Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[DC]

while they still wonder, is there a problem?

others are one step further. are we too optimistic?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Curious that the same system that gave us a couple of tenths in 15 years is promising 3.5° for the next 27 . By system, I mean climate.

 

[bobwtfomg]

The shopping solution to climate change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft5SSIfmeKU#

 

[macdoc]

and it can get cold too..... China gets it even if some around here don't

An unusually cold winter across China has some regions hitting their lowest average temperatures in more than 40 years, according to state media reports. The Chinese national meteorological agency said polar fronts caused by global warming are to blame for the frigid air.

The freeze is the coldest winter in 28 years, the English-language newspaper China Daily reported. The national average temperature across China's vast territory was a chilly 25.2 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 3.8 degrees Celsius) since late November. In northeast China, which typically has snowy, cold winters, the average temperature was an icy 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 15.3 degrees Celsius), the lowest in 42 years.

Temperatures have dropped down to minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 40 degrees Celsius) in eastern Inner Mongolia, northern Xinjiang and the Arctic reaches of northeast China. (Mohe, in northeast China, holds China's record low temperature of minus 62.1 F, or minus 52.3 C, set on Feb. 13, 1962.)

Global warming brings record cold
The wintry weather doesn't disprove global warming, however. In fact, an expert a China's National Climate Center blamed rising temperatures for the deep freeze. Global warming is shrinking ice in the Arctic and pushing polar fronts south, Zhou Botao told China Daily.

The loss of Arctic ice could affect weather in China in several ways, said Julienne Stroeve, a research scientist specializing in Arctic ice at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo. "It's hard to separate out cause and effect, but one of the things we do know is when we have less sea ice, the Arctic atmosphere is a lot warmer," Stroeve told OurAmazingPlanet.

With less ice cover, the Arctic Ocean absorbs heat and solar energy from the sun that the ice would have reflected back into space. The heating of Arctic sea water can shift weather patterns in the Arctic and also affect the jet stream, Stroeve said. The jet stream is a persistent river of air that circles the planet, and has a strong influence on winter storms and movement of frosty polar air. Dips and troughs created by the shifting Arctic wind patterns could let Arctic air sneak south, studies show.

November and December also saw a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation, a winter weather pattern that drives colder-than-normal weather,.

....more

http://www.livescience.com/26095-china-cold-winter-weather.html

 

[Lennart Hyland]

I've continue debating AGW at a swedish forum where a guy claims there isnt a single scientific evidence for the AGW-Hypothesis.

I dont really now what this evidence would look like, or what evidence he would be satisfied with.

Is he right?

 

[DC]

I've continue debating AGW at a swedish forum where a guy claims there isnt a single scientific evidence for the AGW-Hypothesis.

I dont really now what this evidence would look like, or what evidence he would be satisfied with.

Is he right?

yeah that is hard. its like with evolution.

but here, i like those alot

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

but there is also this fingerprint on the warming from humans.
Like tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, indicates warming do to GHGs.
Or that average temperature in the night has a strong warming tend. also points to GHGs.
and there are several other such fingerprints.
for me the strongest evidence is not convincing for deniers, as it is based on climate modeling.



but also the IPCC AR's provide enough evidence for me. so does the concencus among climatologists.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

yeah that is hard. its like with evolution.

but here, i like those alot

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

but there is also this fingerprint on the warming from humans.
Like tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, indicates warming do to GHGs.
Or that average temperature in the night has a strong warming tend. also points to GHGs.
and there are several other such fingerprints.
for me the strongest evidence is not convincing for deniers, as it is based on climate modeling.



but also the IPCC AR's provide enough evidence for me. so does the concencus among climatologists.

Thanks for the links! I will show this to him.

Though I think its a small chance that he will accept this.

 

[DC]

Thanks for the links! I will show this to him.

Though I think its a small chance that he will accept this.

btw the climate modell evidence, i never ever use that in debates. because before i normally get there, the opposite side has already told me that climate models are nonsense, don't work are always wrong. GIGO etc etc.
so i don't even try. it also took me a while untill i was really convinced that climate models do a reasonable job meanwhile. took me alot of reading and listening^^
but my convidence in models comes maybe from my earlier work with FEA, there i used models and it was everytime spot on. but climate is alot more complicated and needs a huge lot more computing power, so i was rather sceptical.

this one is also very nice to use in debates where the other is not confinced about the world actually geting warmer.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/indicators/11keyindicators.html

especially now that the MET office in on the deniers blogs and newspaper. first releasing Hadcrut4 and now changing their climate model short term prediction.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Thanks for the links! I will show this to him.

Though I think its a small chance that he will accept this.

Probably you have as much a chance as convincing a die-hard Jehovah's Witness of becoming Buddhist.

He already decided that denialism gives him pleasure and AGW makes him angry, so anything you can say will make him angry as you are withdrawing the pleasure.

You only discuss with him for the sake of the general public that may read that. Be sure you make things clear for them and forget the denialist.

PS: In your signature here, you continue to have Mr Hyland dead 40 years before the date encyclopaedias have chosen to him. I told you before.

 

[Haig]

Seems NASA are having a skeptical rethink about man-made global warming

BREAKING: NASA U-TURN ADMITS GLOBAL WARMING BIAS ON SUN’S KEY ROLE

In one of the biggest body blows to climate alarmism comes an astonishing new u-turn from NASA. In essence, the prestigious American space agency has admitted it has been shackled for decades into toeing a political line over man-made global warming so as to play down key solar factors.

http://principia-scientific.org/sup...ts-global-warming-bias-on-sun-s-key-role.html


The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519

 

[aleCcowaN]

Let us apply over that crap a little bit of formaldehyde before starting to dissect it.

Meanwhile I'm asking you, why the article is edited in the fashion of Homer Simpson's interview at "Rock Bottom"?

 

[aleCcowaN]

The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519

There's basically nothing there on the "breakthroughs" you or the "article" say. It's interesting. I'll continue with all this tomorrow. By the moment, here's a figure by Kopp within the workshop document linked by you.

You can see how clearly anthropogenic influences are depicted and the solar variability is just a fraction of it. Yet, it is true, as Kopp told in the workshop, that the solar component must be known perfectly in order to improve the measurement of other effects.

Anyway, you got there a big nothing wrapped in a shiny paper as always, but you already knew, didn't you?

 

[DC]

Seems NASA are having a skeptical rethink about man-made global warming

BREAKING: NASA U-TURN ADMITS GLOBAL WARMING BIAS ON SUN’S KEY ROLE

http://principia-scientific.org/sup...ts-global-warming-bias-on-sun-s-key-role.html


The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519

Why did you not check the original press release from NASA?

there you would have seen this :

Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

and you would know that the title you even copied is a blatant lie.

what is it dishonesty or just gullible?

 

[bobwtfomg]

Seems NASA are having a skeptical rethink about man-made global warming

BREAKING: NASA U-TURN ADMITS GLOBAL WARMING BIAS ON SUN’S KEY ROLE

http://principia-scientific.org/sup...ts-global-warming-bias-on-sun-s-key-role.html


The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519

Or maybe not as you haven't actually linked to anything which shows NASA having a skeptical rethink about man-made global warming, admitting bias or doing a U-turn.

Your first link is to an article which just makes the assertion which you copy/pasted into your post then just quote mines the report in your second link, on what is basically just a PR site for retired geography professor Tim Ball's book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

the greenhouse effect is real
http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist-intermediate.htm
even the handfull of real climate scientists who don't accept AGW accept the greenhouse as real, here's DR R Spencer
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_is_the_greenhouse_effect.htm

Here's a description of the report in your second link from it's authors, my bold

On September 8-9, 2011, experts in solar physics, climate models, paleoclimatology, and atmospheric science assembled at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado for a workshop to consider the Sun's variability over time and potential Sun-climate connections.

While it does not provide findings, recommendations, or consensus on the current state of the science, The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate: A Workshop Report briefly introduces the primary topics discussed by presenters at the event. As context for these topics, the summary includes background information on the potential Sun-climate connection, the measurement record from space, and potential perturbations of climate due to long-term solar variability. This workshop report also summarizes some of the science questions explored by the participants as potential future research endeavors.

Did you really think anyone on this thread would be taken in by this?

 

[macdoc]

For your general amusement - the Mission Statement

http://principia-scientific.org/about/psi-mission-statement.html

complete with spelling and grammar errors purporting to adhere to the highest scientific standards.

and a goal to monetize public review....

Here we detail our core values, Mission Statement and the workings of our pioneering new approach to scientific peer review: Peer Review in Open Media

To compensate our reviewers for their time in doing such work PSI allocates them a 'PSI credit' which is will have a nominal value until such time as it can be monetized at a future date upon PSI successfully acquiring financial backers, paid subscription and voluntary donations. Submitting authors are not required to contribute financially. PSI merely requests the author publishes acknowledgments with a message of thanks to the reviewers.

The process aims to be flexible and adaptive to ensure that each submitting author is availed of all comments received. Such comments will be openly posted below the published draft upon editorial inspection.

Our editing team will see to it that the comments process is not abused and will retain the right to delete amend any comments that are inappropriate (at their discretion). The process allows PSI and the submitting author full control to choose to amend/remove his/her PROM paper and any retain editorial control. The outcome will thus be the product of internal and external review presented professionally and respectfully in a public arena.

It is hoped that PROM will stimulate productive discussion on emerging new science and elicit the most helpful constructive feedback possible in time-effective and cost-effective terms. Of course, like any pioneering process the PROM method may be adapted as we go and we hope authors will work with us if there are any required modifications, in the understanding that our desire is to make constant improvements.

In short, PSI shares with our authors responsibility to strive to publish to the highest standards we can achieve while meeting the falsifiability criterion extolled by Karl Popper and the transparency and verifiability requirements of the scientific method.


MEMBERRECRUITMENT:

During 2012 PSI welcomes membership applications, free to all qualified scientists, engineers and related professionals (inc. media and education) otherwise £10 (Ten British Pounds) for one year for non-scientists. For more information contact:

[email protected]


*Post-Normal Science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent" (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991). It is primarily applied in the context of long-term (politcized) issues where there is less available information than is desired by stakeholders (aka a social elite).

the mind boggles

 

[macdoc]

Australia seems to be going all out on the extremes...

Freaky Dust Storm in Western Australia Is Terrific, Terrifying
Posted January 10, 2013 9:42am by Slade Sohmer

Back in July 2011, many Americans heard the term “haboob” for the first term when a 50-mile-wide dust cloud rolled through and swallowed the Phoenix area. But that monster wall of dust has nothing on the terrifying, terrific tsunami of dust doom that swept through Onslow in Western Australia on Wednesday.

more

http://hypervocal.com/news/2013/dus...tm_campaign=Feed:+hypervocal/Sixk+(HyperVocal)

 

[macdoc]

The horror, the horror......

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21728982.900-the-jolt-we-need-to-take-on-climate-change.html

 

[Acleron]

The Daily Fail tries yet again to deny global warming by quoting the Met Office.

The Met Office replies in epic fashion.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Delingpole really is a tosser, a disgrace.

I was curious, though, that his pile of crap was in the Daily Mail and not The Daily Telegraph - has he moved, then?

 

[Lennart Hyland]

I wonder how the relationship between CO2 and temperatures looks like?

When they talk about a raise in global temperature by like 3-4 degress, then how much CO2 does that need?