Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[4wd]

And don't forget - only intelligent, thoughtful people post in the other thread. 

[4wd]

 ( mainly baiting and then reporting any person who 'bites' to board admin so swamping mods with increased workloads and effectively leading to ownership closing areas that are 'unsustainable').

Now this is total garbage he's been dreaming up for a while.
I post mainly on TWO and have reported one post in about ten years, here I honestly aren't sure but don't recall reporting anything certainly not from him anyway.

[UV-RAY]

The second line of my post seemed apt at the time, given your opinions of everyone you deem to be on this side of the debate, other than FB.

 

With regard to the climate, the main man-made forcing appears to from CO2 and particulate pollution, nothing about that. As for the subsequent feedbacks, there is always going to be a level of uncertainty involved in any measurement or prediction. But the evidence is almost unequivocal that the feedbacks will be positive, just how strongly positive is the issue. I don't think you'll find anybody here would dismiss scientific research of any kind out of hand, so there is certainly no need to hold back from posting data to back up your opinions. Any sceptically inclined person would insist on evidence as a foundation to opinion.

 

Clouds and aerosols do appear to be the biggest area of uncertainty presently. The current understanding has improved, but even with considerable uncertainty, it's not a case of whether -ve /aerosol cloud feedbacks could stop warming, but whether is will slow it a moderate amount or a small amount. When looking at cloud feedbacks alone the main claims for a strong -ve cloud feedback have been gradually fading over the years, as more and more data/research has come through. Currently, the best estimates are for a small +ve feedback from clouds, based not on assumptions now, but evidence. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter07.pdf

 

I personally find it difficult to roconcile the gradual Milankovitch cycles induced cooling from 8,000 years ago until the 19th century, then the rapid warming, heat accumulation within the climate system, and current large radiative imbalance, with a continuation of the climates natural status quo.

 

 

It is simply the scientific, better yet, the sceptical way, to produce evidence for your opinions. The graphs, papers, data, etc, are all easily searchable and take little effort to post a link here. The problem with just posting (potentially baseless) opinions and getting put off at requests for evidence, is that it allows myths, falsehoods, conjecture and assumptions to propagate at the expense of evidence based research, which is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. All of which has nothing to do with open mindedness imo.

Errr evidence based research, where is the evidence that warming may start once the oceans decide it's time it wasn't  going to be so greedy with all that hidden heat content. That's an assumption based on zero evidence.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[UV-RAY]

The warming continues SI. The climate systems continues to accumulate heat

 

the oceans are warming

Pacific Ocean Accumulating Heat Faster Than at Any Time in the Past 10,000 Years

 

the air is warming

 

the sea level is rising

 

the ice is melting

 

 

The evidence is there for all to see.

The surface temp that place where we all live isn't warming, the oceans are always warming and have been doing so since the last ice age, it's the hidden heat content that scientist are assuming will show it's hand  in the near future, sea level rises are negligible really and the minuscule rises we've seen could be down to natural oceanic currents, we simply don't know. It's no good moving the goal post to show missing heat content anywhere but where it counts, which is at the surface. Until/if we see those increase I'll sit up and take notice BFTV.

[Methuselah]

And don't forget - only intelligent, thoughtful people post in the other thread.

 

Which is of course, utter codswallop...IMO, arguing is part of debate, and we can all state our respective opinions/beliefs/knowledge without fear of being unduly censored. 

 

If someone posts pro-AGW stuff into this thread, please report it; it'll be treated in exactly the same way as will things put into the other thread...Unless it's missed. We cant be 'on duty' 24/7!

 

Remember: you only need make a link...

[UV-RAY]

Which is of course, utter codswallop...IMO, arguing is part of debate, and we can all state our respective opinions/beliefs/knowledge without fear of being unduly censored. 

 

If someone posts pro-AGW stuff into this thread, please report it; it'll be treated in exactly the same way as will things put into the other thread...Unless it's missed. We cant be 'on duty' 24/7!

 

Remember: you only need make a link...

Lol, I keep cocking up when replying to others and end up struggling to find my post.

[keithlucky]

New study says heatwaves have decreased in the USA since the 1930"s http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/new-paper-finds-us-extreme-heat-waves.html

Edited November 1, 2013 by keithlucky

[be cause]

And don't forget - only intelligent, thoughtful people post in the other thread. 

the truth will out ...

[Tamara]

The comments I made about links and the effort of providing links on the other thread have unfortunately not been interpreted/represented correctly as they were intended, so there is little point in wasting time pursuing that any further

 

In terms of clouds feedbacks  these are not just an area of uncertainty but a significant area of uncertainty. The IPCC pit their stall in citing a fair sensitivity weighting to cloud feedbacks and the slightly positive feedbacks they overall assume to verfiy. Is it just coincidental that whether or not sensitivity is very high or harmlessly low rests mostly on the cloud feedback for AGW verification, and that the likes of the IPCC who are claiming a high sensitivity are also claiming significant uncertainty for the cloud feedback, while those claiming a low sensitivity are not putting such emphasis on cloud feedback?

 

Small errors in the sensitivity weighting to cloud feedbacks, quite obviously, make very large differences to suggested temperature outcomes, and suggesting that it is likely that overall feedback response is slightly positive is highly prone to large descrepancy in actual outcome when at the same time a high sensitivity weighting is applied within the models. Risk factor for error is increased here substantially.

 

Is it also another coincidence that net negative cloud feedback is consistent with how the incident energy on the surface from the Sun is responded to in the system, while positive cloud feedback is not?

 

Which is it ? Bearing in mind that the sun is the biggest consistent forcing of all on the planet?

[Methuselah]

"...Bearing in mind that the sun is the biggest consistent forcing of all on the planet?"

 

But, how does that explain the 'young sun paradox', which was consistent for many millions of years?

 

Anywho, I agree that cloud feedbacks constitute a major uncertainty, regarding any attempts to model future climates...But, as I said in the 'other thread', the data  - as of 2009 - point towards a weak +ive overall feedback. But I haven't been able to find anything more up-to-date...

 

If you can find research, whose results are to the contrary, I'll be the first to take it on-board... 

[VillagePlank]

First we had the barometer of climate change: difficult collections of sparse and non-uniform temperature records from across the planet conglomerated into a temperature series that showed the world was warming. Lot's have been written about it, but, I think, any reasonable person would say, especially given the BEST experiment, that these charts are pretty good, probably as accurate as we're ever likely to get them, and that they should be trusted as good science conducted by honest people. Of course, these led to the poster-chart of AGW, the hockey stick. I can accept that. The world was warming, and, it looks as if it was warming alarmingly at the end of the last century.

 

Of course, now we have the hiatus, the pause; where no warming, statistical or significant, has occurred. Of course, you get the odd chump who sticks a linear trend line on a 16 year graph and gleefully - normally with an exasperated red-face - points out that the gradient is positive on the linear regression, which is therefore defacto evidence that warming we still are. This is easily refuted as exceptionally poor use of statistics. I recall the Malcolm character in the Jurassic Park novel:

 

"Most kinds of power require a substantial sacrifice by whoever wants the power. There is an apprenticeship, a discipline lasting many years. Whatever kind of power you want. President of the company. Black belt in karate. Spiritual guru. Whatever it is you seek, you have to put in the time, the practice, the effort. You must give up a lot to get it. It has to be very important to you. And once you have attained it, it’s your power. It can't be given away: it resides in you. It is literally the result of your discipline. Now what is interesting about this process is that, by the time someone has acquired the ability to kill with his bare hands, he has also matured to the point where he won't use it unwisely. So that kind of power has a built-in control. The discipline of getting the you so that you won't abuse it. But scientific power is like inherited wealth: attained without discipline. You read what others have done, and you take the next step. You can do it very young. You can make progress very fast. There is no discipline lasting many decades. There is no mastery: old scientists are ignored. There is no humility before nature."

 

I think we can blame the proliferation of the killer-app, the spreadsheet, for this one. You only need to know that linear regression exists, and that there's an up and down bit to the line it produces. Some people even stick a rather esoteric r2 value in. All interesting stuff. Oh, and you need to be in full control of a mouse.

 

But all that's OK, because now we do not require the atmosphere to be warming: any part of the planet's system can be warming and that is evidence. I go along with that - I bet you thought that I wouldn't - if the heat is going into the oceans, the heat is going into the oceans. That's it.

 

Except, that isn't it. If the oceans are warming up they degas at a faster rate. That's to say, we've enjoyed the oceans soaking up approximately 30% of our CO2 emissions for the best part of 200 years: there's a lot of CO2 in there, but we aren't seeing a corresponding increase in CO2 degassing from the oceans. Of course, our human CO2 output figures could be wrong, too, but that would lead to the climate models being subsequently wrong since they'd have to find another culprit - well, to be accurate, not yet, since a run or two or three which falls beneath the current temperature trend do exist out there. It could also be the case that the recent 400ppmv figures could be wrong, but again, that's highly unlikely. The chances are that we've pumped vast quantities of the stuff out, and the measurements are fine.

 

So, the genuine enquiry is: if the heat is going into the oceans, where's the missing CO2? If it's not, where is the missing heat due to CO2 increases?

 

Of course, AGW proponents have had wonderful unhindered fun taking the ocean degassing phenomena (it's true: if you can boil a kettle you can observe it in real life)  and sticking it rather unceremoniously up some unsuspecting bystanders, ahem, back-side - by prominently standing on their orange boxes at the corner of that public park we call the internet and pointing out the errors in everybody else's ways, but their own. That's the blogosphere for you, I guess.

 

Check this out: http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=33

Edited November 2, 2013 by Sparkicle

[UV-RAY]

Some excellent points referring to oceanic heat content.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/01/a-sea-change-for-climate-science/

[UV-RAY]

An excellent article by Judith Curry on oceanic heat content in the Pacific.

 

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/01/pacific-ocean-heat-content-for-the-past-10000-years/

[keithlucky]

Another article by Judith Curry the debate on the global pause has moved now to global cooling since 2002 http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/01/is-global-cooling-the-new-scientific-consensus/

 

[stewfox]

An excellent article by Judith Curry on oceanic heat content in the Pacific.

 

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/01/pacific-ocean-heat-content-for-the-past-10000-years/

 

 

Interesting article

 

Given an ocean heat-carrying capacity over 1000 times greater than that of the global atmosphere, further key observation of how the oceans have behaved in the past and could in the future have  implications for how the atmosphere and earth’s surface responds over time to a build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

 

Of course one needs to take into account (when looking at large time scales)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity

 

etc

[stewfox]

Another article by Judith Curry the debate on the global pause has moved now to global cooling since 2002 http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/01/is-global-cooling-the-new-scientific-consensus/

 

Pity its full of cherry picking and miss leading comments. As a sceptic I don't want us to follow some of the IPCC exaggerations. The core of the article is interesting but.....

 

-----------------

 

""""""""the record-level growth of Arctic sea ice"""""""

"""""""""Is ‘global cooling’ the new scientific consensus?"""""""""""

-----------------

 

Please !

[UV-RAY]

Old GW is off on one of his sermons on how us misleaders are leading his flock into the abyss...So if we are all misleaders than what are those who preach doom and gloom day in, day out, even when the ruddy obvious tells them that the globe isn't warming. My view on proponents of AGW isn't printable on a family forum, they are all the same hiding behind scientific ideas which are dressed up as facts.

Edited November 4, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue
personal stuff removed; the post still makes the same point.

[UV-RAY]

Hi Fergus, to answer your question the only part of Physics which isn't an assumption is that of CO2 being a greenhouse gas. We know the effects of this gas but more assumptions are made with what levels of warming can we expect from said gas, Up until now these assumptions have been off the mark so the question is why, it cannot be just down to a -PDO and solar output due to the length of the pause, so what is it that climate scientist aren't factoring into their models?

PS. I withdraw my comment on proponents of AGW as you yourself are proof that one can discuss things in a rationale and thought provoking manner.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[VillagePlank]

The scientific method, which has not only been hugely successful, it's the best way that we, human-kind, know of in order to acquire knowledge, pretty much states that we should let reality speak for itself. When reality doesn't confirm theory we are bound to re-asses theory.

 

One such theory is catastrophic climate warming. Catastrophic is the sort where people die, the economy collapses, and our children in their old age have to endue some sort of post-apocalyptic hell normally only reserved for masterpieces such as Paradise Lost by Milton. The process at arriving at this conclusion is pretty straightforward: we know much of the physics, we have the computing power, so let's produce a model based on known and provable physics, and see what happens. It's implementation is no where near straightforward.

 

Nevertheless, humankind has produced many climate models, and under various scenarios have produced different outcomes from the catastrophic to the benign.  A question one might think to ask is that if the majority of climate models warm to much is there a fundamental assumption about what we believe to be the case is in fact wrong? Would a majority of the climate models warming at a rate faster than reality be enough to ask that question?

 

Well, the facts of the matter are that 96% of the climate models warm the planet too fast.

 

 

Src: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/maybe-that-ipcc-95-certainty-was-correct-after-all/

 

That's a greater number than the number normally used to assess scientific certainty, 95% - so do the climate models now show us that catastrophic climate change is now simply a fiction invented in some software written in a language, by scientists who clearly have no software development skill, that is some 40 years out of date? It is also only 1% short of the scientific consensus [1] that is normally used, de rigour, to snare and enslave others under the auspices of argument ad populum. If numbers is the name of the game, then this is crucial evidence. Isn't it? Is this not what the scientific method demands? Should we all be concerned at the level of green taxation that will leave many people in Britain vulnerable and dead, this winter, when reality is diverging away from the climate model mean?

 

So, another genuine question to add to my list:

 

(i) Where is the missing CO₂?

(ii) Why do the vast majority of climate models warm the world too fast?

 

Why have we apparently suspended the scientific method on the basis of the precautionary principle? Should I leave my house today in case I get hit by a meteorite?

 

[1] http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Edited November 5, 2013 by Sparkicle

[keithlucky]

New paper finds Sun controls European and North Atlantic weather via ocean oscillation http://t.co/T5u7YnsiV0

[VillagePlank]

My last post may be in error -just thought I'd let you know. See http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76585-manmade-climate-change-discussion/?p=2827511

[UV-RAY]

Aye Ian. On the balance of things, it clearly looks as if that one's been put to bed: the data are inconsistent with the hypothesis...

Lol, what about the data regarding the pause and rising CO2 levels and missing heat content. Can we please put this one to bed also.

[keithlucky]

 New review paper finds temperature history of the Antarctic argues strongly against AGW http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/antarctica_trends.pdf

 

[keithlucky]

Sombody should tell the Antarctic its the melt season!  New record growth for October http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/06/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-a-new-record-for-october/

 

[keithlucky]

No warming in Alaska since 1979

ftp://ftp.remss.com/msu/data/netcdf/rss_tb_maps_ch_tlt_v3_3.nc

And the national Geograhic says Hot TIMES in Alaska

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1404/segments/1404-1.htm

Edited November 7, 2013 by keithlucky