Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-65#entry2979273

 

Man influenced imo.

 

I think the trend is, and will be, towards more warm events.

 

That probably means I'm a communist

[knocker]

Oh the joy

 

Lord Monckton has a tantrum

http://ingeniouspursuits.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/lord-monckton-has-tantrum.html

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-65#entry2979348

 

It must be easy being a AGW sceptic. Why? read on.

 

So, Keith says "Really need some facts on this, more distortion of the Polar Bear numbers,Polar bear numbers is based on guesswork" bur earlier Stew said "IPCC summary/ picture attached . Polar bear population on the rise"

 

Brilliant! Sceptics can claim we both don't know and we do know. It's a neat trick, they do similar things all the time* and part of me wishes we followers of evidence could get away with it....

 

*Some sceptics deny CO2 is increasing, other say it is.

 

Some sceptics say a gas of such low concentration can't have any effect while other say more CO2 is plant food for the whole planet.

 

Some sceptics say it isn't warming others say it is but it's natural.

 

Sceptics say AGW is all politics and then they all go and vote UKI...

 

Well,  you get the jist...

Edited May 31, 2014 by Devonian

[knocker]

Some thoughts by Isaac Held

 

How can outgoing longwave flux increase as CO2 increases?

 

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2014/05/31/46-how-can-outgoing-longwave-increase-as-co2-increases/

Edited June 1, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Very interesting article by Robert Scribbler. great Graphic,

 

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/nature-human-destabilized-antarctica-capable-of-glacial-outbursts-contributing-to-sea-level-rise-of-14-feet-per-century/

[knocker]

Daniel Botkin obediently tells denier Republicans what they want to hear, but who is he?

 

In the USA one of the House Committees had another hearing. The Republicans wanted to get a few deniers on record trashing climate science. This time they were wanting to try to discredit the IPCC so they got three people they thought would do the job for them and allowed one person to be nominated by the Democrats

 

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/daniel-botkin-obediently-tells-denier.html#more

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-65#entry2979841

 

 

Didn't take long for the other side to dish Daniel Botkin via that wonderful site 'hotwhopper' why am i not surprised. If you can't refute the points made dish the guy instead seems to be the standard approach of the other side these days.

 

That's a bit rich after the hate campaign and vilification of Michael Mann and other leading scientists. And she did address the points. I think Michael Oppenheimer may be more qualified to give an opinion and I notice he was ignored. I wonder why? 

Edited June 2, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Heavier summer downpours with climate change revealed by weather forecast resolution model

 

The intensification of precipitation extremes with climate change¹ is of key importance to society as a result of the large impact through flooding. Observations show that heavy rainfall is increasing on daily timescales in many regions², but how changes will manifest themselves on sub-daily timescales remains highly uncertain. Here we perform the first climate change experiments with a very high resolution (1.5 km grid spacing) model more typically used for weather forecasting, in this instance for a region of the UK. The model simulates realistic hourly rainfall characteristics, including extremes^{3, 4}, unlike coarser resolution climate models^{5, 6}, giving us confidence in its ability to project future changes at this timescale. We find the 1.5 km model shows increases in hourly rainfall intensities in winter, consistent with projections from a coarser 12 km resolution model and previous studies at the daily timescale⁷. However, the 1.5 km model also shows a future intensification of short-duration rain in summer, with significantly more events exceeding the high thresholds indicative of serious flash flooding. We conclude that accurate representation of the local storm dynamics is an essential requirement for predicting changes to convective extremes; when included we find for the model here that summer downpours intensify with warming.

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2258.html

 

A summary here

 

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/britain-faces-more-flash-floods-due-to-global-warming-claims-met-office.html

[knocker]

Tamino discusses AWs latest 'revelation'.

 

The Foolish Line

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/foolish-line/

[Gray-Wolf]

Is there any validity to my suspicion that the NE Asian Heatwave ( ongoing) and another record warm 24 month period for australia ( with more to come courtesy of El Nino) has the other place scratching for anything 'cold'???

 

How big is Lake Superior compared to NE China, Mongolia,Japan, Eastern Russia and Korea by the way?

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=278

 

 

 

( or maybe Wattsy just wanted to distract his worshipers with another Squirrel in case they saw something really noteworthy and began asking questions?..........)

Edited June 2, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Leading Climate Sceptic Vying to be UKIP’s First MP

 

The first test of UKIP’s growing popularity will come this Thursday at a by-election in the seat of Newark in the British Midlands. The seat was vacated after the incumbent MP, Patrick Mercer, resigned in a cash-for-questions lobbying scandal. The seat is traditionally seen as a safe one for the Conservatives, who polled 54 per cent at the last General Election, with UKIP polling just 4 per cent.

 

UKIP are fielding the veteran politician Roger Helmer who has been a member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands since the late nineties, first with the Tories and more latterly with UKIP. Helmer is currently UKIP’s spokesman on Energy and Industry.

 

The 70-year old is certainly controversial and has caused outrage for his recent opinions on rape, women and homosexuality. What has been less reported in the British press at least is that Helmer is a long-standing climate denier with deep ties to leading climate sceptic organisations in the US, such as ALEC, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Heartland Institute. For the last few years, Helmer has been a key person fostering links between British and American scepics.

 

http://priceofoil.org/2014/06/03/leading-climate-sceptic-vying-ukips-first-mp/

[Gray-Wolf]

4th month in a row of positive PDO values ( 1.13) and the highest positive ( I think?) since 03'? The Pacific warm pool looks stronger than ever so we ought to expect June to post another positive figure? Are we really pulling out of a PDO-ve phase now ( since it flipped in 97')?

 

If so then the impacts of warming are truly impacting the cycle with the negative period much less defined than what we saw during in the later half of the 20th Century and buffered by more frequent positive interludes and low grade neg values?

 

PDO appears to be another divisive topic with many Deniers 'wishing' for a PDO-ve, and its impacts, that started ever later ( so it can last ever longer)? 

[Methuselah]

Indeed Ian - the next massive El Nino could be an eye-opener for many.

[Gray-Wolf]

I do like the avatar Pete!

 

I just think that too many folk have been 'playing' 'Natural Cycles' as if some kind of proof of the failure of sciences predictions and , IMHO, that is a very dangerous game to play?

 

I do not think that a majority of such folk can be ignorant of what they are doing and must be Krupping themselves ,ever more, as each year passes and the 'Flip' back from negative to positive nears?

 

If we put any credence in the temp reconstructions, including poorly monitored regions, then they have a glimpse at what a future under a more inclusive global temp record, combined with positive natural cycle temp augmentations, holds for us and that each day passed is a day closer to that reality?

 

Maybe they ( the folk playing negatively augmented global temps) ought consider that " what they are capable and willing to do" in following their beliefs and tactics in the climate debate will not be instantly adopted by the Scientists once that 'Natural Seesaw' flips? 

 

Through the last period of accelerated warming I seem to remember folk attempting to pull out the natural signal from the man made signal in a way that has only brought derision ( from some quarters) when the same has been applied to the current negatively augmented period?

 

Should we see a flip back to PDO+ve, IPO positive and a securing of the lower Arctic ice levels we have seen since 07' then surely we will see more of the " look! , a Squirrel !!!!" posts like the 'Lake Superior debacle we have seen recently (whilst the Earth is on heatwave alert!!!).

 

Ho Hum.........

Edited June 4, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

The Skepticism In Skeptical Science

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-66#entry2981121

 

 

Lets see Australia get 50 years of above average temps then it will get interesting

 

Although of course this quite stupid let''s apply this to the US and use 118 years not a minute figure like 50 years. The last ten years in the contiguous US ( just as well we don't count Alaska) have ranked 97,111,118,113,80,84,95,101,119,84. coldest. As is well documented some areas, which have been mentioned frequently on here experienced severe cold the first three months of this year.

 

This of course is weather and as such I posted quite often in the relevant weather thread as I also do with the heat records.

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-66#entry2981121

 

2013...

 

So, you can refute a warm trend by digging through time until you find some cold weather?

[stewfox]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-66#entry2981121

 

 

Although of course this quite stupid let''s apply this to the US and use 118 years not a minute figure like 50 years. The last ten years in the contiguous US ( just as well we don't count Alaska) have ranked 97,111,118,113,80,84,95,101,119,84. coldest. As is well documented some areas, which have been mentioned frequently on here experienced severe cold the first three months of this year.

 

This of course is weather and as such I posted quite often in the relevant weather thread as I also do with the heat records.

 

How can you be ranked 119 in 118 years ?? Have two years ranked at 84 ? Weather brings up funny stats. Links please

Edited June 4, 2014 by stewfox

[stewfox]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-66#entry2981121

 

2013...

 

So, you can refute a warm trend by digging through time until you find some cold weather?

 

2010 is not digging through time ? 

 

I don't refute anything. Australia has had some recent short term temperature abnormalities, largely due to some changes in wind patterns , with more residual heat within the interior, call it man made if you like.

 

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/temperature/meananom/month/colour/history/nat/2014050120140531.gif

Edited June 4, 2014 by stewfox

[knocker]

How can you be ranked 119 in 118 years ?? Have two years ranked at 84 ? Weather brings up funny stats. Links please

 

My mistake I should have counted the first year as one. Two the same because they have the same anomaly.

 

I can't believe we are going over this ground yet again.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/tmp/3/110/0/2/1895-2014?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000

Edited June 4, 2014 by knocker

[stewfox]

My mistake I should have counted the first year as one. Two the same because they have the same anomaly.

 

I can't believe we are going over this ground yet again.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/tmp/3/110/0/2/1895-2014?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000

 

 

Last 12 months ranked at 69 ie average 

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/maps.php?imgs%5B%5D=nationaltavgrank&year=2014&month=4&ts=12&submitted=Submit

 

 

This year 46th coldest

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/maps.php?imgs%5B%5D=nationaltavgrank&year=2014&month=4&ts=ytd&submitted=Submit

 

Yes 2012 was record warm

[knocker]

Very odd that scientists haven't heard of isostatic adjustment. Still......................................

 

Some 15% of Pacific islands wiped out by 1m sea level rise – IPCC -

 

 

The IPCC found that most Pacific atoll islands had not seen net inundation yet.

 

“Historical shoreline position change over 20 to 60 years on 27 central Pacific atoll islands showed that total land area remained relatively stable in 43 per cent of islands, whilst another 43 per cent had increased in area, and the rest showed a net reduction in land area,†the IPCC said, reporting research published in 2010.

 

However, one more recent study in the Marshall Islands showed that overall net accretion before 2004 had since switched to net erosion in 17 of a group of 18 islands.

 

Long-term

Sea levels rise both as oceans expand as a result of global warming, and as more water is added to the sea from melting glaciers and polar ice sheets.

 

Vulnerable islands include states and territories in the tropics of the southern and western Pacific Ocean, central and western Indian Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the eastern Atlantic off the coast of west Africa, as well as in the Mediterranean.

 

The IPCC reported last year on the physical evidence for climate change, and projected sea level rise this century of 0.26 and 0.82 metres, according to scenarios which ranged from rapid cuts in carbon dioxide emissions to continuing rising emissions through the century.

In the long term, global sea levels are expected to rise by more than 1 metre as ice sheets continue to melt regardless of trends in carbon emissions and warming, and by much more if carbon emissions continue to rise for the next few decades.

 

- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/03/27/some-15-of-pacific-islands-wiped-out-by-1m-sea-level-rise-ipcc/#sthash.jPsDEjfu.dpuf

 

Future climate change driven sea-level rise: secondary consequences from human displacement for island biodiversity

 

Abstract

Sea-level rise (SLR) due to global warming will result in the loss of many coastal areas. The direct or primary effects due to inundation and erosion from SLR are currently being assessed; however, the indirect or secondary ecological effects, such as changes caused by the displacement of human populations, have not been previously evaluated. We examined the potential ecological consequences of future SLR on >1,200 islands in the Southeast Asian and the Pacific region. Using three SLR scenarios (1, 3, and 6 m elevation, where 1 m approximates most predictions by the end of this century), we assessed the consequences of primary and secondary SLR effects from human displacement on habitat availability and distributions of selected mammal species. We estimate that between 3–32% of the coastal zone of these islands could be lost from primary effects, and consequently 8–52 million people would become SLR refugees. Assuming that inundated urban and intensive agricultural areas will be relocated with an equal area of habitat loss in the hinterland, we project that secondary SLR effects can lead to an equal or even higher percent range loss than primary effects for at least 10–18% of the sample mammals in a moderate range loss scenario and for 22–46% in a maximum range loss scenario. In addition, we found some species to be more vulnerable to secondary than primary effects. Finally, we found high spatial variation in vulnerability: species on islands in Oceania are more vulnerable to primary SLR effects, whereas species on islands in Indo-Malaysia, with potentially 7–48 million SLR refugees, are more vulnerable to secondary effects. Our findings show that primary and secondary SLR effects can have enormous consequences for human inhabitants and island biodiversity, and that both need to be incorporated into ecological risk assessment, conservation, and regional planning.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02736.x/abstract

Edited June 7, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Messing with the PDO values the other day

 

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

 

and noted that the last long PDO-ve lined up with the globally 'dimmed' period. The onset of the latest negative cycle (97/98) also lines up with the indo china dimming currently ongoing?

 

I was then forced to consider whether lessening the pan evaporation rates across the Northern Pacific could influence the sst's to the point of triggering PDO-ve conditions ( not alone you understand but another 'forcing on top of the naturals)?

 

If there is any kind of link then the recent move ,by Chna, to speed up their clean air initiatives across the worst impacted areas may well lead to impacts on the PDO figures?

 

If we believe the research the shows an AGW impact on PDO post 1980 then the removal of some of the dimming might lead to higher PDO values than might have been the case? Seeing as the current PDO-ve has not plumbed the depths of the last major negative this might lead to spells of relatively neutral PDO values prior to the switch to PDO+ve? ( if we are not already at the point of change?).

 

Some days I think that it is global dimming that is the elephant in the room and not AGW itself? Nobody seems to have it in their minds when discussing AGW and it's impacts, in fact the dimming impacts are far less understood than the GHG forcings are yet both are currently at play in our atmosphere?

 

Maybe we need to find a daily total for sulphates/particulates and compare those figure to an impacting volcanic eruptions outputs? Folk appear to have no problem in expecting 'short term' climate modification post a major eruption but then ignore the very same chemicals when we place them into the upper atmosphere???

 

recent improvements in China have been driven by the high death toll from air pollution but this , in its turn, may well lead to larger death tolls as the sulphate/particulate sunscreen is slowly removed and the full impacts ( those that deniers constantly hold up as proof that AGW is not happening?) come to the fore? 

[knocker]

I had a dream..............................................

 

It’s all so obvious! AGW is a hoax…no really!

[knocker]

Out of Africa: Nigerian environment minister warns of devastating climate impacts

http://hot-topic.co.nz/out-of-africa-nigerian-environment-minister-warns-of-devastating-climate-impacts/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FRbRF+%28Hot+Topic%29