Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Crepuscular Ray]

But it still remains questionable even amongst many climate scientists, you cannot reconstruct past and accurate temps with some seaweed, a tree and a couple of pinecones. Ok that was a joke but the whole reconstruction of past climatic conditions using proxies is open to abuse and contamination of evidence at hand. Maybe that explains the constant need to readjust past global temps in order to show we are warmer now than at any other time in the last zillion years.

I don't think anyone knowledgeable is claiming that the tree-ring data are gap-free for any specific region much beyond 11,000 years. And for the specific regions where they've got fairly fixed chronologies to several thousand years beyond that through correlation with marine sediments, related species in other regions, other species in the same regions, etc., no-one would get published if they didn't acknowledge uncertainties in such data in their papers.

 

And surely as a "sceptical inquirer", you wouldn't be deliberately misinterpreting the scientific desire to refine a theory as new data become available with a desire to manipulate them in order to deny the bleedin' obvious, would you, especially with all the new rules about warmies not posting in the antis' thread and vice versa?

Edited July 25, 2013 by Crepuscular Ray

[4wd]

As far as I'm aware it hasn't been heard yet.

 

 

 

So they might agree with the allegations.

[BornFromTheVoid]

How are we to guess where and in what context 'Sparkickle said ...

 

It's one of the quirks of this area. Sparkickle's post was originally made in this thread, then moved to the sceptics thread. But for us whom the mods deem "pro-AGWers" to respond to his post, we must now do so in a separate thread. This requires quoting his post (or part of) from the sceptics thread into here, and then adding our own response.

 

Anyway, here's his post http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/?p=2748280

 

 

So they might agree with the allegations.

 

Whether or not they agree with the accusations doesn't come into this. Mann has been found innocent of this accusations by nearly a dozen investigations, so the claims are demonstrably false. This is a case of whether the lies perptrated by the defendants rises to the level of "actual malice".

The CEI and National Review have both had their motions to dismiss the case ignored.

 

A quote from the courts involved

 

"There is sufficient evidence presented that is indicative of “actual malice.†The CEI Defendants have consistently accused Plaintiff of fraud and inaccurate theories, despite Plaintiff’s work having been investigated several times and found to be proper. The CEI Defendants’ persistence despite the EPA and other investigative bodies’ conclusion that Plaintiff’s work is accurate (or that there is no evidence of data manipulation) is equal to a blatant disregard for the falsity of their statements. Thus, given the evidence presented the Court finds that Plaintiff could prove “actual malice.â€â€ [at 23]"

 

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/07/19/dc-court-affirms-michael-manns-right-to-proceed-in-defamation-lawsuit/

 

 

As for "actual malice"

 

In a legal sense, "actual malice" has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either

[*]knowing that it is false; or

[*]acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence

[Methuselah]

So they might agree with the allegations.

Talk about clutching at straws!

[Gray-Wolf]

I believe they tried to have it  thrown out of court using the constitution to defend themselves but the judge threw it out and told them to attend court? They will be roasted ( and rightly so!) and at least endup bankrupted from the settlement.

 

The sooner the climate misleaders get a strong signal that lies and deciept are not a tactic open to them the sooner the science will beable to show them for what they are!

[UV-RAY]

I believe they tried to have it  thrown out of court using the constitution to defend themselves but the judge threw it out and told them to attend court? They will be roasted ( and rightly so!) and at least endup bankrupted from the settlement.

 

The sooner the climate misleaders get a strong signal that lies and deciept are not a tactic open to them the sooner the science will beable to show them for what they are!

Lies and deceit work both ways GW, lets not forget some of the claims made in the name of science were actually from the WWF and not scientists at all, but this didn't stop them using the said evidence as proof until the truth came out later. Lies and damn outright lies  are used by both camps, so please don't take the holier than thou approach.

[Methuselah]

I think you are in the wrong thread, SI...You know the rules...

Edited July 25, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[knocker]

Recent slowdown in global surface temperature rise

 

The Science Media Centre recently held a briefing for journalists on the recent slowdown in global surface temperature rise, and published an accompanying briefing note. The Met Office also released three reports on the topic.

 

The key points were: (1) recent changes need to be put in longer term context & other climate indicators such as sea level, Arctic sea ice, snow cover, glacier melt etc are also important; (2) the explanation for recent slowdown is partly additional ocean heat uptake & partly negative trends in natural radiative forcing (due to solar changes and small volcanic eruptions) which slightly counteract the positive forcing from GHGs; (3) the quantification of the relative magnitude of these causes is still work in progress; (4) climate models simulate similar pauses.

 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/recent-slowdown/

Edited July 25, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

4, that is not a 'rant'; it is a very good, open minded piece of scepticism...It's also true.

 

 

To be strictly accurate about that video the original paper was published in Environmental  Research Letters and I posted it in the New research thread.

 

I'll post it here as well so one can read the whole story. And regarding the slow down see post above.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/034010/pdf/1748-9326_8_3_034010.pdf

Edited July 25, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

To be strictly accurate about that video the original paper was published in Environmental  Research Letters and I posted it in the New research thread.

 

I'll post it here as well so one can read the whole story. And regarding the slow down see post above.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/034010/pdf/1748-9326_8_3_034010.pdf

Fair dos, knocker...but we do need explain why the warming has stalled/slowed down...IMO, addressing open-minded scepticism like that can only strengthen the case for AGW, in the long term?

[UV-RAY]

Fair dos, knocker...but we do need explain why the warming has stalled/slowed down...IMO, addressing open-minded scepticism like that can only strengthen the case for AGW, in the long term?

I wouldn't say it strengthens either case Pete, but it's certainly an excellent  article and does what it say's on the tin.

 

Edited July 26, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Gray-Wolf]

Fair dos, knocker...but we do need explain why the warming has stalled/slowed down...IMO, addressing open-minded scepticism like that can only strengthen the case for AGW, in the long term?

 

In these days of climate misleader pedantry  is it not safer to say 'air temps have slowed down' as the warming continues ( if we believe the mismatch between energy in and energy out?).

 

We are looking to why air temps are not increasing at the rate they did through the 80's and 90's and the first thing that jumps out are the Nino/nina distribution? Why folk are acting confused when they know what impact these things will have on global temps I do not know? I would bet that as soon as we swing back into Nino predominance these misleaders will be the first to cry foul as temps jump beyond past warming rates. It is just not fair that they should be allowed such unchalleneged?

Edited July 26, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

In these days of climate misleader pedantry  is it not safer to say 'air temps have slowed down' as the warming continues ( if we believe the mismatch between energy in and energy out?).

 

If air temps have *cough* 'slowed down' to be broadly in line with late '90s temperatures, why has the decline in arctic ice accelerated? Is the decline in arctic ice related to temperatures? Perhaps, looking at the actual observations is too pedantic (or misleading) ?

Edited July 26, 2013 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

We are looking to why air temps are not increasing at the rate they did through the 80's and 90's and the first thing that jumps out are the Nino/nina distribution? Why folk are acting confused when they know what impact these things will have on global temps I do not know? I would bet that as soon as we swing back into Nino predominance these misleaders will be the first to cry foul as temps jump beyond past warming rates. It is just not fair that they should be allowed such unchalleneged?

 

So temperatures will begin to increase again, once a natural climate phenomena, El Nino, La Nina, kicks back in? Again, apologies for misleading and pedantry.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

IMO, it's because some climate-related reports are not pedantic enough (they wander away from the scientific method) that we are having many of these debates...Take the hockey stick as an example: although there's not much, if anything, wrong with either the study or its graphics, some of the extrapolations made from it have been a bit wide of the mark, to say the least. And that's without all the straw man claims that have been invented by the likes of Anthony Watts.

[UV-RAY]

If air temps have *cough* 'slowed down' to be broadly in line with late '90s temperatures, why has the decline in arctic ice accelerated? Is the decline in arctic ice related to temperatures? Perhaps, looking at the actual observations is too pedantic (or misleading) ?

The melting of the ice isn't from above but from below surely. We've had predominately  warm ocean currents entering the arctic basin for over thirty years with a positive PDO and AMO, the latter still in it's positive phase. IMO it's common sense that warmer waters will cause far more melting at the poles that warmer air temp ever could. Also just how well do we know our oceanic heat content, remember it's not that long ago when the PDO was more or less unheard off.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

If air temps have *cough* 'slowed down' to be broadly in line with late '90s temperatures, why has the decline in arctic ice accelerated? Is the decline in arctic ice related to temperatures? Perhaps, looking at the actual observations is too pedantic (or misleading) ?

 

What actual observations are you referring to?

Perhaps an explanation could be the increase in Arctic temperatures hasn't slowed. The loss of multi-year ice has also contributed to a much more fragile pack, sensitive to events such as the 2007 wind pattern or last August's storm.

 

So temperatures will begin to increase again, once a natural climate phenomena, El Nino, La Nina, kicks back in? Again, apologies for misleading and pedantry.

 

To be pedantic, the increase will just accelerate.

 

The melting of the ice isn't from above but from below surely. We've had predominately  warm ocean currents entering the arctic basin for over thirty years with a positive PDO and AMO, the latter still in it's positive phase. IMO it's common sense that warmer waters will cause far more melting at the poles that warmer air temp ever could. Also just how well do we know our oceanic heat content, remember it's not that long ago when the PDO was more or less unheard off.

 

Neither the PDO or the AMO are currents, but patterns of sea surface temperature anomalies. We have numerous buoys in the Arctic now with plenty of sensors that can determine whether the melting is mainly coming from the surface or the ocean.

Melting of sea ice is primarily from above early in the melt season, and below later in the melt season as the thinner ice and open waters allow the ocean to warm. The warming oceans will of course contribute to the melting of the sea ice, but what's causing the warming waters?

The PDO has been -ve since 2007, yet Arctic sea ice volume, area and extent continues to decline. We've seen winter increases in the Bering sea thanks to the -ve PDO, but it appears to have no affect within the Arctic ocean during the summer.

The AMO was negative during the 80s and 90s, when there was still a downward trend in all sea ice measures. I could buy that it may affect the Kara/Barents region and so if it turns -ve soon, may give a boost to these areas, but to explain the overall loss of sea ice, the AMO and PDO don't seem to cut it.

 

A study was done recently that examined the effects of various things on the Arctic sea ice, and found

Using sensitivity statistics derived from the models, assuming a linear relationship, we attribute 0.5–3.1%/decade of the 10.1%/decade decline in September SIE (1979–2010) to AMO driven variability.

Here's the paper if you're interested

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034011

[4wd]

Wouldn't reduced ice likely lead to higher arctic temperatures rather than the other way round? 

[Methuselah]

Wouldn't reduced ice likely lead to higher arctic temperatures rather than the other way round? 

Probably, if it was stable, 4...But the latent heat, required to melt ice, comes from surrounding water or air...

[BornFromTheVoid]

Wouldn't reduced ice likely lead to higher arctic temperatures rather than the other way round? 

 

Works both ways. It's called the ice-albedo feedback mechanism.

 

Takes something to get that process going though. If someone thinks all the Arctic warming was caused by something small in the past, then it would imply a highly sensitive climate with tipping points that are easy to trigger.

[VillagePlank]

BFTV,

 

I was referring to the global HadCru4,

 

 

And you'll note (omitting erroneous linear trend analysis - since the series isn't homogenous) that the trend is either flat or going down. I presume (you don't say specifically) that you are suggesting that climate affects the weather affects the sea-ice?

 

I'd go for oceans melting the ice - particularly, and thanks for the chart - the freezing point of sea is about -2C [1]; so given that average we've still got about 6C to go! Of course, salinity affects the freezing point ...

 

[1] http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/ocean/water/temp3.htm

Edited July 26, 2013 by Sparkicle

[UV-RAY]

 

What actual observations are you referring to?

Perhaps an explanation could be the increase in Arctic temperatures hasn't slowed. The loss of multi-year ice has also contributed to a much more fragile pack, sensitive to events such as the 2007 wind pattern or last August's storm.

 

 

To be pedantic, the increase will just accelerate.

 

 

Neither the PDO or the AMO are currents, but patterns of sea surface temperature anomalies. We have numerous buoys in the Arctic now with plenty of sensors that can determine whether the melting is mainly coming from the surface or the ocean.

Melting of sea ice is primarily from above early in the melt season, and below later in the melt season as the thinner ice and open waters allow the ocean to warm. The warming oceans will of course contribute to the melting of the sea ice, but what's causing the warming waters?

The PDO has been -ve since 2007, yet Arctic sea ice volume, area and extent continues to decline. We've seen winter increases in the Bering sea thanks to the -ve PDO, but it appears to have no affect within the Arctic ocean during the summer.

The AMO was negative during the 80s and 90s, when there was still a downward trend in all sea ice measures. I could buy that it may affect the Kara/Barents region and so if it turns -ve soon, may give a boost to these areas, but to explain the overall loss of sea ice, the AMO and PDO don't seem to cut it.

 

A study was done recently that examined the effects of various things on the Arctic sea ice, and found

Using sensitivity statistics derived from the models, assuming a linear relationship, we attribute 0.5–3.1%/decade of the 10.1%/decade decline in September SIE (1979–2010) to AMO driven variability.

Here's the paper if you're interested

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034011

Indeed they are, but the majority of ice loss comes from underneath the ice and those warm currents are still not fully understood, for example how long does it take each cycle of warm water to flush through the oceanic systems. From the studies I've seen there appears to be little in the way of concrete evidence showing just how long these cycles last, suggesting to me that there could be cycles within cycles  that could take many years to flush there way out of the oceans. With this in mind we could be looking at volumes of warm currents taking many, many years before they disperse through this system.

 

Edited July 26, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[Methuselah]

Couldn't let this lot of rubbish go unchallenged: It highlights perfectly the difference between honest scepticism and outright bunk.

 

1) Find a 400,000 year long Vostok Ice Core temperature+CO2 graph. Study it carefully. Ask yourself why in the presence of high CO2 temperature suddenly drops, and why in low CO2 the temperature suddenly rises. Then think about the impossibility of that graph if CO2 were to drive temperature.

2) Do the Beers Lambert law calculation. CO2 is about 395ppm (up from 280ppm) and interacts with IR (infrared) about 5% as much as water vapour at 40,000 ppm. So the CO2 increase changes the absorption length by (40000 + 280 * 0.05) / (40000 + 395 * 0.05), or makes a difference of about 115 * 0.05 / (40000 + 280 * 0.05) = 5.75 /40014 = 0.0001436997051 or 0.014%.

3) Looking again at the absorption graphs of IR in water, think about the IR hitting 71% of the planet: water. IR is stopped by water, only the top 1mm will absorb the heat, which will promptly evaporate forming a layer of water vapour above the water. This is in a way far more of an 'IR mirror' than any CO2 in the troposphere or higher - so by AGW this should actually cause cooling because the bigger IR reflector has just been formed on the surface. The moral of this is that the oceans only get heated by visible light, not by IR so AGW can't heat up water.

4) Look for the tropospheric hotspot predicted by AGW. It isn't there, because AGW is wrong, the mechanism is wrong.

5) CO2 doesn't reflect IR downwards at the earth, the molecule re-radiates IR in a 360 degree spherical pattern, which means that CO2 is actually a better heat conductor than air, not an insulator.

There are other scientific reasons why AGW must be false, but lastly think about the fact that we've had about 10% rise in CO2 while global mean temperatures (a meaningless statistical measurement BTW) stopped about 15-18 years ago. That alone falsifies the CO2 = heat theory, and there is no scientific explanation for it except for the obvious: the AGW theory is wrong and CO2 is irrelevant. 

Edited July 26, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[knocker]

1) Find a 400,000 year long Vostok Ice Core temperature+CO2 graph. Study it carefully. Ask yourself why in the presence of high CO2 temperature suddenly drops, and why in low CO2 the temperature suddenly rises. Then think about the impossibility of that graph if CO2 were to drive temperature.

 

There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO₂ record shows that the main trends of CO₂ are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO₂ record shows the present-day levels of CO₂ are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO₂ values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO₂ concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO₂ increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

 

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

 

Edited July 26, 2013 by knocker

[loafer]

Go on, then. What are you waiting for?