draft compromise


COP21: Leaders at Paris climate change talks reveal key 1.5C temperature rise target

comments

It's not a deal. They are calling it a draft deal, which means it isn't a deal yet, and probably never will be. It does not really matter because CO2 is not the climate regulator they claim. However, let us suspend credulity and suppose it is, and that the calculations of the IPCC are correct. This deal wil only reduce global temperatures by 0.0175° C. That really does not matter to them, because it is not really about climate. It's about control of the masses.

Utter madness. In years to come we'll look back unable to believe the money that was spent on this insane folly. Problem is - its more than just folly, isn't it? Climate policies have consequences. Job losses, economic hardship, as its the 99% who pay for it in the end.

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths in the third world.

And then there's the media's role in all of this. They're all in it together. All of them, without exception. Total proof that they're all in someone's pocket. As if you should be surprised. Welcome to the new battleground - information wars.

ADOPTION OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT
Proposal by the President
Draft decision -/CP.21 PDF

 

[Haig]

Final draft of #COP21 reached – with a 1 year “opt out” clause

Even Dr. James Hansen, the “father of global warming” has picked up on the stupidity of the whole thing:

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just ******** for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

Yep, it’s all just empty promises and speculation, even their wording pays homage to the RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) models: (bold mine)