Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Tamara]

Maybe they'll take a trend line from the PETM to show how we're cooling Knock's?

 

And what the hey was all that about looking at what contributed what to the historic carbon cycle??? Sure it is interesting in it's own right and brings us a better understanding of our planetary out-gassing but what does that have to do with our releasing of ancient carbon cycle remnants that are engorging our current carbon cycle???

 

There are times I lose sight of just how many of the folk refusing the current data are basically incapable of actually understanding it in the first place........ pretty sad really..... the fact that the misleaders actually play to the floor (as opposed to the gallery) makes their tactic somehow even more heinous to me? It's one thing having valid concerns and voicing them but to take on a stance and then mislead those less able to understand is truly corrupt (imho).It is very easy to forget just how broad a group are involved in this debate and that those of least ability will vastly over estimate their own capacity to 'understand'.

 

Ho Hum.....

Will you please desist with using words like this and also be kind enough to stop your incessant preaching. Thank you in advance. Its not that many folk are incapable, as you put it, of understanding, it is simply that they have a different opinion to you. One day you might well discover some courtesy and less rudeness by acknowledging that and change your record accordingly.

[knocker]

Lets face it there are probably 10 regular posters in both threads with a forum membership of 16.000 members . What does that tell you ?

 

I don't know but I popped into the recent storm thread a couple of times where there were scores of posters and I know what that told me. I won't elucidate further as cards may be brandished.

[Methuselah]

I think it is perfectly clear and non mysterious, ABNS, as to what I am referring to. It is essential for the proposed atmosphere feedbacks, that are suggested to exist in a relationship to, and amplify the warmth created by carbon emissions, to be realised to verify the predicted range of solutions for further warming over the coming century as proposed by the IPCC. Research is ongoing into these feedbacks - there is considerable uncertainty in relation to them and (in my opinion) until there is more clarity and certainty about them, one way or the other, then I will continue to adopt the stance that that there is some assumption attached to them in terms of their actual presence, and, assuming they are present, their numbers.

 

That doesn't mean I think that the premise of the science is dismissive. As I keep repeating, it is important to be open minded. I am however simply yet to be persuaded by it.

 

Cloud feedbacks, for example, are known to be a large area of focus and could have a large influence, one way or the other, in terms of AGW verification. And then there are the considerable uncertainties with regard to natural forcing variabilities and such uncertainty relating especially to negative solar forcing in decades to come

 

If Fergus can discuss matters of different opinion in an open friendly and non obtuse manner with a 'sceptic' like me, then I would suggest it is possible for others to do so in addition.  So such rhetoric that you use here is unecessary and there is no 'put up or shut up' required  Plus you seem to be keen to bring politically motivated edges of disapproval into a lot of topics - this is a thread discussion about the science behind theorised atmosphere feedbacks.

 

Trump card? Isn't this rather silly and playing into the 'them vs us' theme that proves so unhelpful in these threads. Its not a competition afterall for one side or other of opinion to win a prize.

 

*Edited to say non obtuse*! 

So, what's stopping you from supplying something to support what you seem to be claiming? I'm all for discussion Tamara, but it's much more fulfilling when the objects of said discussion are clearly laid out...Sorry if that sounds a wee bitty 'obtuse'... 

 

This is not the sceptics' thread btw...

[Gray-Wolf]

Yawn!

 

Terminology is terminology and , in language use, you use the word meant to describe the object you are discussing. Jennifer Francis was the first person I saw use the description and it covers the kind of commenter I focus on. If you do not fall within this group of dastardly dealers then why take offence? A couple of years ago it was 'Denier' that brought this response and so I searched for a better descriptor only to come across 'faux sceptic' but this still was not good enough for those who wish to be nothing than offended. This spring ms Francis used the phrase 'climate Misleader' in one of her presentations and this better encompassed the type of rotter that causes me most offence. Why anyone who does not purposely deceive others to further their own agenda takes offence to the use of this noun escapes me.

 

To better understand and communicate our experience of our world/lives we 'name' things. Why should folk wish to limit this ability to express ourselves? Daft, plain daft. If anyone can tell me of another ,more suitable noun to use when commenting on these horrid folk then I would be willing to use it but until then the misleaders, as I understand and witness them, will remain 'Climate Misleaders'.

[Tamara]

So, what's stopping you from supplying something to support what you seem to be claiming? I'm all for discussion Tamara, but it's much more fulfilling when the objects of said discussion are clearly laid out...Sorry if that sounds a wee bitty 'obtuse'... 

 

This is not the sceptics' thread btw...

Maybe you haven't read my post properly perhaps - *read cloud feedbacks f.e*. If I have any further posts at some other time I will return to the other thread as according to the rules, to which I have been trying to keep to. I came over here initially simply to read Fergus post(s) replies to me because so far I have found them to be the only ones on 'this side' of late that have any value to them and thought that I would acknowledge this over here *she says as a 'sceptic'*

 

They are especially refreshingly welcome because they are minus any of the usual tedious Punch and Judy antics that run through most of the rest of them....

 

And the latest offer from GW can remain unreplied to.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Tamara תָּמָר

[stewfox]

deleted

Edited November 1, 2013 by stewfox

[knocker]

. I came over here initially simply to read Fergus post(s) replies to me because so far I have found them to be the only ones on 'this side' of late that have any value to them and thought that I would acknowledge this over here *she says as a 'sceptic'*

 

They are especially refreshingly welcome because they are minus any of the usual tedious Punch and Judy antics that run through most of the rest of them....

 

 

 

Gee thanks Tamara. I'm touched.

[Methuselah]

Ian.

 

IMO the saddest part of this sorry business is how easily so many highly intelligent people are taken-in. I know many people - more intelligent than myself - who have a 'blind spot' when it comes to dealing with anything remotely algebraic...Why do I find that sad? Because, without algebra, such people are left open to the art of verbal persuasion... 

 

Take the assumption that CO₂ cannot possibly cause global warming because its IR-absorption bandwidth is saturated? It might even be true, were it not for 'broadening' caused by Doppler shifting and pressure broadening; two phenomena that the misleaders are keen to ignore...

 

Then there's the old chestnut: the effects CO₂ are being overestimated because its IR-absorption/concentration curve is logarithmic. Not only is that precisely why successive doublings are used by climate scientists, it also means that the climate's sensitivity never reaches zero...

 

It reminds me of the old adage: give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach him how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Maybe you haven't read my post properly perhaps - *read cloud feedbacks f.e*. If I have any further posts at some other time I will return to the other thread as according to the rules, to which I have been trying to keep to. I came over here initially simply to read Fergus post(s) replies to me because so far I have found them to be the only ones on 'this side' of late that have any value to them and thought that I would acknowledge this over here *she says as a 'sceptic'*

 

They are especially refreshingly welcome because they are minus any of the usual tedious Punch and Judy antics that run through most of the rest of them....

 

And the latest offer from GW can remain unreplied to.

 

Any chance of a comment on the  theorised artificial feedbacks you've been mentioning?

I hope it's not the case that asking for examples and evidence is viewed as hostility?

[Gray-Wolf]

We are all 'Sceptics' here? This is how science works is it not? The fact that some of us have investigated the science to date and 'understand' that we should have concerns for where the various disciplines have our world headed are the only difference between us all. 

 

Those who choose to 'refuse' where our current scientific understanding places us, or twists science so as to convince others of something that is not so is , to me , a whole other 'thing'.

 

From my observations there does indeed seem to be more folk on the other thread that fall into the above category...... I cannot think of 1 poster on this thread that has used, or uses, such tactics here?

 

I would have thought we all now accept that human activity has altered local and global climate, we debate the extent of those changes and where it is predicted to now go, we do not see enough evidence to dismiss human input completely.

 

It is just a sad fact of life that the folk who feel better suited to posting on the other thread need occupy it with a number of folk they feel shamed to be lumped in with but this is the way board management has decided things must be. personally I am glad to find myself amongst the company that post here.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Ian.

 

IMO the saddest part of this sorry business is how easily so many highly intelligent people are taken-in. I know many people - more intelligent than myself - who have a 'blind spot' when it comes to dealing with anything remotely algebraic...Why do I find that sad? Because, without algebra, such people are left open to the art of verbal persuasion... 

 

It reminds me of the old adage: give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach him how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime.

 

...give a man religion, he'll die praying for a fish.

[Tamara]

Any chance of a comment on the  theorised artificial feedbacks you've been mentioning?

I hope it's not the case that asking for examples and evidence is viewed as hostility?

Ok, as you have asked me I'll make this my last foray into here before I leave.  There was no need for the second line of your post though btw.

 

I had thought I had already effectively answered this question over the page, but I use the word 'artificial' as a reference to any suggested manmade forcings that are not naturally cyclical such as solar cycles and phases.  I can only refer to uncertainties in terms of research to feedbacks and so claiming substantive evidence is subjective in accordance with opinion. Links are placed every day all the time on these threads in terms of suggested evidence for this, that and the other - whether 'sceptical' or anthropromorphic in belief and it becomes a futile exercise posting these to those who don't have like-minds when they are simply going to be dismissing them anyway.

 

Cloud feedback research has been posted on various occasions before with evidence to suggest how amplification warming signals may be produced on the one hand, but other research has suggested the possibility of negative feedbacks being present instead. Research into this, like all else, is always ongoing.

 

I happen to agree with the view that cloud feedbacks present one of the most potentially determinate forcings in terms of whether/or how much AGW is a real presence and how much, if any, impact it will have on future climate variability. I think that some kind of very minimal artificial feedback has always existed but that at the same time natural variability has also always been a much greater forcing to override any such artificial (read manmade) forcing. I am yet to be persuaded that the status quo has changed that much for all the reasons I have given.

 

Endlessly supplying links is not going to change any perceptions unless people are left to evolve their own opinions over time and they are certainly not designed with the sole purpose of feeling compelled to satisfy the requirement of another member who holds a different opinion. That was, I believe, one of the intentions of the separate threads so that people should be free to chose to post links if they wish to, when they are able to, or at a time that is convenient to them - not simply to feel obliged to comply with the instructions and requirements of another member.

 

When there is no obligation in this way, then the type of open mindedness I keep referring to can occur spontaneously - as I have found of late in cases I have already referred to

[Methuselah]

Here's an article on cloud feedback; it seems be rather minor, judging by the abstract. Anywho, last time I looked extensively was back in 2009 and, at that time, most of the current research suggested a small positive radiative feedback. So, therefore, the only assumption I can see (in the IPCC's latest report) is that the research is headed in the right direction. Wouldn't assuming the opposite to be true (or even pretending that no such evidence actually exists) be rather a perverse one?

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000235/abstract;jsessionid=A4E7AA6EC544312D6CA72B6C675DE908.f03t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

[knocker]

Endlessly supplying links is not going to change any perceptions unless people are left to evolve their own opinions over time and they are certainly not designed with the sole purpose of feeling compelled to satisfy the requirement of another member who holds a different opinion.

 

 

 

True to an extent but how can you evolve an opinion without attempting to read some of the research which can be supplied by links on occasion? If one is not prepared to do this on what are you going to base that opinion?

Edited November 1, 2013 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Ok, as you have asked me I'll make this my last foray into here before I leave.  There was no need for the second line of your post though btw.

 

I had thought I had already effectively answered this question over the page, but I use the word 'artificial' as a reference to any suggested manmade forcings that are not naturally cyclical such as solar cycles and phases.  I can only refer to uncertainties in terms of research to feedbacks and so claiming substantive evidence is subjective in accordance with opinion. Links are placed every day all the time on these threads in terms of suggested evidence for this, that and the other - whether 'sceptical' or anthropromorphic in belief and it becomes a futile exercise posting these to those who don't have like-minds when they are simply going to be dismissing them anyway.

 

Cloud feedback research has been posted on various occasions before with evidence to suggest how amplification warming signals may be produced on the one hand, but other research has suggested the possibility of negative feedbacks being present instead. Research into this, like all else, is always ongoing.

 

I happen to agree with the view that cloud feedbacks present one of the most potentially determinate forcings in terms of whether/or how much AGW is a real presence and how much, if any, impact it will have on future climate variability. I think that some kind of very minimal artificial feedback has always existed but that at the same time natural variability has also always been a much greater forcing to override any such artificial (read manmade) forcing. I am yet to be persuaded that the status quo has changed that much for all the reasons I have given.

 

Endlessly supplying links is not going to change any perceptions unless people are left to evolve their own opinions over time and they are certainly not designed with the sole purpose of feeling compelled to satisfy the requirement of another member who holds a different opinion. That was, I believe, one of the intentions of the separate threads so that people should be free to chose to post links if they wish to, when they are able to, or at a time that is convenient to them - not simply to feel obliged to comply with the instructions and requirements of another member.

 

When there is no obligation in this way, then the type of open mindedness I keep referring to can occur spontaneously - as I have found of late in cases I have already referred to

 

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.

[Gray-Wolf]

I remember reading the results of a long term study into impacts over the Indian ocean ( it was also linked to in the 'updated' Global dimming prog of the late noughties???) showing that man made pollutants were effectively increasing the reflectivity of certain cloud tops by reducing the size of raindrops that the 'micro' particulates, from fossil fuel and forest burning, were causing to form when they condensed out around these ;micro condensation nuclei'?

 

With the cleaning up of Indo-Chinese energy production ( and an increase in renewables there ) this 'negative feedback will be lost to us and only the long lived CO2 feedback remains?

 

As for the 'ongoing studies'? The lack of links may be linked to the fact that all the studies since 08' have shown clouds acting as a net positive feedback overall. The latest I recall , from earlier this year , focused on the reduction of clouds over Tropical waters which greatly impacted ocean temps below......

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi SI!

 

Australia's record winter and forecast record upcoming summer have all been put down to the sea temp anoms off the coasts there? Our own Atlantic surface waters would also seem to want to give us a very zonal start to winter as they 'off load' their temps so maybe we are already beginning to see the start of what you're longing for? Was not the West Coast of Alaska also impacted by the loss of cold waters this year ( replaced with warmer waters).

 

The sad thing about natural variation is that it varies and so to pin your philosophy on that which you know must 'flip' to the opposite......esp. 15yrs into the  phase you rely upon, is always doomed to disaster.

 

I do hope that the 'doom-sayers' did not use the rapid warming that the last positive natural augmentation of temp rises brought us? I'd hate to think that this past period has brought some of us to the point that we cannot wait to use the upcoming switch to positive natural drivers ( and an augmentation of temp increase rates) as an opportunity to take the mickey out of the folk who have used the current phase to their advantage?

 

EDIT: Just popped over into 'the other place' and am surprised to see so many of them considering themselves as 'climate misleaders'??? I suppose if the cap fits?

Edited November 1, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

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.

 

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.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi BFTV!

 

What the hey are they going to do once we slip back into a conflagration of positive forcings??? 

 

I'm sorry, It's just seeming to have turned into a non-sense today? I know I have played my part in things this p.m. but boy do they take umbridge!

 

I even did my best to just limit my indignation to the real 'climate misleaders' but they would all appear to wish to take that personal too????

 

Ho Hum!

[Methuselah]

 

 

 

True to an extent but how can you evolve an opinion without attempting to read some of the research which can be supplied by links on occasion? If one is not prepared to do this on what are you going to base that opinion?

 

Amazing how being so averse to links doesn't stop some people from reflexively 'liking' any post that links to WUWT? I'm not a great fan of links, either...But what do you do, when repeatedly asked for 'proof'?

[Methuselah]

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.

Is it? Or is it just a success for sceptical thinking? It was, after all, genuine sceptics who originally suggested that Mother Nature might have hidden and unforeseen negative feedbacks up her sleeve...I really don't get why y'all are not patting yourselves on the backs and saying: 'I told you so.' You should be...

 

But, an obvious answer to your perfectly valid question might be: any amount of water has only a finite heat-capacity?  

[knocker]

Time of emergence of a warming signal

The ‘signal’ of a warming climate is emerging against a background ‘noise’ of natural internal variability. Both the magnitude of the signal and the noise vary spatially and seasonally. As society and ecosystems tend to be somewhat adapted to natural variability, some of the impacts of any change will be felt when the signal becomes large relative to the noise. So, it is important to note where and when this might occur.

 

 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/time-of-emergence-ar5/

[knocker]

I have posted this before but what the heck, it's worth another read.

 

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.

 

 

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

[knocker]

We seem to be repeatable told that WUWT is the most read climate blog. Having just read the few comments here I assume most them are American nutters.This sort of nonsense really does science a disservice irrespective on your position regarding AGW.

 

Denier weirdness: Inane comments from science deniers make "news" at WUWT

Edited November 1, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

And then there's this: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/new-paper-finds-us-extreme-heat-waves.html