Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Tamara]

It was intended to be posted with a 'voice' that reflected my use of these smilies ( ) You are clearly passionate in your beliefs  -  I am simply much less persuaded by the doomsday scenarios you envisage and less polarised than you on this subject as a whole that is all. But then I don't hold especially extreme views on most topics

 

Of course I think that the fossil industry has a duty to be responsible. But then as we know industries in general put profit and self interest and their share holders ahead of the common good. The largest energy burning industrial countries have the biggest responsibilities of all but using climate change theories and computer model simulations from the IPCC as the forcing tool is not imo the right way to go about getting them to change their ways. This is where other global environmental needs come in which I think are far more certain and far more immediately need addressing.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Tamara תָּמָר

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just as most of us believe we are sceptics at heart, I'm sure most also believe we have a moderate and reasonable views too. This includes folk from the "AGW is a great conspiracy" (a few of those here) to the "We'll be like Venus in 100 years" types (oddly missing from here though).

 

We are all biased and polarised, with skewed ways of looking at things (especially from others perspectives). Acknowledging these things in ourselves is as important when forming our own views as it is for fostering fair and useful discussions.

[knocker]

The potty peer is orbiting close to earth once again.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

 

HotWhoppers thoughts.

 

 

This is still "utter nutter" week at WUWT.  Today Anthony Watts has posted an article by the potty peer from the UK, Christopher Monckton.  Christopher writes in his usual "schoolboy" fashion, using words such as "schoolboys at the University of Queensland", probably referring to John Cook, who runs the award-winning climate website, SkepticalScience.com.

Christopher is resurrecting a couple of old and utterly silly denier memes arguing that the CO₂ we emit somehow disappears by magic and goes goodness knows where.  It's a very mixed up article altogether.

One of the main difficulties I had with the WUWT article is that Christopher keeps referring to other articles and comments but doesn't provide any links to what he is talking about.  I guess he has the WUWT target audience summed up well.  He'd have assumed that no fake sceptic would ever follow a link - that would be heresy to the fake sceptic creed.  They might be mistaken for a real sceptic.  However - in this case Christopher would have assumed wrongly.  His article generated much discussion and got lots of people doing lots of sums.  (Archived here)

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-40#entry2843743

 

Here we go again...

 

Stew, you criticise the IPCC but it's the newpaper you quote that is misleading and you should criticise. The newspaper you chose to quote decided upon what bit of the IPCC's word to report - why are you uncritical of that media? The newspaper you chose to quote could have quoted other IPCC words - could it not? So, why was it the newspaper chose to report the more extreme possibilty. I wonder...

 

So, we get the bizarre outcome that you criticise the IPCC based on misleading selective reporting by a newspaper. Sterwruth

 

Really, Stew, shouldn't you seek what the IPCC says rather than what a newspaper, part of the FOX network, says - if you want to know what the IPCC think? Or would you expect me not to ask you what you think to find out what you think but instead ask a newspaper biased against you to find out what you think....

 

It's the Fox network that should change the record...

Edited November 23, 2013 by Devonian

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-40#entry2843929

 

Keith, I'd like to read more of your quote but you persist in not adding links. How many times do we have to ask you to do this? It's not, surely, toooooo much to ask???? P L E A S E

Edited November 23, 2013 by Devonian

[stewfox]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-40#entry2843743

 

Here we go again...

 

Stew, you criticise the IPCC but it's the newpaper you quote that is misleading and you should criticise. The newspaper you chose to quote decided upon what bit of the IPCC's word to report - why are you uncritical of that media? The newspaper you chose to quote could have quoted other IPCC words - could it not? So, why was it the newspaper chose to report the more extreme possibilty. I wonder...

 

So, we get the bizarre outcome that you criticise the IPCC based on misleading selective reporting by a newspaper. Sterwruth

 

Really, Stew, shouldn't you seek what the IPCC says rather than what a newspaper, part of the FOX network, says - if you want to know what the IPCC think? Or would you expect me not to ask you what you think to find out what you think but instead ask a newspaper biased against you to find out what you think....

 

It's the Fox network that should change the record...

 

Dev

 

IPCC were talking about 4c rises world devasation years ago, the references are there via a simple google search

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/05/ipcc-rising-temperature-targets-greenland-ice-sheet

 

Its a observation re IPCC 6c , 4c rises etc

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/climate-change-report-hotter-australia

 

We can all cherry pick but data over the next 30/100 yrs will win out

Edited November 23, 2013 by stewfox

[stewfox]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-40#entry2843929

 

Keith, I'd like to read more of your quote but you persist in not adding links. How many times do we have to ask you to do this? It's not, surely, toooooo much to ask???? P L E A S E

 

Using google found this, hope it helps ?

 

http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/22/austrian-meteorologists-stupefied-into-silence-data-from-alps-show-marked-cooling-over-last-2-3-decades/

[Devonian]

Dev

 

IPCC were talking about 4c rises world devasation years ago, the references are there via a simple google search

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/05/ipcc-rising-temperature-targets-greenland-ice-sheet

 

Its a observation re IPCC 6c , 4c rises etc

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/climate-change-report-hotter-australia

 

We can all cherry pick but data over the next 30/100 yrs will win out

 

The IPCC don't talk about single figures they talk about range. Simple as. Period. Thus, to say they do is not helpful at all, it's to...cherry pick the highest figure for effect.

 

The first link is talking primarily about research not the IPCC, the second talks about Australia not the world...

Edited November 23, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

Using google found this, hope it helps ?

 

http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/22/austrian-meteorologists-stupefied-into-silence-data-from-alps-show-marked-cooling-over-last-2-3-decades/

 

Ah a well known denier site. I see WUWT crops up quite often. That on it's own is enough to make the eyes glaze over.

 

http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/

Edited November 23, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

The IPCC has produced a video on its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The first part on the Working Group I contribution to AR5 is now available. The other parts will be released with the successive approvals of the other two Working Group contributions and the Synthesis Report in the course of 2014.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yiTZm0y1YA#t=549

[4wd]

Ah a well known denier site. I see WUWT crops up quite often. That on it's own is enough to make the eyes glaze over.

 

http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/

They got it from herehttp://www.huffingtonpost.de/dominik-jung/die-alpen-trotzen-der-kli_b_4300905.htmlUsing chrome translates automatically.Being mentioned on an evil denier blog does not automatically invalidateJust as not being ignored by SKS does not mean something is not real.

[knocker]

You sure it wasn't the other way around and from Dominik Jung? And I would say economical with the truth rather than evil.

 

https://twitter.com/WetterExperte

Edited November 23, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

"The years 1994, 2000, 2002, and particularly 2003 have been the warmest on record in the Alps in the past 500 years."

 

From here;

 

http://www.uibk.ac.at/alpinerraum/publications/vol3/kajfezbogataj.pdf

 

and,

 

"Since AD 1980, however, summer and cold season temperatures show a simultaneous, strong increase, which is unprecedented in the context of the last millennium. We suggest that the most likely explanation for this recent trend is anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing."

 

from the 2013 paper;

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113003958

 

and , so we're in no doubt;

 

http://www.zamg.ac.at/ALP-IMP/index.htm

 

unzip for a station by station view of temps around the Alps from 1760 up to 2003 (half way through the '20yr' period KL's link gives.

 

When this has taken 5 minutes to rustle up why are we even contemplating the article? All I can think is there is one or two Swiss stations showing anomalous responses?

 

EDIT: With all the recent chatter about being 'sceptical' I though I'd better show what kind of sceptic I really was and so, being sceptical of the paper I started to check for data to confirm the findings........ as it is I , personally, have found none and discovered a lot of contrary data along the way. Where does this leave me? Well I dismiss the implications that the paper is trying to draw ( Alpine cooling?) but must await the data from the stations used in the paper to see how they fit into the bigger picture?

Edited November 23, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-40#entry2843743

 

Here we go again...

 

Stew, you criticise the IPCC but it's the newpaper you quote that is misleading and you should criticise. The newspaper you chose to quote decided upon what bit of the IPCC's word to report - why are you uncritical of that media? The newspaper you chose to quote could have quoted other IPCC words - could it not? So, why was it the newspaper chose to report the more extreme possibilty. I wonder...

 

So, we get the bizarre outcome that you criticise the IPCC based on misleading selective reporting by a newspaper. Sterwruth

 

Really, Stew, shouldn't you seek what the IPCC says rather than what a newspaper, part of the FOX network, says - if you want to know what the IPCC think? Or would you expect me not to ask you what you think to find out what you think but instead ask a newspaper biased against you to find out what you think....

 

It's the Fox network that should change the record...

 

It is a shame that folk don't follow the simple procedure of going to the source document and checking what it says ( when and where ever possible?) before forming an opinion? If I read a 'report' in a paper/blog/journal I always follow the links as a matter of course and so maybe it would be a good procedure to follow to avoid 'fallouts' like this?

[knocker]

And guess who the author of http://NoTricksZone.com  climate science skeptic nonsense is? The P. Gosselin of the tweets and I think the originator of the story.

Edited November 23, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Just to show I have a completely open mind I've changed my avatar to show Kenji, Anthony Watt's dog.

 

Hilarious really.

 

The Curious Tale of Anthony Watts and His Dog

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/02/the-curious-tale-of-watts-and-his-dog.html

Edited November 24, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

 

It would appear, from the 'other place' that we are set for another round of 'ice age now-eaque' conversations? We seem to have moved from an 'Austrian Weather centre' , to an 'alpine phenomena' to it now extending to Scotland???

 

There appears to be little talk of seasonal differences ( whether it is a year round data observation) nor national differences (whether it is a mountain phenomena or is reflected in the lowlands?) or continental differences ( whether it is a global or european phenomena?).

 

As my little sweep showed me last night the temp data from the whole of the Alpine region shows some remarkable warming rates and the last plot (03'?) showed no sign of 'cooling'. This , to me, appears to debunk the 20yr claim from the original post?

 

Being a 'Weather Site' I would have thought folk would be used to searching out climate station data and esp. 'the other place' who not only appear to know plenty of individual stations but also the type of building/land surface/neighbourhood the station is set in?

 

EDIT: As for Scotland;

 

http://www.winterhighland.info/general/

 

seems the only way to 'Ski' is on the slopes where the 'snowmaking' went on either side of the mid week storms?

 

Maybe the 'investment' in such technology, after the warnings in the early noughties, is paying off?

Edited November 24, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Getting back to the 'climate sensitivity' debate. I came across this paper;

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/archive/subject_ngeo_s10_2013.html

 

Which would seem to confirm my fears that the ice sheet degradation makes an important contribution via it's 'feedback' mechanisms and that the current IPCC estimates ( using limited numbers of short term feedbacks) are very much on the 'low' side of things.

 

To me this means we have a longer phase ( longer to 'complete' , not to begin!) feedback mechanism that we should all consider when looking at the feedbacks that amplify the human produced climate drivers ?

 

If anything this would mean we need raise the lower level of the IPCC's estimations of climate sensitivity completely esp. in the light of seeing the beginnings of this 'long phase feedback' already introducing forcings on global temps via the Arctic meltdown ( as the recent paper on global temp reconstruction including the missing data [Meto's 86% coverage or sats 'up to 85N/S coverage] would show us?) already ongoing? 

 

As you know I have been quite concerned about this forcing for a number of years now but have not met with much acceptance from posters on our forum, maybe now folk will have another think about the importance ,to us all, of the changes in energy budget that the loss of Arctic sea ice/snow cover places into our climate system via albedo flip and redistribution of energies once employed solely in ice/snow melt ?

 

I don't think we stand anything to gain from trying to figure the top end adjustments to sensitivity ( apart from drive by snipes from the usuals) but any adjustment to the lower end is crucial if we are serious in the 2c target and that the concerns of anything above 2c being dangerous are founded?

 

With the warming we already know is 'locked into' the climate we may need to consider additions to reflect the response from the cryosphere? We were already 'sailing close' to the mark ( and looking like without serious commitment/action we would breach the 2c?) so any addition may prove that the only way to stave off 2c+ was to act 10 years ago ( before the 07' albedo/energy flip over the Arctic Basin?).

Edited November 24, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

Don't talk rubbish, Spark...No one has 'forced you out'...Just engage in sensible discussion...?

I think that that might have come across a tad blunt. What I mean is, your kind of scepticism (always attempting to provide answers), is what we need...Blind acceptance is as bad as blind denial and deliberate obfuscation are...

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that that might have come across a tad blunt. What I mean is, your kind of scepticism (always attempting to provide answers), is what we need...Blind acceptance is as bad as blind denial and deliberate obfuscation are...

 

I think that also letting 'individual posters' grow into an obsession ( of sorts) does not allow folk to function at their best? The debate is all about the science and measurement of change and the implications of that change?

 

Being 'annoyed' at any one person, instead of focussing on the info they present, appears to lead into horrid personal spats. Posting a rebuttal does not ( even if individuals end up agreeing to disagree the science employed in the debate allows the 'lurkers' to broaden their experience of the issues/available data/papers)?

 

It may be a thing of personality, or of long term exposure, but the 'nasties' aimed at me these days do not hurt me as they used to? As such I can now choose to either 'leave it' or to address it with my opinions ( based in the 'science' I know?).

 

As an aside I have , through life, come across folk who are quite 'cyclical' in their behaviours and I also employ this personal knowledge when coming across folk that turn to dramatics? Leave it a day and then post? you might feel very different by that time?

Edited November 24, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-40#entry2844457

 

I must admit I'm intruiged by (could you name them please) It's a rehash of the Puritan ethos come back to haunt us - with a pseudo-sciencentist to back them up at every turn 

 

The ones that I can think of and they spring quickly to mind are Watts, Monkton, Salby, et al.

 

Denier weirdness: defending the indefensible Murry Salby at WUWT

In this article I'm going to show how silly Murry Salby's "hypotheses" are (as archived here).  There's a lot of "wrong" with Salby's efforts but two things stand out the most in my view:
 

• Murry Salby is a greenhouse effect denier and
• Murry Salby thinks billions of tonnes of carbon can disappear off the face of the earth by magic.

Edited November 24, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-40#entry2844457

 

I must admit I'm intrigued by (could you name them please) It's a rehash of the Puritan ethos come back to haunt us - with a pseudo-scientists to back them up at every turn 

 

 

 

I cannot understand why we, in 2013, should be concerning ourselves with dated newspaper reports about predictions made ( to the best of our then abilities?) back then?

 

When we look at pre-07' predictions about sea ice loss and timescales for complete sea ice melt out do we find perfect predictions? What we see are growing concerns for the changes then ongoing in the Arctic. Where those concerns 'wrong' because of the unprecedented melt out we saw in 07'?

 

Concerns for the Alps are based on the data and reflect the allowing warming we have seen there over the past 70 years. As I have already linked to the data showing warming ( up to 03' so far) shows this dramatic 'warming spurt' on which those predictions were based ( though we are only given a newspaper's view of 'what is predicted'?). 

 

What I would like to see is the data that 'the other place' is basing their concerns upon ( the 2003 to 2013 data set for the stations throughout the alps would be useful here?) as , to date, we have had not such disclosure I have to wonder if their concerns are based solely on this one blog post???

 

Seeing as we now have the complete data set up to 2003 ( from some nice poster engaged in trying to solve the riddle?) then we are only looking for the second half of this alleged 'cooling' period so they can prove themselves 'half right'? 

 

EDIT: Post restrictions have me putting my reply to SI here.

 

? Today's predictions are more severe than they were 10yrs ago? If we look at the current 'trend' in predictions the more bespoke studies we have committed to the more pertinent the data provided and the clearer the predictions? If anything I'd 'bank' today's predictions than the next round that are based on even better, longer run, data sets!!!  

 

As for past restrictions? just because an event arrived before predicted doesn't 'negate' the prediction? The 'event ' happened ( as predicted) but the timing was not quite correct? Broadly speaking the 'predictions' are for a warming planet, sea level rise, ice sheet melt ,sea ice loss and an increase in extreme climate/weather events. I do not think that these 'predictions' will alter? we may become clearer on how extreme and when to expect definative examples of those changes.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[UV-RAY]

So what if todays predictions end up like yesteryears, do we simply airbrush them out and start again every time those predictions fail, or would a far more simplistic approach be better in saying scenario x may happen, instead of implying it's likely to happen. 

[knocker]

The Jungfraujoch Observatory of Switzerland located at an elevation of 3580m (11,745’) and recorded its warmest temperature on record on August 19th this summer (2012) with a 12.8°C (55.0°F) reading.

 

The significance of this is that this site has been studied by European climatologists for 75 years and is considered a 'bell-weather' location because of its long POR and isolation from surrounding possible human-induced influence.

 

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/unprecedented-snow-melt-and-heat-in-the-european-alps

[knocker]

 

The recent global warming of the atmosphere is driving several dynamics, especially in temperature-limited environments, which may undergo rapid changes in their physical and biological components. In high-altitude environments the responses to climate change are proved by rapid changes in the landscape and especially glacierized areas and the upper portions of the valley slopes are involved. The European Alps are experiencing a temperature increase that is stronger than the global mean of about +0.7°C for the last century (e.g. Hansen et al. 2006). In particular, a strong increase in the mean temperature of about +1.7°C was recorded in Switzerland for the 30-year period 1975–2004 (Rebetez and Reinhard 2008), potentially inducing strong impacts on high-altitude ecosystems. Glacier retreat and disintegration (Paul et al. 2004), permafrost degradation and correlated rockfalls (Haeberli and Gruber 2009) and changes in snow-cover duration (Hantel and Hirtl-Wielke 2007) are only a few examples of the marked effects of temperature changes on glacial and periglacial environments.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357808/