Climate Change In The News - Spring 2013

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1797.html

 

Finally we can lay to rest LIA and MWP. If it "were the sun wot done it" it appears to have been very 'regional' about it doing so?

 

With this in mind can folk now focus on the unique warming we are seeing today in the context of known drivers and let us get on with figuring how to survive this little shindig?

 

(just watched the 'Thin Ice' flick and it has me rilled as to why so many contrarians wish to continue to 'wind folk up' with such compelling evidence a mere click of a button away?)

[BornFromTheVoid]

If youve listened or watched Mr J.B. he goes back many decades to the 1950s to show in relation to the weather patterns we are having now...

 

I've seen many of his videos, he suggests that most warming and cooling is related to the PDO, yet I've never seen him mention a plausible mechanism for how this works.

Joe B is just a weather man. As far as I'm aware, he has never done published any research on climate, let alone meteorology. He never backs up his claims of the causes of climate change with any evidence because he has none. He has close ties with an organisation that's funded by fossil fuel companies that spreads anti-climate science propaganda, such as the billboard in the image below this.

 

I see no reason why I would choose the opinion of Joe B over 99.8% of climate research that disagrees with him.

 

This is the kind of "balanced alternative" that Joe B is a part of

[Gray-Wolf]

Whilst I fully agree with BFTV (above) I'd implore you to 'watch this space' as , as summer unfolds, we will see plenty more 'climate change in the news'.

 

Though not strong (well it's never really got going in the 'old' way) PDO is still negative so if joe B. is right what should we be expecting?

[UV-RAY]

Whilst I fully agree with BFTV (above) I'd implore you to 'watch this space' as , as summer unfolds, we will see plenty more 'climate change in the news'.

 

Though not strong (well it's never really got going in the 'old' way) PDO is still negative so if joe B. is right what should we be expecting?

Oh I'm sure we will, even though any such warming events have played out many times on Mother Earth. Still it reminds us all how much funding it needs to keep our climate scientists well fed.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Oh I'm sure we will, even though any such warming events have played out many times on Mother Earth. Still it reminds us all how much funding it needs to keep our climate scientists well fed.

 

Can't you discuss anything without bringing up your conspiracy theory stuff. Just makes you come across like a generic science denier with nothing to contribute.

[UV-RAY]

Can't you discuss anything without bringing up your conspiracy theory stuff. Just makes you come across like a generic science denier with nothing to contribute.

You need to learn to differentiate between humour and facts. As my previous post implied I've seen absolutely no evidence linking rising CO2 levels and catastrophic warming, the only evidence is people's opinions and computer generated mumbo jumbo, which is only as good as to what is programmed into it. Yes we have seen warming up until 13 years ago, since then global temps have flatlined of course they may start to rise again, but they may start to fall or remain static. The point is no one really knows, despite all the doom and gloom our climate has not followed the predicted pattern, why?

[ANYWEATHER]

Can't you discuss anything without bringing up your conspiracy theory stuff. Just makes you come across like a generic science denier with nothing to contribute.

There is only one" true fact" coming from this so-called conspiracy of man made climate change with all respect to you and your viewpoint. and that is there as been countless billions of pounds spent from tax payers money to keep this theory on its legs. Its a shame its come to this, and the warmists are panicking to what to bring to the general public next. Im generally fed up along with many I know with this continued banging from corrupt politicians ,so called scientists and media spin. If global warming is so conclusive why or why is there such a great debate about it, including the confusion to the general public. ??

[BornFromTheVoid]

You need to learn to differentiate between humour and facts. As my previous post implied I've seen absolutely no evidence linking rising CO2 levels and catastrophic warming, the only evidence is people's opinions and computer generated mumbo jumbo, which is only as good as to what is programmed into it. Yes we have seen warming up until 13 years ago, since then global temps have flatlined of course they may start to rise again, but they may start to fall or remain static. The point is no one really knows, despite all the doom and gloom our climate has not followed the predicted pattern, why?

 

Yet in all that, you've not stated one fact, just lots of false statements, misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

Should I take it all as humourous banter then?

[BornFromTheVoid]

There is only one" true fact" coming from this so-called conspiracy of man made climate change with all respect to you and your viewpoint. and that is there as been countless billions of pounds spent from tax payers money to keep this theory on its legs. Its a shame its come to this, and the warmists are panicking to what to bring to the general public next. Im generally fed up along with many I know with this continued banging from corrupt politicians ,so called scientists and media spin. If global warming is so conclusive why or why is there such a great debate about it, including the confusion to the general public. ??

 

There is no great debate. You have the scientists working in the fields of climate science that almost entirely agree on AGW being a serious problem, vs, the think-tank propaganda organisations funded by the fossil fuels industry.

The only big debate is in the public and political realms.

 

As for billions being spent on something, do you know how many billions are spent on fossil fuels subsidies, fossil fuel clean ups and health related issue across the globe from the burning of fossil fuels?

Edited April 22, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[ANYWEATHER]

There is no great debate. You have the scientists working in the fields of climate science that almost entirely agree on AGW being a serious problem, vs, the think-tank propaganda organisations funded by the fossil fuels industry.

The only big debate is in the public and political realms.

 

As for billions being spent on something, do you know how many billions are spent on fossil fuels subsidies, fossil fuel clean ups and health related issue across the globe from the burning of fossil fuels?

Well ,I expect that would happen whether we are burning fossil fuels or anything else tbh.Im sure caveman got burnt when lighting there primative fires.It unfortunately boils down to money,greed and deciete not just with this issue but just about anything else.!

[Gray-Wolf]

The fact that Human forcings are not 'instantaneous' is the only thing keeping deniers twittering.

 

The paleo records show millenial time scales involved in the natural counterpart to this type of warming. We have down sized that timing to decades but still some folk imagine the global responces should be 'instant'?

 

This, to me, shows either a will to try and decieve others (for some twisted purpose) or pure blind climate ignorance?

 

High GHG levels mean high temps (over time) the fact the GHG's are already in place can only mean the temps will catch up (as they always did in the past).

 

The abrupt warming that albedo flip tends to drive may well give the planet a rapid hitch up to the temp levels it can now support.......sadly this will just release natural GHG's and send the us around the loop another time.

 

At least Albedo flip gives instant results (as the recent years of constant record Arctic summer temps in ice/snow free areas show us) so last years ramp up from further ice losses will show us even more 'evidence' of the same.

 

Sadly we look to be breaking the CO2 400ppm this yea r(yup! 120ppm above pre-industrial levels and higher than we've seen in a long,long while) so what will happen to any temp hikes over the globe? what will this extra blamket of GHG's tend to do to any extra heat we see???

Edited April 22, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

Why is there still so much debate? That's largely, down to the deniers' penchant for throwing red herrings all over the place...Also, facts (as the on-going MMR debacle clearly continues to demonstrate) don't sell copy.

 

Genuine sceptics do not need to overthrow the laws of thermodynamics to ask questions.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Rybris Ponce

[knocker]

How Do We Know Humans are Responsible for Global Warming?

By Michael E. Mann, Ph.D.

Distinguished Professor, Pennsylvania State University

 

By the mid-1990s, it was possible to investigate the causal mechanisms behind changes in Earth's climate using relatively sophisticated mathematical models of Earth's climate. These models solved the same complex equations of atmospheric physics that numerical weather prediction models did. But they also took into account components of the climate system other than the atmosphere, including the oceans, the continental ice sheets, and even life on Earth (collectively known as the "biosphere"), and they attempted to account for the physical, chemical, and biological interactions among these components. Of course, no theoretical model is ever perfect; even the best model is only an idealization of the actual world. There are always real-world processes that cannot be captured—for example, in the case of a numerical climate model, individual clouds or small-scale air currents like dust devils—that are simply too small for the model to resolve. The key question is, can the model be shown to be useful? Can it make successful predictions?

 

 

http://www.wunderground.com/earth-day/2013/how-do-we-know-humans-are-responsible-for-global-warming

Edited April 22, 2013 by knocker

[UV-RAY]

Can't you discuss anything without bringing up your conspiracy theory stuff. Just makes you come across like a generic science denier with nothing to contribute.

Could you provide a single shred of evidence to back up claims that rising CO2 levels override natural forcings, by evidence I mean undeniable proof. Edited April 22, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[UV-RAY]

http://www.wunderground.com/earth-day/2013/how-do-we-know-humans-are-responsible-for-global-warming

Is this the same Michael Mann who was responsible for allegedly fudging data in order to replicate past global temps.

Edit; With that its time for me to bow out of this debate, as I really find the whole AGW subject a complete bore and turn off, for me the biggest contributor to global temps is that big bright ball of light in the sky, CO2 plays a fairly small part IMO.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[knocker]

So why is the earth much warmer than it should be if some of the outgoing long-wave radiation wasn't "trapped"? Sorry I'm boring you. Unforgivable.

[Methuselah]

Could you provide a single shred of evidence to back up claims that rising CO2 levels override natural forcings, by evidence I mean undeniable proof.

Why? In science, there is no such animal as 'undeniable proof'...

[Gray-Wolf]

None so blind as those who will not see Knocker old boy! We know full well what the science says and we all have access to the stats on warming esp. over the past 50yrs yet some will deny it until they are blue in the face!

 

Some folk will ignore the 'natural' forcing in favour of past natural variation to argue their case (negative PDO, low solar etc should be cooling the planet back to 1950/60's levels but ,because orbital forcing have had temps similar to todays, over the past 14,000yrs, it has to become a 'cloudy issue'). None of the forcings we see today can account for all of the warming we have seen, the best candidate is GHG forcings within the atmosphere but because these are not as great as the potential forcing for current GHG levels it must not be them!!!! I wish we could pop 100yrs forward so they could see that temps will indeed reach the potential for this level of forcing....once the climate inertia is overcome.....but their shortsightedness just leads them to dismissal and applauding the continued use (and subsidy) of fossil fuels further increasing the planets GHG burden.

 

Methane , across the east Siberian sea, has been at record levels this spring. this may be in part due to the 'Crackopalypse' event allow gas escape from under the ice. I have to wonder what record levels we will see over summer? What will the 'GHG' forcing deniers have to say about a gas 22 times as powerful (over the short term up to 100times) as CO2?

 

I should not let them get to me but the closer we come to serious, ultra disruptive climatic shift the more they grate on me. Even to the point of welcoming catastrophes that cannot but be linked to climate shift...and that is truely awful...but what can you say to open their eyes?

[stewfox]

Why? In science, there is no such animal as 'undeniable proof'...

 

If you want to spend billions on 50,000 wind farms and Green Taxes then Joe Public I'm afraid are waking up to the idea that inconclusive theories wont wash.

 

The Artic Ice in summer is shrinking but I haven't seen yet a list of 300 direct impacts as to how it will effect us. Nobody likes paying Green Taxes  on theories they want that undeniable proof.

Edited April 22, 2013 by stewfox

[Methuselah]

If you want to spend billions on 50,000 wind farms and Green Taxes then Joe Public I'm afraid are waking up to the idea that inconclusive theories wont wash.

 

The Artic Ice in summer is shrinking but I haven't seen yet a list of 300 direct impacts as to how it will effect us. Nobody likes paying Green Taxes  on theories they want that undeniable proof.

But they'll buy an infinite amount of half-baked, right-wing, anti-scientific mumbo jumbo that's failed time and again...Interesting...

[UV-RAY]

But they'll buy an infinite amount of half-baked, right-wing, anti-scientific mumbo jumbo that's failed time and again...Interesting...

One costs nothing the other costs lots, the public will vote with their wallets when it comes to half baked ideas from both sides.

[Methuselah]

Is this the same Michael Mann who was responsible for allegedly fudging data in order to replicate past global temps.

Edit; With that its time for me to bow out of this debate, as I really find the whole AGW subject a complete bore and turn off, for me the biggest contributor to global temps is that big bright ball of light in the sky, CO2 plays a fairly small part IMO.

Were the data fudged, or not?

[stewfox]

But they'll buy an infinite amount of half-baked, right-wing, anti-scientific mumbo jumbo that's failed time and again...Interesting...

That's disrespectful to Joe Public and that's why these 'debates' go around in circles. 

[Methuselah]

That's disrespectful to Joe Public and that's why these 'debates' go around in circles. 

So be it...

[knocker]

If you want to spend billions on 50,000 wind farms and Green Taxes then Joe Public I'm afraid are waking up to the idea that inconclusive theories wont wash.

 

 

 

Fossil fuel use isn't inconclusive, Acid earth was an inconclusive theory at one time, even Maggie was sceptical, but low and behold it turned out to be correct. Anyway.  no I don't agree on spending millions on wind farms, tidal power is a far better option like the Seven Barrage, but we should have gone nuclear years ago. Too late now. Anyway BFTV has already shot the fossil fuel industry  down far better than I.

 

Just one point. If natural processes govern our climate and keep it sustainable for our present lifestyle, why isn't it logical that if we interfere with these processes by pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and oceans, this will not have any effect. After all the natural processes stored it in the first place until we came along.