Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Gray-Wolf]

You beat me to it Knock's! The data and methodology are freely available over on SKs so the opportunity to examine their efforts is obviously there but we just see a blanket denial of the paper as B.S.?

 

If I see an issue with a paper I'll post what I'm struggling with so that others have a chance to discuss the point with me? ( recently it has been that the paper was made obsolete due to the rapid changes occurring in the study area).

 

I'm sure we have some sceptics on here busy working up their problems with the paper and I , for one, look forward to reading through, and discussing, their objections?

Edited November 16, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

A little peep over on the 'other thread' has me convinced that we will see some robust, reasoned rebuttals of the paper with plenty of links to the sources that they favour? I'm sure that they have more substance than mere 'drive by' one line unsubstantiated posts esp. with so much to lose should the method find broad consensus amongst the rest of science?

 

We know the current phase of predominantly negative natural climate drivers will run it's course so their 'slowdown mime' is only a temporary respite so anything challenging  their 'missing heat' meme has to robustly defended or what do they have as a counterpoint to the current scientific consensus? 

 

We have had some good come from the past ten years though. We have plenty more folk understanding both the energy imbalance the planet sits in and the amount of energy that the oceans take up from that 'energy budget' ( esp. in the light of seeing a Typhoon that could gain strength from up to one hundred metres down!!!). The current focus on the rapid changes in atmospheric temperature above the Arctic ocean, come autumn, will also help to ram home how vast the difference from 'ice covered' to 'ice free' can mean to the planets 'average temperature' and so beg the question "How can we expect no change with such an imbalance in the system".

[Methuselah]

I've payed a passing visit too, Ian... http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-38#entry2836163

 

Now, consider two perfectly calibrated Stevenson Screen in gardens next door but one...The one a #1, Wattsupwiththat Street records an overnight min of -2.2, the one at #5 -2.0...What would one 'guess' or 'fudge' for the garden at #3, -43.9!

[Gray-Wolf]

As you well know Pete I used to be quite passionate about the folk I thought 'misunderstood' the peril I saw us all facing. Over time a few characters were even able to take this further and ( purposefully?) wind me up with their flat refusal ( apparent flat refusal?) to accept the data science was bringing us in favour of some ( to me?) minor forcing that science had not seen fit to overly concern itself with.....

 

The last few years of witnessing life have left me somewhat changed and though I still do 'rise' on occasion the 'passion' that once flowed through me is now spent.

 

I still feel it a right and proper thing to allow our readership a chance to 'one stop shop' for up to date climate news and research but find this new influx of plain silly denialism of no consequence? It's all gone too far now, the misleaders have repaid their masters well and we now stand no chance of stopping the worse of what our polluting ways have earned us. 

 

We will go on having to listen to these silly sods, and doing nothing about mitigating our future impacts, until the natural cycles fall back into positive forcings and show us the first real taste ( as if we haven't seen enough of what we ought expect already???) of what we have in store.

 

Can you see us reasonably keeping temps below 2c below those of pre-industrial times? Can you see us clawing back our emmisions to a point that assures us not running headlong into 4c and more? Sadly I cannot. Ten years and two more IPCC reports and what have we achieved? 

 

This new look at global temps ( and that important 15% area where data was missing) only confirms what we have all been witnessing since the early noughties. Any look at the atmospheric temp profiles over the Arctic region , come Autumn, shows us a vast amount of heat flooding back into the atmosphere so why would we be surprised if folk want to see that reality reflected in our global temps each year instead of having it omitted due to lack of surface stations? And when we find a way of filling in these blanks in a way we all can all agree on what do folk expect to see? Even without this wadge of heat being included we see top ten year temps posted all through this alleged 'Hiatus'......

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-38#entry2836598

 

I can only assume this refers to the last couple of posts by GW as you haven't the bottle to say so. To say that  some proponents of AGW are only in it due to their hatred of all things man, is not only backed up by scant evidence but shows a paucity of scientific reasoning and human understanding all so often displayed by the acolytes of Watts.

 

I'm intruiged as to whom else you refer but have to assume I'm included so I would appreciate some supporting facts to go with the woffle. I mean to say this from someone who repeatable comes up with this unsupported tosh.

 

"You knew it was only a matter of time when fabricated and fudged data would be presented in order to prop up a failing theory".

Edited November 17, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-38#entry2836730

 

The reply refers to this.

 

"You didn't really think they could let a juicy disaster go to waste do you?" 

"Same old garbage, weasel words and emotive nonsense like this:"

 

 

Of course not. That master of the rant and best standup comedian on the web, excluding present company of course, foamed at the mouth about imaginary comments from respected scientists. On that subject I note links to scientific papers are conspicuous by their absense as usual in the other thread. Much easier to have a swipe at people who hold genuine opinions and who have a habit of backing them up with scientific links.

 

Okay one doen't have to agree with the science but it's treating people with disdain when comments like, fudge and fabrication, are used without any attempt to justify scientifically. Garbage and weasel words really does apply and a poor substitute for a complete lack of intelligent thinking.

Edited November 17, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Lol, I was being diplomatic  ands best not to name names. As for evidence, well there's plenty on global surface temps falling away but none on CO2 being responsible for the majority of the past warming. Conjecture and assumptions aren't evidence, something the warming brigade can't seem to get there head round.

 

Edit; Why does my post end up in this thread? Also I was referring to the Typhoon not AGW per say, so any data suggesting that somehow CO2 is the trigger for this tragedy is fudged and fabricated data.

 

Rubbish. It was perfectly obvious who you were talking about and I would still like to know whether I'm included in your comment. As for none on "CO2 being responsible for the majority of the past warming". I take it then we can safely dismiss numerous scientific papers by climatologists and scientists from other disciplines on the basis of your unqualified say so?

 

Kindly point me to the scientific opinions that states CO² was the trigger for the tragedy, and if you can, explain how the data was fudged. I'm interested because I haven't come across any.

 

Frankly I think you are just a wind up merchant.

Edited November 17, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

When 'Science' is mentioned it is only to say that it is impossible to link any one weather event to AGW

Yes but the rest of the piece is mostly the usual emotive nonsense suggesting that a single weather event was 'caused' by AGW or made worse it, and such events are going to be more common.

The evidence just does not support it but they have no shame and will use the deaths of 1000s to push the propaganda.

Disgusting - and that is from the BBC not the Greenpeace half-wits who aren't locked up yet.

 

The rest of the piece just reports on what was occurring and what folk thought?

 

I thought that was how 'reporting' went?

 

The fact is that such extremes have been seen to increase in frequency and the public are picking up on this ( it has been mentioned frequently over the past 18 months?). It is easy for folk to hear warnings of increased weather extremes to come and link that with their own experience of the number of 'extreme weather events they have witnessed recently?

 

To some it might appear that the warnings that science have been giving us are now starting to become fact......

[Gray-Wolf]

Oxfam have already stated this also GW has done the very same, but he's not alone the blogosphere is littered with the same views, some from cranks and others from self professed experts. As for your slur on me being a wind up merchant, well I'll ignore that and just highlight  how the globe has stopped warming without any cool drivers in place from the beginning of the pause, that in itself should bring the sceptical side out of any good scientists, why hasn't it?

 

Only due to the fact that it seems the most likely way to both stop a 'cooling planet' and then turn that temp drop into a temp increase over a century SI. What would you use as a mechanism for achieving this feat?

 

To me ,In a warmer world , with higher atmospheric moisture content, I find it reasonable to expect impacts to be augmented compared to those occurring in a 'less energetic' environment?

 

I think that there is a tad of this;

 

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/11/17/2897080/megastorms-could-create-tipping.html?

 

going on in the world and that it frightens you?

 

No amount of money can buy folks observance when they see the opposite occurring all around them? I posted last night that I am no longer as 'driven' to have folk witness the events I see in our world any more.

 

Maybe that is because we have now seen so many extreme events across the globe, over such short time spans, that the public is now seeing for itself what is occurring? Maybe the majority of the world has moved on from stage 1 'denial' and is now in stage 2 and 3? ( to my final 'acceptance' stage?)

 

On this side of the debate we always knew that eventually events in them self would bring about acceptance that we have caused the world to change and this is what we are seeing. Remember that we still need face a time when Natural drivers drift away from their 'cooling' phases and if we are seeing such extremes in a 'dampened' phase then what ought we expect with global temps again rising at a rate forced by natural drivers and augmented by AGW?

 

Recent polls in the U.S. show over 70% acceptance of AGW's impacts , any increase in climate disasters will not serve to reduce this now will it?

 

As I said last night the Misleaders have succeeded in their aims of delaying meaningful climate action, so successful that we are now beyond the point where meaningful mitigation is possible. Why complain now when you have done what you set out to do?

 

I would expect that folk will become ever more angry with the folk they see as being responsible for us being in this position though ( I have always warned of such?) so the misleaders ,and their following, will increasingly become viewed as pariahs and treated as such?

 

it's not as though folk can go back and 'deny' they ever took such a stance now is it? 

[Methuselah]

Heard Corbyn interviewed on LBC this morning - usual drivel. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry! 

[UV-RAY]

Heard Corbyn interviewed on LBC this morning - usual drivel. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry! 

Sometimes he speaks some sense but the thing I can't abide is his insistence he's always right and the cloak and daggers effect in how he produces his forecasts.

[Gray-Wolf]

With the missing Arctic temperature now added in does this mean that our current temperature series are, therefore, incorrect? Is it only on this point? What other missing data is there or isn't there? What other parts of the series are wrong? Climate models are calibrated against these series, so are the models therefore wrong? If the heat was already in the system, in the Arctic, what's the explanation of the heat in the ocean? Are the assumptions underpinning feedbacks and feedforwards wrong, then?

 

I think it's a relatively new effect in the polar regions isn't it Sparks? I thought it was merely making sense of the changes we know are occurring in the polar regions but that were not included in the temp. series currently due to lack of coverage there? I thought the 'to do' was because past projections ( based on data before we saw rapid changes across the region) didn't match with the 85% coverage of global temps we have measured recently.

 

Now we all accept that we are not very good on the 'scale' and 'impact' of positive feedbacks, we only have our paleo data to show how dramatic a force for change they are, but maybe the 'ocean data' and now this re-hash of our temp records together not only show what we have calculated to be going on but also the beginnings of a vicious feedback let loose across the polar regions?

 

The fact that this is set against the conflagration of negative natural drivers during a period of low solar is surely a cause for concern?

 

No matter how much we wish to shoot down this paper ( and the full data set and methodology are there for those so inclined) we cannot argue away the facts that we do have data missing from an area that is seeing change at a rate unprecedented in our modern times of scientific observation.

 

The sporadic data from ship/balloon/buoy and aircraft over the 'no data' areas show glimpses of this change and on top of that the loss of ice/snow cover and melt of permafrost all point to the speed and scale of this change.

 

Is it right that we should be questioning that change or if it doesn't fit this or that theory? Should we not be taking note of it and trying to access what it all means?

[VillagePlank]

We'll do this bit by bit, GW: do you accept that our global temperature series have hitherto been incorrect?

[Methuselah]

We'll do this bit by bit, GW: do you accept that our global temperature series have hitherto been incorrect?

By 'incorrect', do you mean 'in the wrong direction altogether' or what? Any data set will have only a limited degree of accuracy, statistical probability of being representative of reality, or whatever...But, does that make all data sets 'incorrect', in the colloquial understanding of the word?

[Gray-Wolf]

Nope. just has some of it missing, sort of incomplete for the period where the arctic's been going all whacky sort've thing??

 

Pretty fine whilst not a lot was going on up there but now sheez loads of change is happening so then it kinda matters that we're not measuring it properly as it's inputs appear big enough to make a difference to the global average year to year?

[VillagePlank]

OK, so incomplete. That's to say that we've found an area of the globe where the algorithms and techniques used to fill in missing data are insufficient to account for actual temperature records. So, given that, can you say - for certain - that there isn't an area of the globe which would turn the trend the other way?

 

(Hint: satellite records have global coverage, and satellite records, by and large, reconcile with HadCrut etc)

[Gray-Wolf]

Dr Mann on misinformation and disinformation (from here; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/17/1255763/-The-Hockey-Stick-rides-again?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29#   )

 

DS: There remain many websites and think tanks pumping out misinformation. How can regular non-scientists like us fight back?

Dr. Mann: A great question. There is far too much misinformation and—indeed—disinformation out there, much of it manufactured by professional climate change deniers funded or connected with polluting interests, such as the infamous Koch Brothers, who have poured tens of millions of dollars into the climate change denial propaganda campaign in recent years. But fortunately, there are many ways we can fight back.

A major part of why I wrote my book was to describe my experiences at the center of the attacks of the climate change denial machine because of the now-iconic "Hockey Stick" curve my co-authors and I published a decade and a half ago. I tell the story of how a science nerd like myself ended up at the center of the larger debate over climate change, how though initially reluctant to enter into the fray, I have grown to embrace that role. I have fought back against the forces of disinformation and denial by using my position in the spotlight to inform the public discourse, to call out manufactured climate change denial, and to hold public officials accountable for their actions.

But everyone can assist in the effort to fight back in a multitude of ways: By writing letters and op-eds for local newspapers, talking with our family, friends, classmates, co-workers, neighbors, etc. to make sure they understand the reality of the climate change threat, the risks it poses, and the importance of doing something about it. By participating in comment threads, news groups, blogs, etc., and debunking anti-science with facts. By engaging in public speaking on the matter, through civic organizations, church groups, public forums, and the like. By voting for policymakers who will reflect our concerns rather than the narrow agenda of powerful vested interests. By writing letters to politicians at all level—local, state, and national—asking them to support climate change action.

No one person alone can fight back the forces of denial and disinformation. They are well-funded, well-organized, and motivated, and they are very effective at manipulating the naive and ignorant into doing their bidding for them. But we have the most powerful weapon of all on our side: truth. And eventually, truth will win out here. We just have to keep fighting and pushing forward.

 

EDIT: Hi Sparks!

 

From what i can gather from the papers authors and from their vid presentation there are issues with different measuring techniques that have lead to this paper being written? be it Sat measurements over the Arctic to missing data to reconciliation techniques not working for certain areas?

 

Should we already have a way of collecting good data across the whole globe then why did they feel the need to engage on this project and why are their results different, over certain areas, to those you point us toward?

 

I'm sure you'd agree that their transparency will be welcomed and used, by many, to re-crunch their figures or even go further with their methodology.

 

If you have issues with it they appear quite open to questions and I feel sure they would do their best to have you understand where you appear to have problems?

 

For my part i will bow out and allow the folk who currently have the skill sets to work through the methodology and see what they come out with? As it is the Authors have allowed me to see why they engaged in this research and that they appear genuinely excited by the progress they feel they have made? I am sure that the next 3 months will see this paper either find wide recognition or will be shown , conclusively, to fail at the task it set itself. At least we should applaud them for both trying to sort out the issue and for being so transparent in their efforts ( even trying to have the paywall removed).

Edited November 17, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

OK, so incomplete. That's to say that we've found an area of the globe where the algorithms and techniques used to fill in missing data are insufficient to account for actual temperature records. So, given that, can you say - for certain - that there isn't an area of the globe which would turn the trend the other way?

 

(Hint: satellite records have global coverage, and satellite records, by and large, reconcile with HadCrut etc)

Which is why I'm with Ian, on this, Sparcky: just because the data are incomplete, doesn't imply that the conclusions drawn from them are erroneous...just that more research is necessary.

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-39#entry2837794

 

Study: Tropical cyclones are occurring more frequently than before

 

Are there more tropical cyclones now than in the past? – or is it just something we believe because we now hear more about them through media coverage and are better able detect them with satellites? New research from the Niels Bohr Institute clearly shows that there is an increasing tendency for cyclones when the climate is warmer, as it has been in recent years. The results are published in the scientific journal PNAS.

 

 

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-tropical-cyclones-frequently.html

Edited November 17, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-39#entry2837845

 

 

The whole argument is not on possible outcomes but in trying to scare/convince people into believing that we are heading into the abyss, this without any credible evidence or data.

 

On the contrary it's about making people aware of the dangers that are ahead if we continue to bury our heads in the sand and ignore what is happening. Scare and abyss are the emmotive words so loved by deniers but rarely if ever used by scientists. Without credible evidence?

 

Ice mass loss in the Antarctic and Greenland, sea level rise, glacier melt around the world, increasing evidence that nature is responding to a warming world, and the fact that Monkton is becoming more hysterical, etc, etc.

 

 

The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming. Many media outlets have reported that this is an increase from the 90 percent certainty in the fourth IPCC report, but actually the change is much more significant than that. In fact, if you look closely, the IPCC says that humans have most likely caused all of the global warming over the past 60 years.

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-ar5-human-caused-global-warming-confidence.html

Edited November 18, 2013 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

Which is why I'm with Ian, on this, Sparcky: just because the data are incomplete, doesn't imply that the conclusions drawn from them are erroneous...just that more research is necessary.

 

More research is always necessary. That's why it's a complete falsehood for anyone to claim 'the science is settled' Incomplete data has always been part of the temperature series reconstructions - is there incomplete data out there that shows the globe is cooling? I doubt it insomuch the results of the reconstructed temperature series have been replicated using different techniques by different organsations at different times - ie good science. My point is the satellite record is global in coverage and it pretty much matches the reconstructed series. If this paper re the warming is correct how the hell can that be the case? It makes no sense to accept the conclusions that the missing warming is the arctic unless you reject a whole load of other research. This is a classic case of confirmation bias. Found something that fits a preconceived notion and going to go with it regardless of rational thought.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Gray-Wolf]

More research is always necessary. That's why it's a complete falsehood for anyone to claim 'the science is settled' Incomplete data has always been part of the temperature series reconstructions - is there incomplete data out there that shows the globe is cooling? I doubt it insomuch the results of the reconstructed temperature series have been replicated using different techniques by different organsations at different times - ie good science. My point is the satellite record is global in coverage and it pretty much matches the reconstructed series. If this paper re the warming is correct how the hell can that be the case? It makes no sense to accept the conclusions that the missing warming is the arctic unless you reject a whole load of other research. This is a classic case of confirmation bias. Found something that fits a preconceived notion and going to go with it regardless of rational thought.

 

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/index.html

 

I realise a lot of your concerns are covered in the paper itself Sparks esp. the expanded FAQ section?

[Methuselah]

Still, with the the consensus continuing to get stronger, and Climategate becoming but a distant memory, we await the next big fabricated scandal to be unleashed...

[knocker]

A little article out of the Northwest Territories supporting the warming arctic. I bet someone has fudged the readings from the lakes.

 

 

Oil and gas waste leaking into N.W.T. lakes, study shows

Oil and gas waste is leaking into four lakes in the Northwest Territories, according to a new study. 

 

The waste piles, which are called sumps, were left behind decades ago during oil and gas exploration in the Mackenzie Valley. 

 

The sumps were frozen into the permafrost, and today more than 200 of them dot the region. A recent study tested more than 100 lakes. 20 of which were near sumps. Researchers found four of these lakes had elevated levels of salts, particularly chloride, an important component of drilling waste fluids.

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/oil-and-gas-waste-leaking-into-n-w-t-lakes-study-shows-1.2418767

[Devonian]

More research is always necessary. That's why it's a complete falsehood for anyone to claim 'the science is settled' Incomplete data has always been part of the temperature series reconstructions - is there incomplete data out there that shows the globe is cooling? I doubt it insomuch the results of the reconstructed temperature series have been replicated using different techniques by different organsations at different times - ie good science. My point is the satellite record is global in coverage and it pretty much matches the reconstructed series. If this paper re the warming is correct how the hell can that be the case? It makes no sense to accept the conclusions that the missing warming is the arctic unless you reject a whole load of other research. This is a classic case of confirmation bias. Found something that fits a preconceived notion and going to go with it regardless of rational thought.

 

Interesting questions.

 

Firstly I've not read the paper. However, Aiui,  the satellites measure something rather different to the surface record - the temperature at a few thousand feet. Secondly the satellite record is not global either, but they do cover more of the globe than Hadley. So, you do some math to bring the two data sets together, a few gaps are filled and a new trend established. If that's what they did it seems fair enough to me.

 

I don't know if there is confirmation bias, again I've not read the paper so I can't tell that. But I can readily see how the questions asked by the authors ('Can we improve the surface record by finding some way to combine various observations?', or something similar?) are not CB. Otoh, I don't see evidence, in what I've read here or elsewhere, they asked the question 'Can we find a way of making the surface temperature trend greater?'.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Devonian