Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Top Climatologist Slams Science Magazine For Getting The Extreme Weather Story Very Wrong

Climate change makes a variety of extreme weather events more likely and more intense, including heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and superstorms. A growing body of science makes that clear. That literature — coupled with the astonishing number of off-the-charts extreme weather events of the past few years — is why more and more climate scientists and meteorologists and others are making the connection.

 

[knocker]

Dr. Richard B. Alley, a geologist and professor of geosciences at Pennslyvania State University, stated this during his narration on the DVD documentary, Earth the Operators' Manual:

 

"(During the Cold War in the 1950s), the U.S. Air Force needed to understand the Earth's atmosphere for communications and to design heat-seeking missiles.  At certain wave lengths, carbon dioxide and water vapor block radiation, so the new missiles could not see very far if they used a wave length that CO2 absorbed.  Research at the Air Force Geophysical Laboratory in Hansom Massachusetss produced an immense database with careful measurements of atmospheric gases.  Further research by others applied and extended those discoveries clearly showing the heat trapping influences of CO2.

 

The Air Force did not set out to study global warming, they just wanted their missiles to work.  However, physics is physics.  The atmosphere does not care if you study it for warring or warming.  Adding CO2 turns up the planet's thermostat."

 

http://www.climatebites.org/climate-communication-metaphors-and-soundbites/skepticism-credibility/credibility-who-to-believe/when-in-doubt-ask-a-

heat-seeking-missile

 

[knocker]

Andrew Dessler tweets.

 

Didn't we already know this? Like 20 years ago? Or was it 40 years ago?

 

No Proof That Cosmic Rays Cause Global Warming, Study Says

http://www.livescience.com/41047-cosmic-rays-global-warming.html

Edited November 9, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

 I read the article in WUWT yesterday and I was going to post along these lines as I was disgusted that he was using an unfolding human tragedy to score, or an attempt to score, cheap ideological points that as usual are without foundation. It's typical of the moral bankrupcy often shown on the site, especially by the literati. Just one example and by no means the worst.

 

TomRude probably dismisses any expert in meteorology and says:

November 8, 2013 at 12:28 pm
It’s been a long time since Jeff Masters could be taken seriously…

 

I'm a little surprised that so many of the literati are allowed internet access.

 

Anyway HotWhopper seems to share my feelings so over to her.

 

Ignorance & callous indifference from Anthony Watts for the victims of Typhoon Haiyan, just to protest global warming!

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/ignorance-callous-indifference-from.html?spref=tw

Edited November 9, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

Sparticle said: http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-37#entry2829647

 

 

Fwiw, In the spirit of being nice to each other, I don't use the words you quote.

 

However (and this is a non climate example so we should be able to focus on the word not get lost in the AGW dispute), I could quote a blog but I wont because I've publicised it enough (clue: I have linked to it recently) which is, and I really do struggle for a word, repeatedly saying that Haiyan wasn't the destructive, devastating super typhoon it clearly was and which then goes on a spree insulting top scientists as liars for telling us the truth about the typhoon.

 

How should I describe not accepting such truth? I DO accept there are connotations with the 'D' word, but what is it to be called when someone wont accept the truth, wilfully so do and splatter insults around as they do so? What is an acceptable description of that?

Edited November 9, 2013 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

A dip stick?

 

In reality we all use names that describe attributes and both the names sparks focussed on are just that. The thing that i've found is that folk who are not being included in such descriptors decide that they 'were' being called such and then take issue. This only makes me wonder about the mindset of such a person if they 'feel' that the name should be being used when describing them. If the cap fits and all that.

 

In my early days of posting here the names that certain sections/factions of the community used to describe me and my posts really hurt me and caused me greater reason to pause for thought. Though not the most scientific poster in the forum I have always tried to show folk why I am thinking that way and always asked for folk to show me why I should be looking at the issue in another way. some members have tried to help me see things different but the majority have just continued with their 'drive by' insults and attributing of aspects to me to which I do not adhere.

 

I suppose that for us , on this side of the debate, when enough time has passed to 'prove or disprove our concerns if we are found 'wrong' then we were merely being over cautious. On the other side of the debate to be found wrong is to have added into the impacts that humanity has to then deal with. We all know how dire a place this is.

 

When we see the projections of what ignoring science , and continueing B.A.U., brings to the planet I do not think that anyone would want to carry the shame of being part of the movement that purposefully created an environment of confusion and mistrust to further the goals of the fossil fuel lobby and so allow such a continuation of B.A.U. for as long as they can draw their ugly profits before events demand that we re-think such usage.

 

I've said , a few times now, that the darker side of me would love to see impacts so devastating and clearly linked to our current changes that folk would have to accept that we were all headed in a direction where such events would become ever more common. The super typhoon turns out to be such an event and though 'Science' , to my knowledge, has not linked the extreme nature of the event to climate change the opposition has already begun decrying such and demonising folk merely doing their jobs?

 

Folk tell me we cannot attribute climate change to any one extreme event but how can we not when we know the environment is warmer and moister now than in recorded weather history? Surely all weather events now have an element of those changes in the environment in them?

Edited November 9, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

but what is it to be called when someone wont accept the truth, wilfully so do and splatter insults around as they do so? What is an acceptable description of that?

 

Idiot?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/92-years-of-rememberance-day-photos-help-cambridge-professor-document-climate-change.html

 

Trees holding onto their leaves longer into Autumn.

 

I do recall clearing leaves in half term as a kid ( stuffing the Guy with them and using them at the end of the bonfire) but we still have the majority of trees in full autumn colour with only the odd one now shedding and looking bare? 

 

Anyone else old enough to see the changes from the 70's to today?

[VillagePlank]

The reason why we cannot attribute individual events to a background climate warming is because of the normal distribution. Essentially, we expect extreme weather events to occur where we might define extreme as, say, five standard deviations from the mean for any particular weather parameter. We can start to attribute such events to climate change when their frequency begins to exceed what the normal distribution predicts it should be. I haven't done the mathematics, to be fair, so I don't really know: but it's going to be very difficult to show when we have weather events that are expected to occur once in three hundred years, since we'd have to wait, if things are normal, three hundred years to get the results.

 

Of course, if a once in three hundred year event occurs twice in ten years, we might have to wait six hundred years to confirm. If it occurs three times in ten years, the probability of this occurring by chance, is virtually nil, so we'd then have empirical observations that would certainly warrant further investigation.

 

AFAIK attributing Katrina to climate change - whilst it might well be the case - is premature; and all of the politicians etc who did it, simply demonstrated their foolishness and idiocy. I do not know the frequency of 200mph wind events in the Philippines, but I'd imagine they are infrequent, so for anyone curious in climate (and weather) it's an event worthy of further interest. And whilst I am sceptical of climate change, in so much as I think the climate sensitivity is a lot lower, and thus human impacts are over-stated, being lumped in with the likes of WUWT is kinda very offensive. Those people are demonstrating, daily, post hoc ergo propter hoc: ie they think that humans cannot be causing climate change (the conclusion) and spend their lives trying to find evidence that supports that conclusion (the propositions). I categorically deny that I am in any way like that!

Edited November 9, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Devonian]

What an idiot?

Edited November 9, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

Quite. I'm afraid the scale of the human tragedy emerging from the Phillipines this morning is truly horrific.

 

Unfortunately Dev. I wandered around your link, (nothing to do with climate) but I'm not sure 'idiot' quite covers it.

 

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/the-holocaust-began-with-gun-control-after-a-shooting/

Edited November 10, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Justed watched G. Clooney calling 'deniers' stupid and he went on to say what is the worst that could happen if we act on the dangers "cleaning up the planet a little bit?".........

 

I know there are costs to 'cleaning up a planet' and I know 'We' did not make it this messy but is that a good enough excuse not to act, or worse, carry on messing it up?

 

As far as I can see our rush to get 'nuclear fuel' was part based on our wish to remain a nuclear power and be able to have the raw materials to keep in with the in crowd. Those stations now face decommissioning and how much will that cost us all ( paying the price for past generations energy). Dealing with carbon issues is just the same. We have impacted the planet in demonstrable ways ( on so many levels) should we not take charge and try and clean up our mess ( climate change aside)?

 

does it not make good sense to keep the environment we live in clean and healthy for all who depend on it ( instead of running the risks of losing over 50% of the life on our world?).

 

Would you live in an unsanitary pig tip at home?

 

EDIT: I'm surprised at so little feedback from the leaf fall question? Should it be a thread on it's own?

Edited November 10, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

From an historical point of view. When South Wales was the copper smelting capital of the world the pollution was so bad it has only been finally sorted in the last twenty years.

[VillagePlank]

Quite. I'm afraid the scale of the human tragedy emerging from the Phillipines this morning is truly horrific.

 

Unfortunately Dev. I wandered around your link, (nothing to do with climate) but I'm not sure 'idiot' quite covers it.

 

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/the-holocaust-began-with-gun-control-after-a-shooting/

 

Goddard is *so* bad even poor old Anthony Watts has had to correct him

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/arctic-ice-increasing-by-50000-km2-per-year/

[knocker]

I don't know about poor Anthony Watts Spark.

 

Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda – another overhyped storm that didn’t match early reports

 

Super Typhoon Haiyan — which is one of the strongest storms in world history based on maximum windspeed — is about to plow through the Central Philippines, producing a potentially deadly storm surge and dumping heavy rainfall that could cause widespread flooding. As of Thursday afternoon Eastern time, Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Super Typhoon Yolanda, had estimated maximum sustained winds of 195 mph with gusts above 220 mph, which puts the storm in extraordinarily rare territory.

Ah those estimates, they sure don’t always meet up with reality later – Anthony

 

 

 

I'll let Hotwhopper and Greg Laden deal with it.

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/

Edited November 10, 2013 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

Sorry should have put "poor" should be read as "<sarcasm>poor</sarcasm>"

[knocker]

Not a problem I did read it as such although my reply doesn't give that impression.

[keithlucky]

I don't know about poor Anthony Watts Spark.

 

Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda – another overhyped storm that didn’t match early reports

 

 

 

I'll let Hotwhopper and Greg Laden deal with it.

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/

Many a great storm recorded in this area so this isen"t a one off.Many more than this recorded .

ct 22, 1882

“Observatory says lowest barometer at 11.40 a. m., 727.60 ; highest velocity wind registered, 144.4 miles an hour. Unable to measure greatest velocity of typhoon as anemometer damaged.â€

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/38278695

The Philippines government says that the top speed today was 146 MPH.

Oct 21, 1897

trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/14101833

Dec 16, 1900

“A terrific cyclone was encountered on December 16, when the vessel was to the eastward of the Philippines. The tempest raged for three days, and the vessel was absolutely uncontrollable.â€

trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/14356766

Sep 27, 1905

TYPHOON AT MANILA. THOUSANDS HOMELESS.

trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4965581

Sep 20, 1906

Destructive Typhoon in the Philippines.Vessels wrecked.1000 lives lost in Hongkong.

trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4343461

10 Jan 1907

TYPHOON IN THE PHILIPPINES. A HUNDRED MEN KILLED.

trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5052954

23 Sep 1908

TYPHOON IN THE PHILIPPINES.GREAT LOSS OF LIFE.

trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5187348

19 Oct 1912

GREAT TYPHOON.Heavy Loss of Life.Damage of £5,000,000.

trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/10518642

Edited November 10, 2013 by keithlucky

[Gray-Wolf]

I posted the other day that in my more desperate moments my darker side looks to a disaster that could show the world what we have in store and rob the misleaders of the chance to 'play it down'. Well reality has given me the answer to just how that would play out.........

 

Luckily I've never seen this of my own children but I've watched other's kids, caught red handed, stand and deny the crime. maybe it was because the fear of the punishment their parents might hand out was so great that they held onto the thought that they could get away with their offence even though, in reality there was no chance. Is this the type of behaviour that the misleader 'leaders' will resort to come the full onset of the issues we have in store? When temps again rise at the 80's pace ( and more ) will they 'deny' they ever said there was a slowdown or that GHG's did not impact the way predicted or can we expect them to act honourably, hold their hands up and say " We were so wrong and have mislead millions with our 'mistakes'"?

[Methuselah]

And anyway, no amount of rhetoric about this-storm-or-that-storm (taken by itself) says anything at all about AGW...

[Devonian]

 

 

Firstly, nice to see you here Keith, in the Man made thread I thought you said you'd keep out of  ...

 

Anyway, lets see where we are...Oh yes, it starts out with Dr Masters reporting (that's reporting) the figures on Haiyan others, like JTWC, give. He the goes on to be (repeatedly!)viciously insulted, called a liar and worse by 'stevegoddard' and then both A. Watts and P. Homewood pile in with such petty, nauseating nit picks it's hard to believe it's being done. Such bloggers falling over themselves to insult a fine scientist with a unimpeachable reputation and argue about a few MPH while thousands of people have died - it's one of the most unedifying spectacles I've seen from 'sceptics' for a long time

 

Besides, it's not as if there is any doubt the Haiyan was about as fierce as a typhoon gets! C'mon Keith - the place has been levelled!!

 

And to cap it all,  has anyone mentioned 'you know what'!?

 

I'll leave this with a comment left on P. Homewood's blog which sums it up...:

 

"I am in Manila currently and we were lucky that the super typhoon was 400 km away. Except for heavy rain nothing of the worse things happen here.

More than 10.000 dead people already been accounted for, amongst some of my wife’s family and here people quarrel about whether BBC was right or wrong. I’don’t give a flying swearing is not big or clever if it is 275 or 375 km, people die here or their houses and businesses are being destroyed, for christ sake some dignity is in place here.

I’ve seen TV life reports her and I tell you i have never seen anything in my life…"

 

Jese....

 

Edit: swear filter in action I see

Edited November 10, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

You are missing the point Keith. What Watts and Homewood are doing is classic' bulverism'. By that I mean they are presenting an argument that avoids the need to prove that some people are wrong by first assuming their claim is wrong and then explaining why the person, or people, could hold such a fallacious view.

 

As far as I'm aware no serious scientist has stated this is the result of AGW as most normal people are more concerned about the human tragedy that is unfolding  Except Anthony Watts and his crew who are trying to pretend this monster storm didn’t happen, and instead, that it was a run of the mill typhoon. It sure isn't that. I'm afraid I find it completely distasteful and insensitive.

 

As a matter of interest I assume you don't believe that 727.60?

Edited November 10, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Global warming finally reaches the last Arctic region

Lakes of the Hudson Bay Lowlands, in northeast Canada, are showing evidence of abrupt change in one of the last Arctic regions of the world to have experienced global warming, according to Canadian research published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B journal.

 

 

http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-finally-reaches-the-last-arctic-region/

 

Global warming triggers the loss of a key Arctic refugium

We document the rapid transformation of one of the Earth's last remaining Arctic refugia, a change that is being driven by global warming. In stark contrast to the amplified warming observed throughout much of the Arctic, the Hudson Bay Lowlands (HBL) of subarctic Canada has maintained cool temperatures, largely due to the counteracting effects of persistent sea ice. However, since the mid-1990s, climate of the HBL has passed a tipping point, the pace and magnitude of which is exceptional even by Arctic standards, exceeding the range of regional long-term variability. Using high-resolution, palaeolimnological records of algal remains in dated lake sediment cores, we report that, within this short period of intense warming, striking biological changes have occurred in the region's freshwater ecosystems. The delayed and intense warming in this remote region provides a natural observatory for testing ecosystem resilience under a rapidly changing climate, in the absence of direct anthropogenic influences. The environmental repercussions of this climate change are of global significance, influencing the huge store of carbon in the region's extensive peatlands, the world's southern-most polar bear population that depends upon Hudson Bay sea ice and permafrost for survival, and native communities who rely on this landscape for sustenance.

 

 

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1772/20131887.full.pdf+html

Edited November 10, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Methane Complicates U.S. Greenhouse Emissions Outlook

The decline of the use of coal as the primary source of fuel for power plants across the nation is behind a drop in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday.

 

But while both the EPA and the U.S. Energy Information Administration have announced that overall carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions declined nationwide in 2012, hidden in the data is that some states, particularly those producing shale oil and gas, are seeing some increases in methane emissions, the most potent greenhouse gas.

 

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/u.s.-greenhouse-emissions-fall-but-methane-complicates-picture-16642?utm_content=bufferf0bf3&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/10/australia-warmest-ever-calendar-year?

 

Good job we're on a cool down eh? Goodness only knows what the aussie temps would have been if we were 'warming'..................

 

I've just clued up as to why Wattsy went overboard with his attack on the Philippines ....... it's Warsaw isn't it? with no chance, any more, of them misrepresenting facts from the IPCC or hacking E-Mails the last thing they needed was a Weather extreme like the disaster unfolding over there. I imagine that it will play a central role in folks cries for more rapid action to offset us facing more of such terrible events as the week unfolds.

 

At least Wattsy did the right thing and privately donated to the disaster fund..... oh wait! he didn't did he? he made a horrible play of publicly stumping up 118$ as a stunt to call out a blogger that had pointed out how horrid and callous ( my personal take on what I've witnessed over there in his blog), given the circumstances, WUWT and their commenters were being..........

 

EDIT: Better not point out to him what's forecast over The Arctic this coming weekend eh?

Edited November 11, 2013 by Gray-Wolf