In The News

[Gray-Wolf]

I suppose this is why it all becomes so exasperating when you try and discuss the impacts we are now measuring with folk who instantly dismiss those measures and then try and push impacts that are not currently able to be measured (in any meaningful way) that might impact the way the suns output manifest here.

Lurkers may see this as some kind of doubt of what we know and go no further with their questioning>

We know the extra energy that the albedo flip is both generating and liberating into the climate system. This is energy already here (or able to be 'here' now the surface is open to absorbing it) so the 'solar' argument seems to fail at the first hurdle? No matter what mitigation solar varience or cosmic rays may place on the amount of energy at the surface when you suddenly switch from reflecting 90% of that energy to accepting 90% of that energy we see an net 'increase' in that energy???

However mitigating the soalr/cosmic rays may be the ice has melted and so the energy equation that existed prior to that melt is now in imbalance due to the lack of ice to spend the energy on.

Basically we have a huge shunt of energy entering into the climate system and no matter how Mother Nature tries to negate this change some of that 'extra' is getting through, enough in fact to cause the ice issue to be feeding back onto itself and losing ever more ice volume and melting ever more snow.

I believe the results of such 'alterations' are currently manifest in the Arctic basin with the thin, weak ice shattered by the tidal forces of the Full moon and the circulation of the atmosphere. Before the ice was so impacted this kind of basin wide event could not occur.

[Methuselah]

Considering how small the 'sceptic community' is, when compared to the numbers involved in the scientific study of climate change, they do seem to make vast contributions to the subject. Even though those contributions consist merely of re-hashes of their previous efforts; efforts which have almost certainly been already shown to be nonsense, many times before...

[Gray-Wolf]

And this is where my issue arise Pete. without wishing to quash anybody's right to free speech it would be nice to see a discussion thats was as weighted as our science is? Billy Knownowt comes here to pick the communities brains (and save him the trouble of having to find out for himself) to see every post explaining the current understanding countered by a post claiming that this understanding is wrong or flawed or challenged by some erstwhile unbeknown scientific phenomena.

Billy knownowt goes away thinking that (excuse the pun) everything is still up in the air so no need to worry about it.

It , without becoming all conspiritorial, it seems unfair that a load of non-media savy Geeks find themselves up against paid media savy denialist sites who do nothing other than pick holes and cast doubts (i.e. do not 'do' science themselves but merely piggy back on anything , however disproven, that fits their agenda) and throw the media spotlight on folk who are doing science (or trying to when not fighting to save their own reputations) and expect them to compete as though on a level playing field......there are so many Homer J's out there that T.V. soundbites will always win out until disaster hit them head on..and gives them rise to think on all that 'science' that they happily dismissed in favour of the "Carry on ,as you are ,all's well ,nothing to see here" message.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Lawson was bad enough when he was Chancellor and a very good reason for scrapping the House of Lords.

What complete twoddle.

“In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its strongest, the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy.â€

Sceptics hall of shame.

Monkton actually looks mad.

http://www.campaigncc.org/hallofshame

Edited February 27, 2013 by knocker

[laserguy]

Sceptics hall of shame.

Ah, an august body of Men for sure, of which I'd be proud to count amongst their number.

[4wd]

Monkton actually looks mad.

http://www.campaigncc.org/hallofshame

Do you think that pathetic personalised vendetta campaigning site might have deliberately chosen pictures that make them look a bit weird?

Actually I believe Monkton had/has a medical condition that makes his eyes bulge.

Not madness BTW

[4wd]

impacts that are not currently able to be measured

Good post, I can agree with that.

The rest is speculation from the entrenched position that people must be somehow bad and the sooner they have a catastrophic population crash the better.

[jonboy]

And this is where my issue arise Pete. without wishing to quash anybody's right to free speech it would be nice to see a discussion thats was as weighted as our science is? Billy Knownowt comes here to pick the communities brains (and save him the trouble of having to find out for himself) to see every post explaining the current understanding countered by a post claiming that this understanding is wrong or flawed or challenged by some erstwhile unbeknown scientific phenomena.

Billy knownowt goes away thinking that (excuse the pun) everything is still up in the air so no need to worry about it.

It , without becoming all conspiritorial, it seems unfair that a load of non-media savy Geeks find themselves up against paid media savy denialist sites who do nothing other than pick holes and cast doubts (i.e. do not 'do' science themselves but merely piggy back on anything , however disproven, that fits their agenda) and throw the media spotlight on folk who are doing science (or trying to when not fighting to save their own reputations) and expect them to compete as though on a level playing field......there are so many Homer J's out there that T.V. soundbites will always win out until disaster hit them head on..and gives them rise to think on all that 'science' that they happily dismissed in favour of the "Carry on ,as you are ,all's well ,nothing to see here" message.

This is what really upsets me about how you put your arguments across GW. The putting down of anyone who questions your clearly firm believe that it is man and man alone who is the instigator of so called global warming and please don't come back and call it climate change.

There is plenty of evidence of those who challenge the percieved thinking being deride and imprisoned or even put to death in history and then are proven correct with the passage of time. Are we to do the same with those who question, rightly in my opinion, that actually the warming we have seen is actually predominately a result of external influences outside the control of man. Yes we do play a part but it is a small part.

I fear that unless we accept that the science is not settled then we risk not understanding what our climate might do over the next 30/50 years which is in my opinion to be a cooling which will create greater problems than any warming being projected. There is plenty of reseach ongoing that indicates this it just doesn't fit in with thw warming agenda

[Gray-Wolf]

Then you are clearly not reading my posts jonboy?

I am concerned greatly by natures own responses to the forcings so far and have , on numerous occasions asked folk to forget the 'how we got here' side of things and focus on 'here'.

If we have a grasp of our changing climate ,over the ages, then we might also see where the level of change we see today must surely be taking us?

To me 'cooling' is well out of the question no matter what the Sun does (within the parameters of variance we are aware of).

The thing that does peturb me is the nonsense I see posted about 'natural cycles' when we are so clearly beyond any such cycle that we have measured throughout all of our paleo climatic records.

I would agree that sudden cooling would pose far more threats to the developed world than slow warming would but I fear that we may see a resumption of the type of rapid warming we witnessed through the 80's and that before the 'natural cycles' turn positive and exacerbate things further.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[4wd]

http://www.independe...ng-8513826.html

Green fatigue - the new buzzword.

Dutch a_no_n • 3 hours ago

Ah yes, 'valid data'. Discussion of a scientific theory, which is the true status of AWG at this time, does actually require real science. This issue has been hijacked completely by political science, and most advocates of AWG have no true depth of knowledge of the real science at the base of the subject. The Green House effect is known to be a valid and observable impact to temperature. The real argument is over the actual impact of this on global temperature. The real reason this movement, or whatever you may want to call it, is dying on the vine is all the assumptions, all the predictions, from the 80's, 90's and the previous decade are simply not bearing out. The recent habit of attributing weather events to AWG is a sign of either ignorance or desperation from a movement that has veered off the time proven scientific method. Shutting down the other sides arguments is totally contradictory to real science.

• 
  

• 
  

Edited February 28, 2013 by 4wd

[Gray-Wolf]

I do not think that most folk are a fickle as you would paint them 4? The U.S. climate disasters of last year swung the balance of folk who believed man was altering the climate and , come this summer, we will have another swathe of extreme climate events that will convince a whole lot more folk of what is now occuring.

I know i mourned Politic's seizure of the climate issues we face as I knew full well how a 'piliticised' debate would end up. As it is it has cost us 20yrs of serious discussion and condideration and for what? Even a President elect dare not mention climate even after his Nation is stung for Billions by 'climate catastrophes'.

It does not matter what you or I think. Mother N. will do what mother N. will and a.t.m. she has a new balancing act on her hands. She will do her best to re-balance her books no matter what impacts it will have on us all.

I wish we could stop talking about whether a journey is occurring or not as we are already at our first destination.

[laserguy]

The U.S. climate disasters of last year swung the balance of folk who believed man was altering the climate and , come this summer, we will have another swathe of extreme climate events that will convince a whole lot more folk of what is now occuring.

Really? A greater shock would be to have a year that passes without any climate weather disasters. A bigger shock still would be to have these events occur,as they have since the year dot, without you lot ascribing their cause all of a sudden, to AGW.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Really? A greater shock would be to have a year that passes without any climate weather disasters. A bigger shock still would be to have these events occur,as they have since the year dot, without you lot ascribing their cause all of a sudden, to AGW.

Only the ones that have been analysed and shown to have been extremely unlikely without AGW, are ascribed any tentative cause.

We're now getting a good grasp of just how we've altered our weather patterns with the uneven heating of the planet.

Unfortunately, these "scientific" findings aren't always going to suit your ideals LG, but that's life eh!? But by all mean, continue to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "cobblers" at everyone, it at least demonstrates how baseless your arguments are.

[knocker]

A new satellite that will detect the lightning inside storm clouds may lead to valuable improvements in tornado detection. The GOES-R satellite is currently being built with new technology that may help provide earlier warnings for severe weather. The national average is a 14-minute lead time to warn residents of a tornado, but NASA and NOAA scientists are looking to improve severe weather detection to save lives and property. They are developing the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series, or GOES-R, to observe thunderstorm development with much greater spatial and temporal detail than ever before. Severe weather knows no specific season and the new technology aboard GOES-R is expected to help provide earlier detection for warnings, whatever the time of year.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/goes-tornado.html

[4wd]

Normal February

February 2013 global temperature anomaly compared to 1981-2010 mean: -0.001°C or 1/1000th of a degree below avg.

[laserguy]

Monkton actually looks mad.

http://www.campaigncc.org/hallofshame

Ha ha. If I'd said that about Dr. Hansen, Dev would be filing lawsuits by now and muttering something with "ad hominem" in it. BFTV - you're convincing no-one except yourself and the faithful. But you're right about one thing; "cobblers" is a wonderful word with such power that it succinctly focuses a million words of pro-AGW mumbo jumbo. 4's graphic says it all. How many more billions of tons of CO2 need to be added to the system in addition to what's gone before, until we see a difference?

[knocker]

Only the ones that have been analysed and shown to have been extremely unlikely without AGW, are ascribed any tentative cause.

We're now getting a good grasp of just how we've altered our weather patterns with the uneven heating of the planet.

Unfortunately, these "scientific" findings aren't always going to suit your ideals LG, but that's life eh!? But by all mean, continue to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "cobblers" at everyone, it at least demonstrates how baseless your arguments are.

Quite agree BFTV. Nobel Laureate Mario J. Molina, Ph.D. is quite interesting on the subject.

Nobel prize-winning scientist cites evidence of link between extreme weather, global warming

PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 20, 2012 — New scientific analysis strengthens the view that record-breaking summer heat, crop-withering drought and other extreme weather events in recent years do, indeed, result from human activity and global warming, Nobel Laureate Mario J. Molina, Ph.D., said here today.

Molina, who shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for helping save the world from the consequences of ozone depletion, presented the keynote address at the 244^th National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society. The meeting, which features about 8,600 reports with an anticipated attendance of 14,000 scientists and others continues here through Thursday.

"People may not be aware that important changes have occurred in the scientific understanding of the extreme weather events that are in the headlines," Molina said. "They are now more clearly connected to human activities, such as the release of carbon dioxide ― the main greenhouse gas ― from burning coal and other fossil fuels."

Molina emphasized that there is no "absolute certainty" that global warming is causing extreme weather events. But he said that scientific insights during the last year or so strengthen the link. Even if the scientific evidence continues to fall short of the absolute certainly measure, the heat, drought, severe storms and other weather extremes may prove beneficial in making the public more aware of global warming and the need for action, said Molina.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-08/acs-nps072712.php

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Knocker!

They are right , it will be the unmistakeable event that will change the public attitude (as we have seen the past summer in the U.S,) Folk may not wish to swat up on the subject of AGW but they do know about it. All that will occur is the office will break down into the folk who say "I told you it was happening" and "well, we didn't know enough before but now" and " Nah, it's the sun..."

Folk will just step over the "we could have done something to mitigate the worst of this" and step straight into " Why did our leaders not let us know it was this bad".

I think the politcal trick will be not to be in office when it becomes apparent that we are in deep do,do's but to be the ones who come to power to sort out the do,do's when you will not have to justify the Draconian measures needed to then try and offset the worst we have coming?

Edited March 1, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Hi GW.

This is perhaps one of the decisions that will have to be made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-20904885

Edited March 1, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

Ha ha. If I'd said that about Dr. Hansen, Dev would be filing lawsuits by now and muttering something with "ad hominem" in it. BFTV - you're convincing no-one except yourself and the faithful. But you're right about one thing; "cobblers" is a wonderful word with such power that it succinctly focuses a million words of pro-AGW mumbo jumbo. 4's graphic says it all. How many more billions of tons of CO2 need to be added to the system in addition to what's gone before, until we see a difference?

I don't think Mr Monckton is mad and it's not a word I'd use. However, it's calling people things like 'liar' or 'fraud' I really dislike. Words like 'cobblers', 'mumbo jumbo' and the rest I think simply show the paucity of the users 'argument'. Anyway, can you explain Dr Maue's method and how one month shows anything? One big clue is the base period he uses, the other that (and here you should reach for the garlic) I think he's using model data.... Edited March 1, 2013 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

A wee bit of myth-busting: http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

[Methuselah]

And how do the 'sceptics' argue this phenomenon away again?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/1024.short

[knocker]

!970s cooling, again.

Just when you thought this tripe was dead, it comes round again. Well, its winter at least in this hemisphere, and a bit chilly, so perhaps it seems plausible – the septics usually have trouble telling weather from climate.

http://scienceblogs...._medium=twitter

Paper from the link in the AMS.

http://journals.amet.../2008BAMS2370.1

Edited March 2, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

Another myth about to bite the dust?

http://www.nature.co...ature10915.html

Edited March 2, 2013 by Rybris Ponce

[Gray-Wolf]

And this is the thing Pete, we skipped the 9% 'forcing' and went straight into the GHG forcing this time but seeing as past 'warmups' from ice ages relied upon the carbon cycle for the majority of the heating what should we expect from the Industrial GHG's we have released?

As far as the 'natural' carbon cycle is concerned our forcing has replaced the orbital forcing and so now we shoulD expect the GHGs that the nudge will release?

We all saw the Siberian caves paper and so know what temp rise is needed to start those massive releases and once those are underway then we need wonder about the planets ice sheets and the carbon cycle buried below them?

Such things are fine for faux sceptics as they will take a long while to present, sadly the albedo flip impcts on global energy budgets will bring us/is bringing us will be nigh on instant.

Let's see what this summer brings us?